In my younger days, I loved to argue. Skill in argumentation was a point of pride for me. When I read, “Always be ready to give a defense for [your faith],” I took it seriously. This, combined with a keen sense of pragmatism, led me to argue in a unconventional manner, and it is what makes me a Bad Apologist™.
When most of us were learning the skills of debate, we were instructed that the best, most coherent arguments win, and to a degree, that is true. Appeals to emotion might be effective, but they’re cheap and don’t stand up to time. The problem, as we have all experienced, is that good arguments often fall on deaf ears and stubborn hearts–many people only feign open-mindedness. This is very well-expressed in one of my favorite quotes: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” [Actually a misquote]
This idea stuck with me, and it nagged at me. What, I thought, is the point of good arguments if they are impractical? Why argue cogently if my interlocutor is more devoted to self or ideology than to truth? There had to be an effective way to convince people.
Pragmatic boy that I was, I looked for an answer to my question in other debates and, as any good Protestant would, in Scripture. What I soon discovered was that Jesus displayed a rather sharp wit when He locked horns with His human adversaries. He made the sort of cutting remarks that could have easily been mistaken for disregard for their well-being. More than that though, Jesus’ replies to the Pharisees and Sadducees made them look dumb, and I can only imagine, the replies made them feel dumb as well. Jesus was a Bad Apologist.
Of course, Jesus did care about His adversaries, just as much as He cared for His disciples and the crowds who followed Him. So, why would He speak to them so harshly? Since it wasn’t indicative of disregard, it must have actually been the very opposite. Jesus spoke in a manner that was effective at convincing both those who actively opposed Him and the audience who witnessed the interactions. The difference was that the real hope for effect on the Pharisees and Sadducees lay in the future. Their obstinance all but precluded them from being immediately reached by Jesus’ words, but Jesus’ wit pierced their armor. Christ’s cutting and harsh words left a mark that could not easily be forgotten.When combined with rational arguments, cutting words have the ability to lead others to question the veracity of their position. Obstinate opponents will not doubt their ideology in light of your rational arguments, atleast not right away, but they may lose certainty as a consequence of being made to look foolish. In other words, a hit to one’s self-confidence is a hit to one’s certainty about what he believes, and we very much want people to feel uncertain about the lies they believe.
“Hold on,” some are thinking, “what about ‘gentleness and respect’?” I am aware of the whole of 1 Peter 3:15 and am not suggesting that we be anything but gentle and respectful to people, but I submit that we need not…we ought not be gentle with falsehoods and soul-destroying lies. Was Jesus not gentle and respectful of the Scribes and Pharisees when He said, “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” He was gentle! He loved and respected the Pharisees, and that is why He showed them that their words and actions were so despicable and worthy of only the harshest condemnation. I do not believe that Jesus cared if their egos took a hit. In fact, as I suggested above, I think He wanted to bruise their egos.
One with a bruised ego has only two options, either distract himself in order to forget, or try to repair the damage. This is why the Bad Apologist approach works. For most people, dwelling on the stinging feeling is unavoidable. People replay the events in their head and think of what they might have done differently. Consequently, they are deliberately choosing to consider your arguments again. They want desperately to formulate a better argument. They want to find the hole in your arguments, because they believe that will be a salve to their wound. What actually happens is that the person opens the wound further. He is left feeling an ache that will not dissipate. He might successfully distract himself, or he may begin to recognize the truth.
Being a Bad Apologist is not without risk. Anyone who follows this advice is guaranteed to lose a nominal “friend” or two; I have lost more than that. Is it a risk we should be willing to take? Well, that depends. We ought to be pragmatic about this Bad Apologist approach. I would not, for example, be a Bad Apologist with someone who I know is already greatly lacking in confidence; in the short- and long-term, that person would probably only ever feel attacked and, perhaps, as though his trust had been violated. Similarly, your 70-something year old father might never be able to see past the semblance of disrespect.
However, many people do come around. Those who are full of pride and arrogance would benefit from meeting a couple of Bad Apologists. It cannot be stressed enough, though, that 1) we need to pray, 2) we need to be familiar with the truth and rational arguments, and 3) we need to pray. Provided that we have those three things covered, Bad Apologists we may be.
The opinions expressed by the DPS blog authors and those providing comments are theirs alone; they are not necessarily the expressions or beliefs of either the Dead Philosophers Society or Holy Apostles College & Seminary.