What Are Apologetics and Are They Important ?

[box]RVWD is my abbreviation for Religious Vocabulary Word of the Day. (You can read my introduction to the RVWD series here.) I do not intend for these word investigations to be exhaustive, but I hope they stimulate some thinking about assumptions. Possibly they will help with honest evaluations about what is truth and what is unnecessary baggage in life. [/box]
Out of the two definitions of apologetic, the most familiar use of the word is to speak of “someone being, or needing to be, regretful for something done wrong”. The other way to use the word is to refer to the act of “defending or vindication, whether in writing or speech”. Closely related to the English word apology, both words come down to us through Latin, but apparently ultimately from the Greek apologia. The ‘apo-‘ means “from” or “off,” while the ‘-logia’ is from the same root as logos, meaning “word.” It has connotations of formality in presenting such a defense of a position. (See Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed., and etymonline.com’s entry on apology)
Even though an “apology” can be made for any idea, philosophy, or religion, according to the dictionary, the word apologetics is distinctly referring “a branch of theology” that makes a defense for Christian beliefs. The questions then become “what exactly does defense mean?” and “does Christianity need defending?”
It turns out that defend does not just mean “to guard or keep from harm.” It also means to support or justify (a position, conduct, etc). It doesn’t have to involve being angry or a need for validation, nor does it rely on the hearers ultimate decision. It just means that information is given.
Of course, there is the desire that the information will have an affect on the listener, but that does not have any bearing on the legitimacy of the information. We all know cases where the same information given to different people leads to quite variant personal actions. One person sees a yellow light and speeds up to get through faster. Another, comes to a stop well before the red appears (assuming the yellow was visible long enough.  🙂 ) One person sees the last cookie and leaves it for another person, while someone else will see it as a chance to get it before anyone else does. (The morality of these decisions can vary with the circumstances…)
Of more import are decisions such as child training. Everyone knows that we need to teach children something. There is even general agreement that some type of limits and consequences are beneficial to a child’s learning. People can all be well aware of the fact that some children are better trained than others, but in spite of the best “apology” of a certain method of child training, it will be accepted by some while eschewed by others. This will often be due to past experiences, misconceptions of what the principles or method mean, or even simply emotional reactions to concepts.
These same three issues can influence the response to apologetics for Christianity. But, as much as that can hinder understanding, there still needs to be a clear distinction drawn between 1) the religions and traditions that have become associated with the word Christianity, and 2) the basics of who God is and what He is offering us. And, again, does this true Christianity need to be “defended,” and if so, how much?
When I look at the Biblical presentation of the gospel, by Jesus or the eye witnesses, they seem to spend most of their time stating what can be believed in, the pertinent historical facts, and why it is a good offer. When Jesus was up against the disbelief of the Sadducees, he simply stated that they did not know something they could (and implied should) know. (Matthew 22:29) When Paul and Barnabas were opposed by powerful men and women in Pisidian, Antioch, they did not stay around to argue with them. They had told them and they moved on to tell others (Acts 13:14-52). The bulk of the explanation for the Jews is from the Hebrew scriptures, but even this does not take up that many pages when you get right down to it. Most of the pages are story, review, and letters of encouragement to those who already believe.
The explanations (apologetics?) to the Gentiles are refreshingly shorter. It is assumed that people realize there is a God. They might be confused or misinformed, but there is not a lot of information needed to tell them what they need to know to get that straightened out. Beyond that, it is a matter of choosing how to respond to the news.
I just got done listening to a book telling the story of one man’s journey through all the apologetics and counter arguments available. (The Race Before Us by Bruce Matson)
I noticed two main things from this. One, there are people of all levels of intelligence and rhetorical skills who make opposite decisions based on the information. No one can choose because “someone smart” made a certain choice. Secondly, when it comes down to it, knowing all the minutia of data don’t have any more validity than the any one person’s realization of God as a presence in this universe, as well as the historical reality of Jesus Christ. Truly, the knowledge is there for each person to take hold of, without an encyclopedia of experts.
So, do we need to “defend” Christianity. We are told to be ready to give an answer for what we believe, but that could conceivably be a fairly concise answer. There is no injunction to debate those who don’t want to know, or who simply want to argue and often be mad that anyone acknowledges Christianity as real.  Either the person really wants to honestly discuss, or they want to validate their own decision.