This article is Part 2 of a two-part series on Apologetics for Gen Z and Gen Alpha. Part 1 covers the history of apologetics and how Gen Z and Gen Alpha differ from older generations. If you have not already, we encourage you to read Part 1 before this article.
A New Approach to Apologetics?
Apologetics has been around for a long time, but it has not always looked the same. Different ages in church history have called for different approaches and different content in defending the faith. As the rate of technological, cultural, and social change continues to accelerate in the twenty-first century, we believe that there will be a major shift in what makes apologetics effective for Gen Z and Gen Alpha compared to their parents’ and grandparents’ generations. Gen Z and Gen Alpha are likely to be less convinced by tried-and-true apologetics arguments, and—perhaps more significantly—may simply be less interested in them.
How does apologetics need to shift to engage rising generations? We take it as a given that to engage Gen Z and Gen Alpha, apologists need to communicate through preferred mediums (social media, YouTube, podcasts) as well as traditional ones. Still, apologists may find that, to engage the rising generations effectively, they need to shift the mode in which they practice apologetics as well. Here are three emerging approaches to defend the faith that may be effective with young people.
Three Approaches to Apologetics for the Next Generations
1. Relational Apologetics: Stay Connected and Make Room for Differences
Relational apologetics starts with a simple observation: proving that we’re right doesn’t guarantee life transformation for anyone. A well-informed apologist, skilled in making his case, may be able to put the non-believer or doubting Christian in a logical headlock, but it might not make a difference. Depending on how we make our arguments, we may even make unbelievers more resistant to the Christian faith, even if they are unable to prove us wrong. The doubting Christian may feel just as unstable in his faith, and the unbeliever’s heart may become even harder towards Christ.
Arguments don’t convince the heart. And without heart conviction, no one will follow Jesus.
Relational apologetics starts with an attitude that says, “I don’t just care about being right. I care about you.” This posture resonates with Gen Z’s values of authenticity and collaboration over hierarchical authority, as well as their openness to diverse perspectives. Rather than pitting truth and relationship against one another, relational apologetics brings the two together.
In Apologetics for an Ever-Changing Culture, several apologists offer advice on how to approach apologetics to keep people relationally engaged. They suggest paying attention to the tone of your voice and making an effort to understand the other person. Learn the story of how they reached their beliefs, not just what those beliefs are. It’s important, however, that you do this because you actually care about the person, not as a tactic to help prove why you are right and they are wrong. Trying to understand another person’s perspective and showing compassion for the doubts and struggles they have experienced in their faith journey can go a long way in helping someone become open to considering Christianity again—or perhaps for the very first time.
Sean McDowell tells a story in Set Adrift: Deconstructing What You Believe Without Sinking Your Faith about a former student who tells him he no longer believes in Christianity.1 Rather than taking the opportunity to try to prove the truth of Christianity to him, McDowell instead makes a simple request: if he ever comes back around to considering Christianity, would he consider including him in that conversation? Rather than engaging in a debate with someone he knew was already well-informed on Christian arguments, he chose to prioritize a relationship and preserve an opportunity to influence her life at a later time.
Relational apologetics can help people build resilient faith. McDowell notes that some people reject faith because they reject certain aspects of the tradition they grew up in, or negative aspects of their own experience. McDowell and Marriott suggest that helping someone see that “the faith tradition they received as pure, unadulterated Christianity is actually an interpretation of what the Bible teaches, but not necessarily the only or even best one available,”2 can strengthen rather than undermine faith.
Many young believers struggle with their faith because they cannot “understand why the evangelical tradition [they] identified with [doesn’t] reflect the values [they see] as important to Jesus.”3 This question leads many young Christians to deconstruction, but as John Marriott notes, deconstruction is not necessarily a bad thing if it doesn’t lead to deconversion.4 A process of deconstruction can ultimately help strengthen a person’s faith as they develop stronger, more robust and resilient beliefs in place of weaker beliefs about Christianity they developed in childhood. Such a phase of uncertainty and doubt is a perfect time for a relational apologist to walk alongside someone unsure about Christianity.
2. Cultural and Imaginative Apologetics: Embrace Goodness and Beauty
A criticism of some classical and evidentialist approaches to apologetics is that they focus almost exclusively on proving that Christianity is true (or likely to be true). As more people question the knowability of truth and see moral and religious claims as personal rather than objective, fewer people are likely to engage with Christianity’s truth claims if they do not see how Christianity is relevant to their own lives. Cultural and imaginative apologetics argue that demonstrating the truth of Christianity is not, in itself, enough to give a credible and compelling witness to the Christian faith. We also need to show that Christian faith is good and beautiful—desirable and satisfying.
This approach focuses less on logical or empirical arguments and more on demonstrating that Christianity is good (for individuals and the world) and beautiful, that the Christian faith is deeply meaningful and speaks to our deepest longings as human beings.5 As with relational apologetics, this approach resonates with Gen Z’s value of authenticity, and can appeal to people who see themselves as spiritual (searching for deep meaning and purpose) but not religious. A central concern of cultural and imaginative apologetics is human flourishing through Christianity, which is likely to resonate with Gen Z’s value of mental health and improving the human condition.
Rather than attempting to replace classical and logical approaches to apologetics, cultural and imaginative apologetics adds to these approaches. As Paul Gould writes, “Cultural apologetics acknowledges [rational, imaginative, and moral apologetics] and integrates them into a vision of what it means to be an embodied human that shapes and is shaped by culture, offering what I think is a more realistic and compassionate approach to apologetics.”6 Rather than replacing logical apologetics, it expands the relevance of apologetics by addressing the whole human person, not just the intellect.
Imaginative apologetics focuses on clarifying our understanding of the meaning of Christianity. Holly Ordway argues that “It is this lack of meaning, rather than disagreement with Christian doctrine properly understood, that often presents the most significant barrier to any serious consideration of faith.”7 In other words, sometimes the problem is not that we disagree, but that we don’t understand one another. Practically, what this means, according to Ordway, is that a statement as simple as “Jesus loves you” can become “insubstantial and irrelevant”8 if we do not have a shared understanding of what that means. Consequently, according to imaginative apologetics, we need to focus on meaning before we get to truth.
One of the favorite ways of imaginative apologists to engage with the problem of meaning is through stories, whether Christian or not. C. S. Lewis, reflecting on the power of stories to make a case for Christianity, concluded that sometimes the lack of explicitly Christian content helps us understand the meaning of something more clearly. He wrote, “But supposing that by casting [Christian truths] into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday School associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their real potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could.”9
The belief that using beautiful, compelling stories is one of the best ways to make a case for Christianity is a core part of imaginative apologetics.
3. The Anti-Apologetics Apologetics: Putting Reason in Its Place
Some Christians believe that contemporary apologetics has become hurtful rather than helpful to the Christian witness in the 21st century. As Myron Penner explains in The End of Apologetics, apologetics can encourage Christians to “overestimate the rational warrant for their beliefs”10 and convince us that we can prove the truths of Christianity, leading us to believe that Christianity should be universally accepted primarily on the basis of rationality. Rather, Penner argues that our postmodern cultural and philosophical climate has resulted in a fragmented world, and we are too often unable to find the common ground necessary to provide rational proofs for God to people in general.
Penner makes it clear that he isn’t rejecting objective truth. Instead, he argues that the best form of Christian witness to the truth is faithfully and consistently living out the kind of life Christ calls his followers to live, rather than making arguments for it.
Penner’s concern is that Christians substitute a rational, intellectual certainty about God for an actual relationship with God and love for God and others.
Penner writes, “The temptation for Christians is to think that because there are intelligible reasons for faith within the Christian tradition, this can be a substitute for our reliance on God and our need to hear from him.”11
Despite Penner’s declaration that he is against apologetics, many of today’s well-known apologists would not entirely disagree with Penner. McDowell and Marriott would agree that how we present our witness matters as much if not more than our arguments. McDowell states that “The point of apologetics is to better love God and love others,”12 which aligns precisely with Penner’s arguments. Ordway would agree that there is a fundamental challenge of meaning (misunderstanding one another) when it comes to apologetics.
Yet Penner’s critique that apologetics can elevate rationalism above true faith and relationship with God, leading us to neglect loving God and others, is valid and important. We should consider the fact that “doing apologetics” in the wrong way might cause harm rather than do good. Penner’s perspective offers a healthy corrective to when we are tempted to become overconfident in our own power to grasp truth or to substitute intellectual understanding for true faith. In a sense, Penner isn’t rejecting apologetics altogether, but rather one recent version of it. He advocates an approach to faith centered on loving others, edifying both believers and non-believers, and bearing witness to God’s love for all people—which may be the best apologetic there is.
Conclusion
No single approach to apologetics fits every person or situation. When we understand the various approaches to apologetics, we can better discern which method will most benefit us and those with whom we engage. Ultimately, apologetics should do two things: make us more like Christ and help bring others to Christ. We must rely on the Holy Spirit to lead and empower this work, and we must prayerfully seek God and His will in whatever approach to apologetics we choose.