|
U p F r o n t
By Karl Keating
YES, apologetics is loaded with opportunities to err. Like ice cream, the errors come in a bewildering assortment of flavors. Some are as mild as vanilla, others as shocking to the palate as chunky raspberry-lemon. You can commit vanilla errors endlessly and never be tripped up by them, but a single chunky raspberry-lemon error can throw you off track, even can sink your career.
There never has been an apologist who hasn't bungled. The tradition started early. Peter, visiting Antioch, must have been embarrassed when he realized he undercut his own principles when he removed himself from the table of the Gentiles-surely he was doubly embarrassed when Paul upbraided him for throwing a stumbling block in front of new Christians (Gal. 2:11-14). Peter did not hide himself away but went on to spread the faith at the seat of the Empire. We should take a cue from this.
I remember with vivid and acute embarrassment some of my own blunders. (A poor memory has preserved me from the pain of recalling a far longer catalogue of failures.) Some of the errors have been of fact; I simply didn't know my stuff. More of them have been of facts misstated, the mind thinking one thing, the tongue speaking another.
The blunders most regretted are not those of ignorance or of clumsy speech, but of tone. What I said may have been true and may have been voiced without tongue-twisting, but it should not have been said at all, or it should have been said but came out harsh instead of gentle.
I suspect that this sort of error- unsaintly speaking, we might call it- is a common failing among apologists. The vocation appeals to people who tend to be argumentative by nature. Someone without any argumentative bones in his body likely would make a poor apologist; he would find himself crushed whenever a weighty objection was thrown against him. Likewise, the vocation of counseling attracts those who can empathize with others, but empathy misplaced, to the point of becoming credulity, can end with the counselor being snookered by a good sob story, unable to give the advice the client really needs to hear.
When I say I take it as a given that an apologist will like to argue, I hope you will understand what I mean by the term. I use it in the good sense. I don't mean raising your voice and lifting an opponent off the ground by the lapels, trying to shake sense into him until he agrees with you. That isn't apologetics-that's a misdemeanor.
By "arguing" I mean "discussing differences charitably, coolly, without pretending the differences don't matter." (If you say they don't matter, then you say Catholic distinctives such as the Real Presence and the papacy don't matter, in which case I reply, "Why do you bother to adhere to beliefs you consider inconsequential?")
Arguing is like a hammer. A hammer can be used to pound in nails, and it can be used to pound in skulls: a use and a misuse. Arguing is good if conducted properly; it can bring the errant to an understanding of the truth. Arguing doesn't produce the virtue of faith, but it can help prepare an individual to receive that virtue. It does this by removing stumbling blocks- presuming the arguing itself hasn't become a stumbling block, of course.
And here we are, having returned to apologists' bungling. Most of our bungles seem to appear in the form of misplaced or misshapen arguing.
Our vanilla errors aren't too serious. Often they aren't even perceived. (How many listeners will realize you erred if you referred to the Reformer as "Fred Zwingli" instead of "Uldrich Zwingli"? The average listener has never heard of him anyway.)
But the chunky raspberry-lemon errors might have far-reaching effects.
I know of a few apologists who use a slash-and-burn speaking technique, their chief aim being, it seems, to win an argument at any cost. Not smart. "Win an argument, lose a soul," cautioned Bishop Sheen.
I know of other apologists who ought to apologize for engaging in apologetics: Many of the "facts" they relate about the faith are simply wrong; they haven't done their homework. They still don't know the difference between the Virgin Birth and the birth of the Virgin. They should be at the receiving end of the instructions, not the giving end.
I know others who seem put off by some Catholic teachings; they end up giving only a partial apologetic, which can lead, at best, to only partial evangelization-not good enough. If the blind can't lead the blind, then the half-blind can lead them at best half way to the truth.
Of the errors committed by apologists, the greatest may be to fear errors inordinately. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," Paul said (Rom. 3:23). We can't expect not to err, at least occasionally and in small things. We shouldn't allow fear of erring to dissuade us from the work that needs to be done.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
