Christian apologetics covers a wide range of styles and levels of argument. It is important that the apologist think deliberately about the kind of arguments he is using and whether they are suited to the task at hand. One important division among arguments is based on their complexity. In general terms, we may divide arguments into two classes that we may call “macro” and “micro” apologetics.
The former is a form of arguing for the faith using simple arguments with general premises. As its name implies, it focuses on the big picture. The latter argues for the faith using complex argument with detail-oriented premises. As its name implies, it argues the fine points.
Here’s an example of a macro-apologetic argument: “God must exist because the universe needed someone to create it.” Here’s another: “The Catholic Church is the true Church because it is the one Jesus founded.”
An example of a micro-apologetic argument would be: “God must exist because there is an abundance of cosmological constants (the strength of the force of gravity relative to the force of electromagnetism, the number of protons and anti-protons created in the Big Bang, etc.) that have been set precisely within a narrow range of possibilities to allow the existence of life. Such a conjunction of variants would not have happened randomly; thus the universe must have been designed intelligently to support life.”
Another example of a micro-apologetic argument would be: “The Catholic Church is the true Church because in Matthew 16:18 Jesus states that he would build his Church and the gates of Hades would never prevail against it. Since Jesus uses the singular word for Church (ecclesían in Greek, not ecclesías), he has only one such Church. Since gates of Hades is an idiom referring to death, Jesus promised that his Church would never die and would remain on earth till the Second Coming. Context further shows that Jesus was speaking of an earthly, institutional Church with internal disciplinary structures in place (cf. 16:19 with 18:17–18). Consequently, Jesus stated that he would create one earthly, institutional Church that would never pass out of existence. This Church must be in existence today, and since the only Christian communion that dates from the first century is the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church must be the Church Christ founded and thus his one, true Church.”
There does not seem to be any limit to the complexity of micro-apologetic arguments. The two above examples, while illustrating something of the complexity of such arguments, are themselves summaries and could be expanded into treatments tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of words long.
Macro- and micro-apologetics are closely related. Every macro-apologetic argument can be fleshed out in a micro-apologetic argument. Every micro-apologetic argument either elaborates a macro-apologetic argument or establishes a point that can contribute to a macro-apologetic argument. This relationship is illustrated in the examples given above.
No macro-apologetic argument is so obvious and irrefutable that it cannot be elaborated on. In mathematics, even seemingly self-evident propositions like 1+1=2 are argued in exhausting detail.
Similarly, there do not seem to be any micro-apologetic arguments that cannot contribute to a macro-apologetic argument. Every micro-apologetic argument, even if focused on an obscure and seemingly unrelated point, could potentially contribute to the macro-apologetic argument (Christianity is true because it has the ring of truth, as established by numerous, minor, individual points).
By its nature, macro-apologetics is suited to the general listener, while micro-apologetics is suited to the specialist and those who demand the kind of answers a specialist would give. But micro-apologetics is also useful for dealing with detail-oriented objections that trouble the general listener (e.g., how Catholic doctrine squares with a particular Bible verse). And macro-apologetics is also useful for reinforcing the specialist who, wearied of the complexity or lost in the detail of micro-apologetic arguments, needs to take his bearings by being reminded of the big picture.
One of the basic failures of apologists is to discern, on a particular occasion, the level of detail and complexity with which an argument should be presented. Only experience and conscious reflection on not only the kind of individual one is dealing with but also what he needs at this moment will help the apologist discern whether a macro- or a micro- approach is needed.
In addition to the momentary failure to use the right kind of argument, one must also avoid the temptation to rely in general on one form of apologetics over the other.
Among many British apologists—both Catholic and Protestant—in the first half of the twentieth century, there was at times a tendency to rely too heavily on macro-apologetics, as if every issue could be settled by recourse to general, non-detail-oriented arguments. This is manifestly untrue. Members of particular groups often have serious, detail-oriented concerns that are obstacles to belief. It does them no service to simply dismiss these detailed concerns or to answer them with a general argument that does not squarely address the specific concerns being raised.
Among many American apologists (again both Catholic and Protestant) in the second half of the twentieth century, there has been at times a tendency to rely too heavily on micro-apologetics, as if every issue should be settled by recourse to specific, detail-oriented arguments. This is also untrue. The average person is not interested in sustained micro-apologetic discourse. Macro-apologetics is a key part of God’s plan to reach fallen man. Given the education of the average man throughout history, if he is to have a rational basis for his faith, it must be grounded in a macro-apologetic manner.
Both macro- and micro-apologetics, when done well, are of enormous benefit to individuals. when done badly, however, they can drive individuals away from the truth. One reason for this is that, done badly, they often have a smug, self-satisfied quality that is dismissive of the need for the other kind of apologetics.
Macro-apologetics done badly tends to be long on theory and short (or even erroneous) on facts. It tends to be dismissive of issues that are of serious concern to individuals who want to believe but feel troubled by particular concerns. This attitude is frequently due to an “armchair” manner of practicing apologetics in which one writes or speaks about a particular group without talking much with members of the group. Without this experience, one does not learn the particular issues members of the group have and one is not led to grapple with the group on a detailed level. Because of its reluctance to deal with micro-apologetic issues, badly done macro-apologetics can convey to an individual that the apologist is not genuinely interested in listening to his concerns.
Micro-apologetics done badly tends to be long (and not always accurate) on facts and short on perspective. It tends to be dismissive of any arguments that are not spelled out in exhaustive detail. This attitude is often due to practicing apologetics in a hands-on manner in which one talks extensively with members of a particular group and especially its apologists. Due to this experience, one is led to grapple with the group’s claims on a detail-oriented level and, if this experience is not counterbalanced by talking with average, ordinary members of society, one can think that only detail-oriented arguments are important. Because of its obsessive attention to detail, badly done micro-apologetics can make it seem to others that the apologist is arrogant and is trying to bowl them over intellectually.
Finally, it should be pointed out that both macro- and micro-apologetics are possible not only for Christians but also for members of other faiths and even for atheists and agnostics. They also face the same obstacles in employing the two strategies and can suffer from the same smug and dismissive attitudes as when Christian apologetics is done badly.