Controversial opinion: much of our evangelism and apologetics fails to scratch where non-believers are itching, because it seeks to answer questions they’re not asking.
Or, perhaps more accurately, we remain methodologically committed to answering questions they once were, but are now no longer, asking. With the exception of that old chestnut of theodicy (the ‘why suffering’ question) much of our apologetics output still seems to be looking to undercut the objections born out of the Enlightenment or the era of scientism, and I’m less than convinced that those once-pressing issues now represent the focus of the emerging generation’s attention and curiosity.
Outside of the university CU environment (and consequently the shape that most evangelistic missions or events weeks take) I’m not hearing many people raising questions about science and its supposed conflict with faith, or demanding factual proofs for the physical reality of the resurrection; but I am aware of a rise in the levels of inquisitiveness around the idea of God and access to feelings of transcendence. Put simply, we’re still doing battle with the ‘Four Horsemen of New Atheism’ despite the fact that two of the four are now dead and the other two (despite the best efforts of their most infamous popular proponent) are increasingly marginal figures in the intellectual landscape. In short, much of our apologetics looks ‘so frightfully early 2000s, darling.’
