How to Win at Apologetics Chris Selmys Originally published in Issue V of Vulgata, February, 2002.

If someone wishes to do apologetics they should first understand what it is. It is a rather peculiar business and only exists at all because human beings are even more peculiar. I think what I mean will be clearer if I point out how apologetics differs form evangelization. An evangelist is someone who preaches the Gospel to someone who has not yet heard it. An apologist is someone who explains the Gospel to someone who has heard it but not accepted or understood it. When Jesus sent out His disciples, one of the instructions He gave them was to be "as cunning as serpents and as innocent as doves." (Mt 10:16) It is vitally important that we do not neglect the part about being cunning. Our Lord makes it very clear that He wants all of us to come to Him -- not just the instant converts or the ones fortunate enough to be brought up in a Christian home. Everybody. So while the evangelist guides back to the flock the little lost lamb that took a wrong turn at the far end of the field, your friendly neighbourhood apologist will have to go after the sheep that roughed up some of their fellows, made them into a makeshift tent, and sit around in it plotting to overthrow the Good Shepherd. What I am saying is that a lamb who thinks it knows where to go better than the shepherd is very different from one that just doesn't know that there is a shepherd, and they need to be shown the way in a very different manner.

I have found that there is a most useful way to impose order on the somewhat chaotic business of trying to explain to someone that they simply cannot have a good reason not to love Jesus or that a church that was founded less than 100 years ago simply isn't The Church which Christ founded 2000 years ago.  I imagine that it is like a game of chess. Actually, you don't even have to do much imagining, there actually are a startling number of significant parallels between the two arts. It is for this reason that I have chosen to express this general advice for anyone who wants to attempt theological debate with a non-Catholic in the form of an extended chess metaphor.

The Opening

 The first thing that someone will notice about a set of chessmen is that they come in two different colours. The rule about this is that the lighter coloured pieces move first. I realize how simple and obvious this sounds but I really think that people can often forget this so bear with me. If you have the first move it means that you must make a move first. A zealous fundamentalist will always move first and someone with an axe to grind against the Church often will, but most of the time it will be up to you. One of your greatest obstacles to doing this will be a condition which I like to refer to as the Human Weather Fascination. So much of human interaction is wasted by it.  Say two people run into one another and one points out that it is a nice day.  The other person, no doubt aware of this already and in no way edified by the exchange will probably agree and perhaps add that it is actually the first one in a while in an attempt to keep the conversation from perishing immediately. Having realized that their addition does not really stand a chance at prolonging the conversation they will try to think of something else to add. By then their friend will already have decided that they have better things to do than to stand around scrutinizing the very, very obvious and will be half way though saying "well, I guess I should get going then." It seems awkward to bring up religious questions with friends who don't completely share our beliefs. The main reason for this is that beliefs that are not true or do not make sense are very difficult to communicate. If you try, they tend to fall apart very quickly and sound empty or silly unless you have practice doing so. However, if we keep it to ourselves, almost anything can seem to make perfect sense and be self-evident. Fortunately, people do have a yearning for the truth and if it is conveyed properly they are often surprised to find that they like it much more than they thought they would. So don't be afraid to tell someone if they are wrong about something and don't be afraid that you will be confounded by someone's arguments; just unleash the truth. It is like a lion, you have but to let it out of it's cage and it will make quick work of the competition. Only remember that everything must always be done in a spirit of charity and we must never condemn a fault in another that we are not free of ourselves. You will note that although this almost completely rules out criticizing much of the behaviour of others for most of us, we are always free to take as many pot-shots as we like at ideas, teachings,. doctrines, ideologies, etc. if they are flawed.

Timed Games

Try to make yourself aware of how much time you have. There are three basic approaches to take, depending on what the situation is. If you likely only have one shot, say a prayer to the Holy Spirit, cut to the chase and hope for the best. If you are likely to be able to take up the game again later but you don't know when or how often, try to win a small victory every time, a lasting one whose effects will help you next the time. If you are at liberty to take as long as you like, then study the situation very carefully to try to find the best possible move each time and don't take unnecessary risks.

In general, but especially when talking to someone who you are unlikely to meet again, it is very helpful to create an atmosphere of urgency. Morality is real. Eternal life or eternal death is a BIG deal. God exists or He does not. Not both, not neither, and it makes a tremendous amount of difference which it is. Not just to people who believe, but to everyone. Also, remember that they should be trying to find out what is true, not just comparing opinions with you.
 

The King

It is well known that a game of chess is won when the opposing king is captured. It is much the same in apologetics. There is one piece which must be captured for the match to end. Regrettably, you are not always afforded the luxury of knowing which one it is. It seems to vary from person to person but when it comes down to it there is always a single thing that stands in the way of their conversion. However, you will not be introduced to it up front. You will likely be treated to a litany of arguments for which your opponent has no particular affection, but which sound rather better than their actual reason for not converting. I have yet to meet someone who ACTUALLY and HONESTLY does not believe in God because they have found a logical loophole in one of St. Thomas Aquinas’s five proofs or will not become a Catholic because some nasty abuses took place in the name of the Church during the Spanish inquisition. On a deeper, realer and altogether less public level, the atheist’s argument often runs much closer to “That’s all very well and fine but there’s a snag, you see, this Jesus fellow of yours says I can’t have a divorce” and the fundamentalist’s “But your church does not teach that I can have perfect assurance of my own salvation.” When did anyone ever hear somebody say "I want to believe that if I died right now I would go directly to Heaven. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred bucks, eternal and perfect happiness and I don't care whether or not it's true: I like it." or "I doubt very seriously that I will burn eternally in unquenchable hellfire merely because I think it's is up to me whether to sleep around or not, therefore the Catholic Church cannot know what it is talking about." Of course, those "arguments" do crop up every now and then, but not nearly as commonly as things like "But what about the crusades? Don't Catholics worship the Pope? Science has proven that religion is just nonsense!" These more common ploys, the various other pieces on the board that protect the king, are not reasons for not accepting the Truth, they are excuses and justifications. The purpose of the many other pieces on the board is only to protect the king. There will only ever be one actual reason, sometimes it will not make a lot of sense and once you know what it is it will always be completely fruitless to attack it directly. What you must do instead is strip the king of all his defenses until he is alone and vulnerable. Then you must let God finish the game. No amount of cleverness or anything else will be of any use now. Once the king no longer has anything to hide behind the situation will be perfectly clear to your opponent. He will know what he must surrender to God and he will know that there is no good reason not to, but this will not necessarily make it easy. We are in fact sufficiently weak that this is quite unbearable in many cases. There is nevertheless very little for the apologist to do at this point as it is in God's hands.

The Queen

 The most powerful piece on the board in a game of chess is by far and away the queen. Correspondingly, your most powerful ally in apologetics is prayer. Most importantly, this is another situation where you have an extremely unfair advantage: your queen cannot be captured. There is nothing that anyone can do to prevent you from praying for them. Always remember this and make use of it as much as you possibly can.

Strategy

I

Truth is evaded in one of two ways. Oversimplifying a complex issue can reduce it to nonsense (religion is just a bunch of superstition)  and a simple truth can be missed due to too much scrutiny (you can't just say abortion is murder, it's much more complicated than that). You must, therefore, insure that nothing deeply intricate is dismissed in a few words nor something straightforward nuanced into oblivion.

You definitely cannot afford to be a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is one of the few sins that is still considered a sin. What you say can still be true but if you don't act like it nobody will listen to you. If I do not practice what I preach I cannot be convincing whether I am right or not.

III

Find out what your opponent takes for granted and make use of whatever follows from it. If they have an unshakable faith in reason, show how unreasonable modernism is. If they believe that scripture is infallible, pull out some tough passages, there are some for every denomination. If they see themselves as the ultimate authority on everything, help them to find out where they got their beliefs from. We all take most of what we know on someone's authority. Who told them what to believe about morality? Suggest that the Christian solution of asking God is extremely sensible considering the alternatives.

IV

The questions that religion strives to answer and that Jesus answers so well cannot be escaped. If we remove God from our lives something must move to take His place. What stands in God's shoes in their life? How does it answer the questions of suffering, purpose, last things, etc.?

Checkmate

To summarize: know your opponent, know yourself, know the rules, play to win, stay calm, be patient, stay humble, stay charitable and most of all pray. Good luck and God bless.