Kevin is a writer for the Catholic Lane and Catholic Exchange websites, and a "traditionalist." He posted this on his Facebook page on 1-27-15. I will cite his words in their entirety, in blue., and provide my $00.02 worth. I am one of these "professional lay apologists" that Kevin refers to (have been since December 2001). All "professional" means is that it is my "profession." I make my living by means of it. In my case, probably two-thirds to three-quarters of my (thus far, very meager) income is derived from book and article royalties, the rest from generous donations. Most of those who contribute to my work, I believe, credit it with having a direct influence in their own conversion or reversion to Catholicism.
I do "have a job," pay all my bills, have good credit, have been paying a mortgage for 15 years, support a wife and four children (who have all been home-schooled), don't use credit cards, and take a nice family vacation every year. We live in a typical lower middle class bungalow in the suburbs (though I just inherited a higher-grade house in even nicer suburbs). I mention this stuff only because criticisms of apologists who make their living at it are so prevalent and usually wrongheaded (I'm not referring to Kevin here; I am talking generally). I'm paying my bills and being perfectly responsible, and no one has any "right" to blast me for my chosen profession than they do to blast anyone else in any profession.
* * * * *
One of the more distinctly American developments in American Catholicism of the last 25 years has been the explosion of lay apologetics as not just an aspect of one's ministry/apostolate, but a ministry and apostolate unto its own. Bloggers style themselves "professional apologists"
Yes they do. As I noted in the introduction, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. In fact, it is perfectly understandable since there are so many amateur apologists (anyone can call themselves one; what's to stop them?), it is sensible to let readers know that the person in question has studied more than the amateurs and does the work full-time. Most who are "professionals" do far more than just blogging. So Kevin is already setting up a bit of a straw man there.
and individuals like Dr. Taylor Marshall even will certify you an "expert" apologist if you attend his classes.
I think a guy with a PhD can make such a claim, and that it is not unreasonable. Is this somehow objectionable, too?
For various reasons, you mostly see this in America, or the very least, in developed countries. Starting with Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism a cottage industry has grown out of apologetics, some even becoming millionaires off of "defending the faith." (Another distinctly American phenomena)
I don't make much money, yet I see double standards in how the more "well-off" apologists are criticized for having the money that they do. They have not taken a vow of poverty. Others in various professions are not also lambasted for making lots of money. Why center on Catholic apologists as if this is somehow inherently questionable? The assumption seems to be that they are doing something wrong simply by making good money, as if they haven't earned it or somehow should be faulted, by that fact alone. Riches are not condemned in the Bible; only the idolatry of riches.
While this movement had sustained growth, it has run into a bit of decline lately. For many, apologetics isn't as profitable as it once was. Working as an editor for a small Catholic website (and one who writes for a much larger one as well) I also know the market for strict apologetics is also down.
This is true. I live with that reality every day.
When I have pointed this out in the past, I have been accused of "hating apologetics" and having some sort of disdain towards apologists.
I don't know why. It's a simple fact. Now, if it is said that I should somehow stop doing what I do and have been called to because "the market is down," then I would object to it as irrelevant -- as long as I can pay my bills, doing what I've been doing.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have had apologists write for me. Having originally made my bones in apologetics, I carry a deep respect for it. I still to this day have a working relationship with several apologists, and they often serve as idea men for my columns. Whenever I begin a new series, I ask them to be my critic.
I have described Kevin's views about apologetics and apologists in the past as a "love-hate relationship."
The critically acclaimed (ironically by several prominent apologists) Bad Evangelist Club came about because of discussions I had with a pretty well known apologist blogger who suggested I use my writers to explore the subject of common errors apologists make or have seen, as told by those apologists.
It is not apologetics that I have opposed. Rather, it is a certain commercializing of apologetics that has helped divorce it from its original purpose.
Fair enough. But that is a very complex topic: not given to simplistic treatment. People have to make a living, and there is a business aspect to things, just as with anything else; as with every parish. If a person is qualified and called to it (determined by others in authority over them), they should make their living doing apologetics.
I also oppose the polarization of apologetics that is practicing apologetics from ideological factions, rather than for the service of the Church as a whole.
So do I.
In place of this I support and advocate those who are beginning to return to the proper roots of apologetics, who I'll mention more of. I'll just briefly touch on all of these topics. I don't want to hear "well I don't do such and such." That's good. Want a cookie? You're not getting a donation, a cookie will have to suffice. Nobody cares what you are doing. Seriously, they don't. You being innocent has no bearing on the fact it's a real issue, and something that needs to be considered.
There is some of the "anti-apologetics" (and rather silly and frivolous) strain in Kevin's thought: "Nobody cares what you are doing."
I also hope my words can help put into context recent statements by Pope Francis opposing the "apologetics approach" when dealing with non-Catholics. A lot of Catholics are worried or troubled by these statements, but they really shouldn't be. While I'm not sure his "ecumenism of encounter" is the right idea, or that people are actually doing what he calls for, I really think there's something to what he says that, even if we end up disagreeing, we shouldn't dismiss it right away.
He was not opposing apologetics. The remark was made in a homily on 25 January 2015. The context was "past controversies between Christians": where apologetics is not appropriate, but rather, ecumenical striving after unity ought to be front and center.
The woman of Sychar asks Jesus about the place where God is truly worshiped. Jesus does not side with the mountain or the temple, but goes deeper. He goes to the heart of the matter, breaking down every wall of division. He speaks instead of the meaning of true worship: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:24). So many past controversies between Christians can be overcome when we put aside all polemical or apologetic approaches, and seek instead to grasp more fully what unites us, namely, our call to share in the mystery of the Father’s love revealed to us by the Son through the Holy Spirit. Christian unity – we are convinced – will not be the fruit of subtle theoretical discussions in which each party tries to convince the other of the soundness of their opinions. When the Son of Man comes, he will find us still discussing! We need to realize that, to plumb the depths of the mystery of God, we need one another, we need to encounter one another and to challenge one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who harmonizes diversities, overcomes conflicts, reconciles differences.
Pope Francis hasn't "dissed" apologetics, as Jimmy Akin shows.
1.) Apologetics is a reasoned case for "the hope that lies within" that must always be conducted with charity, so says the Apostle Peter.
Yep. 1 Peter 3:15.
This is different from evangelization (pronouncing the message) and catechesis (showing how that message can lead to a better life as a Christian), but it cannot be truly separated.
That's correct. They all go together.
Indeed, to separate them is to present apologetics in a vacuum. It is something all Christians are called to, not a few, not the experts, everyone.
Yes. But it doesn't follow that some should not devote their lives to it, as a profession. Because I have hours and hours of time, doing this all day, I can develop work that folks who are employed elsewhere would never have the time to do.
All should be able to give an accounting for why they have hope in Christ, and to understand the basic doctrines of the Gospel. This is why calling yourself an apologist does not make you one, nor does receiving a certificate from some university make you an expert at said apologetics. Some are obviously better at it than others, but that does not make them apologists as say one may call themselves a licensed catechist or a licensed theologian.
It depends on how one defines it. Was G. K. Chesterton an apologist? Most would think so. He had no "license." He had no formal theological education. He had hardly any college education at all (a few art classes for part of a year and no degree). Frank Sheed was a lawyer (so was Karl Keating originally). Malcolm Muggeridge was a journalist. Thomas Howard was an English professor and Peter Kreeft is a philosophy professor.
2.) In today's apologetics subculture, apologetics is turned into a specialized discipline where little attention is paid to catechesis or evangelization. Or, even worse, they equate apologetics with evangelization, so when they engage in an internet forum war, they are really doing the work of evangelization.
I see nothing inherently wrong in specialization, as long as the importance of these other aspects is not denied.
3.) Another danger in apologetics is it presents the Catholic Faith primarily as a set of ideas and doctrines to be defended.
Again, since apologetics deals largely with the rational component of religion, this is to be expected. In that respect it is similar to systematic theology. It doesn't follow that the apologist is therefore minimizing other aspects of the faith, anymore than a monk who concentrates on prayer is against theology or apologetics.
As Fulton Sheen famously said, Catholics do not worship a dogma, we worship a person. That person is Jesus Christ. All of our missionary outreach, whether apologetics, catechesis or evangelization must be firmly grounded in two persons: Jesus Christ, and the individual we are speaking to. Apologetics is a manner of relating to the spiritual needs of an individual, not combating or defending a set of intellectual propositions against this or that group.
Absolutely. This is why St. Paul said, "I have become all things to all men, that I may by any means save some of them."
How much of internet apologetics is based off of this relational approach? When we do apologetics, how often are we friends with the person we are explaining the faith to? I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that this relational approach has almost evaporated from apologetics, just like it has evaporated from so many other facets of our "self-referential Church", to use the words of Pope Francis.
I think that is true many times, but not of those who know how to do apologetics well. Facebook, for all its faults, does cultivate a lot of personal relationships. I certainly feel that that is true on my page. I talk to my friends every day and interact with their concerns. I try to be friends with those I am dialoguing with, because Plato and Socrates stated that friendship and mutual respect were required in any constructive dialogue.
4.) Since it is often done without this relational approach, it often loses its ability to speak to who needs to hear that message. While the apologetics subculture boomed, did conversions follow?
Yes. Anyone can verify this by asking any Catholic (especially converts) who influenced them on their journey. I myself can produce multiple hundreds of reports that my work helped people become Catholics or more confident, educated Catholics.
Did relationships improve between Christians because of the apologetics movement?
I don't know. It's tough to judge that. I hope so!
How often did Protestants come away with a better understanding of apologetics because of the work of Catholic apologists?
I think the ones who are not hostile have learned a ton of things in this way.
Sure, it reached a wide audience, but how much change occurred? This isn't to say it did nothing. Just that its a discussion worth having.
I believe it has had a wide influence, and for good. It's easy to sit on the sidelines as an "armchair quarterback" and simply take shots. Kevin is out there writing articles and trying to influence people,. just as we are. What sense would it make for me to sit here and say, "what impact do Kevin's articles have? How much did they change people?" That's in God's hands. His job is to write about Catholic truth as well as possible, according to the gifts that God gave him. The true and the good have their own inherent power and will produce good fruit.
While many profited, did the Church always benefit as a result?
Yes.
The shrinking of Catholicism in the modern era cannot be blamed on apologetics, but it does tell us that there needs to be more.
Of course. There are a host of problems in the Church. But where people know their apologetics, their faith is usually thriving and vibrant.
Apologists shouldn't get so defensive whenever this is pointed out.
I'm not defensive at all.
5.) There are ultimately limits to apologetics. In order for apologetics to work, there needs to be crystal clear truth, and crystal clear error. While this might happen with those outside the Church, adopting an apologetics approach with those inside the Church is a lot trickier. One cannot adopt an apologetics approach when discussing the Latin Mass and traditionalists (or charismatics and others for that matter) because the debate is often not between truth and error, but (provided it is done properly) between positions that Holy Mother Church has deemed acceptable to hold.
I agree.
6.) Applying this approach to other matters leads to apologists setting themselves up as a sort of mini-magesterium, or a "magesterium of the magesterium" if you will. Recently, the subject of waterboarding and torture appeared. Most of the debate was focused on what lay apologists said about torture, rather than what trained theologians, and ultimately what the Magesterium said.
I was involved in that dispute as one of the supposedly "controversial" persons, and this is a caricature. In my own studies on the topic, I appealed to Fr. Brian Harrison, who is a moral theologian. The magisterium has stated that torture is intrinsically evil. No one disagrees with that. The debate is over the line between torture and permissible interrogation. Since the Church has not made clear every iota of specificity in that discussion, Catholics are free to discuss it and have different opinions.
I was accused (repeatedly) of setting myself up as a "magisterium": which is absolutely ludicrous. I made it crystal clear again and again that I was not any sort of authority on this issue, and was simply rendering my personal opinion (which at that time was agnostic as to waterboarding, and fully in support of the Church's view that torture is intrinsically evil). Hence, in a "clarification" post on 12-30-15 I wrote:
It's the Church's job to fully clarify vexed issues. I then go out and defend what Holy Mother Church has definitively taught. Until then, there is room for different opinions (except in the mind of legalistic, obsessed fanatics). I think actual moral theologians in the Church ought to clarify it, not me. I'm not qualified. This is a very complex issue. If Fr. Harrison isn't good enough for the ranting fanatics going on and on about this (or Jimmy Akin, if we want to cite a lay apologist), sure as Hades whatever I decided wouldn't be sufficient for anyone. It doesn't MATTER in the end what opinion I have on this if the Church hasn't made it clear. What is crystal clear is that laymen who are not the magisterium are not the magisterium. That's the first rule of logic: a = a.
Lay apologists are not trained to make such decisions.
Which is precisely what I stated above . . . neither are lay writers like Kevin. The ones who were dogmatic about this did not come from the apologetics camp at all. Ross Earl Hoffman started reading everyone and their uncle's third cousin out of orthodox Catholicism because they didn't agree with him on waterboarding. He has no credentials. He's been a Catholic for six years. He's no apologist at all. When he has tried it, he has done a lousy job (and I and many others tried to encourage him not to attempt apologetics). Consequently, during this whole fracas he alienated literally all of his closest friends before the mess started: most of whom actually agreed with him that waterboarding is torture.
Another dogmatic anti-waterboarding figure who wanted to read many people out of orthodox Catholicism was Pete Vere, JCL. He's a canon lawyer and chaplain, not an apologist. A third (and the major one) was Mark Shea, who is an apologist, yet doesn't want to even call himself one anymore (I saw him state that somewhere recently). When he gets on political issues, he simply rants and raves and is not functioning as an apologist anymore: more like a polemicist and spin doctor or propagandist. So his behavior in those instances can hardly be blamed on apologetics. It's not apologetics to rant and engage in endless jeremiads. That's not what it is about. Mark is sort of a split personality: the apologist who writes about theology (who does excellent work and has a wonderful style of writing) and -- when treating of ethics and politics -- the polemicist and pseudo-prophet on his soapbox.
A famous example of this well known amongst apologists is when one started holding some extreme positions, and many apologists started speculating if there was a mental breakdown or something behind it. Dr. Arthur Sippo, a lay apologist but also a trained medical doctor, rebuked them by pointing out they were lay apologists who had no qualification or insight to offer those conclusions, so they shouldn't even try.
That's great, except that I have seen Art (a friend) countless times psychoanalyzing Protestants, including historic ones like Martin Luther. So he may "preach" that but many times he doesn't follow his own advice.
The only job an apologist has in the torture debate is to explain in a general sense why torture is immoral, point out who says it is immoral, and leave anything further (such as if certain acts constitute torture) to moral theologians and the magesterium.
That's precisely what I did, and what I found was that the data was clear as to torture in general; not so clear as to whether waterboarding is torture. And that is what I reported to my readers. Recently I moved to a position where I regard waterboarding as abuse that should never be done, but not torture. Kevin and his friends liked that and called it a "victory" but then, of course, they are interpreting the magisterium as well, just as we apologists are. Goose and gander . . .
Or you should, to the extent possible make clear you are taking off your apologist hat, if you insist on referring to yourself as a "professional apologist" when you discuss whether or not certain things are torture.
I agree. I was massively lied about and misrepresented. I did everything Kevin is calling for here. It didn't matter. The fanatical "more Catholic than thou" zealots were on their crusade and mere facts and accuracy were the very last thing that concerned them.
7.) During that debate, we got another example of the nastiest part of the current apologetics subculture: it is heavily based around cults of personality. They style themselves more as warlords with who has the biggest following based on website hits, facebook likes, cash reserves, etc. Often, these apologists clash in a hoss fight, and said hoss fight is presented as apologetics, two guys (typically men yes) with big egos shouting at each other or thinking of who can devise the most creative insult and verbally shred their foe. It is the language of combat and war, not of the Gospel. As an avid fan of professional wrestling, this kind of approach makes for great entertainment in the squared circle, where muscle bound meatheads cut promos and dazzle the crowds with their combat prowess. Is apologetics best served by the WWE approach?
Once again, it was not apologists who led this tendency, but non-apologists like Ross Earl Hoffman or apologists who deliberately decide not to act like apologists (Mark Shea). If Kevin wants to dispute that, let him name names, as I have done. The ones I have named have been engaging in character assassination for two months now at least. Jimmy Akin hasn't entered the arena at all. He is the apologist who has written the most (and I think most thoughtfully and provocatively) about it. I entered into it but have spent time clarifying my position and defending myself against rank calumnies, not calling people names, saying they are lousy Catholics, lying about what they believe, and acting like a pompous ass.
8.) Thankfully, not all apologists are like this. Some of the old timers try (though not always succeed) to stick to this form of apologetics. Others try to do their best to help the audience see which hat they are wearing. While this is good, my hope mostly rests in a lot of the newer apologists who are making a name for themselves on the "independent" circuit if you will. They aren't professional apologists, nor are they certified expert apologists, but they are doing innovative apologetics nonetheless.
Good for them.
There are those like Joseph Heschmeyer, an apologetics blogger who is also a seminarian. He will always be a good apologist, but it will be one tool in the arsenal of a Catholic priest. There is David Gray, whom apologetics is based on only one part of his ministry. I see those like Shaun McAfee, who use apologetics as one only one arrow in his quiver of various social media promotions to help people understand the faith and become better Christians. I look at Facebook superevangelists like Delali Godwin Adadzie, who do apologetics, but also spend time managing a billion facebook devotional groups helping people to improve their prayer life. It is my hope over the next decade more apologists begin to incorporate with greater frequency the relational approach these individuals are using, which views apologetics as but one tool to deepen relationships with others and with Christ.
I think that is an excellent trend. I see no reason to oppose those who do apologetics full-time, because these guys (most of them friends of mine) do a great job at it, part-time. I did it part-time, too, for eleven years.
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Kevin Tierney, and what I have described is not only possible but inevitable. It's not a preview of the future of apologetics, is a spoiler. If apologetics is to thrive, this is the only way.
It's not the only way. Kevin has given us zero reasons for thinking that full-time "professional" apologists somehow have to be ashamed of what they do, or that they are on the way out. Every field has those who devote themselves entirely to it. Since all are called to do apologetics, there will obviously be a lot of part-time and amateur apologists, too. We need not play the either/or game.
* * * * *