Once again, I'm having my doubts about this whole blogging thing. I really like it. I get to write prose for a change, there are some interesting folks about blogdom, and I always learn a lot. But, there is one small problem. I hate apologetics. Not just on the web, though compared to apologetics on the web what passes for commending the faith of the Church in real life looks like the Lost Works of John Chrysostom. No, I hate apologetics. It always, always, always, involves somehow misrepresenting someone else.
It's very difficult for me to be clear about what I mean, as I'm obviously not a wallflower when it comes to slamming someone's argument against the virtual wall. (More about that in a moment.) I have no problem with arguments, no, none at all. It's just that, to be blunt, most of us just don't know enough to make arguments in the first place. Most folks only know enough to say simply what they believe. When it comes to challenging others, however, most people are just ignorant. Lutherans attack Calvinists, for instance, and there is good reason, in confessional terms. But do Lutherans, particularly newbie Lutherans in love (again, for good reason) with their new-found home really know enough about the complexities and experiences of Reformed communions to say anything meaningful? And it goes the other way as well.
That's just an example. I guess what I'm getting at is that, well, not to put too fine a point on it - if you're going to do anything else than confess what your communion believes, then you'd better be learned and have wide experience. You'd better have wisdom, humility - not traits associated with new converts, or, well, with most of us. In short, I propose the following unreasonable standard: no one can really do apologetics unless they're insanely well-read, at least open to learning lots of languages, immersed in texts from a wide variety of traditions, and open to spending time in different congregations and parishes actually getting to know these people they would otherwise categorize. If there is a heresy to refute, then by all means do so. But take as your standard Irenaeus or Maximus, Thomas or Luther. In short, really know what the hell's going on, what's underneath the obvious letter of the heresy.
I suppose this is a call for nothing less than silence when we don't know enough to speak intelligently and charitably. Have I not read much of a controversial author, used by those in another communion to bolster their perhaps heretical claims? Well, I must name the heresy for what it is, but I can under no circumstances attack an author I have not read, nor should I make up easy dichotomies that seem to bolster my case, as if I knew everyone in every communion. In other words, a simple 'You're wrong, and here's why' will do, not 'Well, you Calvinists/ Lutherans/ Catholics/Palamites are all Iconoclasts/ Synergists/ Pagans/ Lunatics, and we all know this because you're from the West/ East/ Ireland/ Appalachians.'
So there. Only street-smart, wizened Christians known for deep scholarship, true empathy, and fierce devotion to the Truth should do apologetics, and the rest of us should get out of their way. What this means for blogging, though, is difficult to tell. Seems so many like to use this for apologetics, and to be honest I get fed up with the whole thing. And I really hate the 'You can't expect perfection' response, as though that were either possible or desirable. No, not perfection, but if you're going to do a job, do it with excellence. I guess this gets wearisome, and I long for some sign that we aren't all just talking in a meaningless circle to one another, each determined to win, and more important, each determined to make sure that someone loses. Meanwhile, suppose someone from outside Christian Blogdom does happen upon our little world. Will what they see and read truly commend the faith to 'em? Or will they think we're a bunch of snivelling know-nothings determined to win arguments at all costs? For those who want to do apologetics, I ask you, if even one person is scandalized by our stupidity and arrogance, was the battle worth it?
I don't know what the answer is, of course, only that the question bothers me. As I said, I enjoy this for many reasons, but if it ends up doing more harm than good, then why do it at all? Does all this blogging and reading blogs only encourage my own tendencies to argue ad hominem? I just don't know...