Responding to the Social Justice Movement: The Need for Apologetics
How do you defend the faith to those who claim you are a hater?
When a problem such as the concerns over the Social Justice Movement arises, it can often seem too big, and it is easy to feel frozen by the enormity of the challenge of trying to respond. That is why I have prioritized the things most pastors and Christians can do to respond to this movement regarding how to address the situation. I honestly believe the biggest and most lasting impacts are done on the local level. That said, there is also a call to respond on the global level. How can, how must, the Church respond to this challenge on the global level?
The Greek Apologists
In the early church during the times of Roman persecution, most Christians, very understandably, kept their heads down and shared the Gospel only with those around them seeking to not make too many waves. However, vicious rumors spread around regarding the nature of Christianity. As a result, during the 2nd Century, some men arose who we now know as the Greek Apologists. The term “apologist” comes from the original meaning of the Greek word “ἀπολογία” (apologia) which means to speak in defense. So, a Christian apology is a defense of something, and apologists were not people who said, “I’m sorry.”
These men include Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – ca. 165), Tatian (ca. 120 – ca. 180), Athenagoras (ca. 133 – ca. 190), and Melito of Sardis (died ca. 180). These were learned men who took on and disputed with some of the best minds of their day in order to give a rational defense of Christianity. It should also be noted that these men knew that they were taking a significant risk, as, for instance, Justin earned the moniker “Martyr” through his death.
Of course, apologists were not just relegated to pre-Constantinian Christianity. One of the best-known recent apologists was C. S. Lewis. He wrote not only fiction, but also several works of apologetics including the magisterial Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, and Miracles. In these works, Lewis strove to give a clear defense and explanation of Christianity.
However, we are also in need of apologetics today, including those that deal directly with the Social Justice movement, to show that Christianity has better answers and a much better hope than this Marxist derivative. There are a growing number of voices out there, including Gene Edward Veith’s Post Christian[1] and Christopher Watkin’s Biblical Critical Theory[2] ; however, these are aimed more at Christians to explain and defend Christianity than as true apologetics.
Some Cautions
First, to be honest, this is not a role for everyone or even for most of us. Only a few have the intellectual and educational abilities to write apologetics. Plus, while we are not likely to face true martyrdom, speaking up in this context can cause the loss of position and result in being deplatformed. Likewise, more often than not, apologetic works are read not by non-Christians, but by Christians. We cannot discount this, however, as helping to strengthen fellow Christians in their faith and arm them for discussions with others is a valuable service in and of itself.
Another problem is much like the military, we tend to prepare for and try to fight the last war. This can be seen today in apologetics where many continue to try to argue on modernist presumptions while speaking to postmodern thinkers. For instance, apologetics for the historicity of the resurrection will not help talking with someone who rejects the study of history entirely. A unique challenge arises before us today to try to convince someone that they may be mistaken when they reject rationality as oppressive.
In much the same way, we can also become fixated too much on the problems and challenges of today that we end up missing when things move on. For instance, in the Missouri Synod we continue to talk about the problems with historical criticism of the Bible, but almost nobody holds to that anymore; there are new attacks we are missing by staying focused on the previous one. So, when we argue for the historicity of the Bible with someone who thinks that all sources are biased and unreliable, we are completely missing the mark.
Focus on Timeless Truths
So, how are we to respond? In the end we need to focus on timeless truths. We need to remember that the ultimate needs, including spiritual needs of people, do not change. Everyone has guilt before God. Everyone feels some sort of guilt or shame unless their heart has been so hardened that they feel no remorse.
Nancy Pearcey makes the argument that someone’s false belief will ultimately fall apart and leave them hanging. She notes that every false belief in some way degrades humanity and undermines what we know to be true. For instance, many teach that there is no such thing as free will but then act as if they have free will. Therefore, the goal of apologetics is to point out that inconsistency and failure in order that the person can become open to hearing the Gospel.[3]
I think that one thing that we need to do in apologetics is to point to the ultimate truths that people try to deny but ultimately cannot. As J. Budziszewski argues, there are things that “We Can’t Not Know,” in particular that there is a natural law.[4] This means that deep down, everyone knows, unless their heart and conscience has been completely hardened like in the case of a psychopath or sociopath, that there are things that are right and things that are wrong. In general, when someone argues against this, they are really setting up a double standard. Try to steal from someone who claims there is no moral law, and you will see their moral outrage. Most of the time when someone is arguing against natural law, they are really just trying to create a way to excuse themselves so they can do as they please.
Turn Their Arguments Against Them
A key element of apologetics is to turn one’s arguments against them to prove that they do not hold together. This principle needs to be applied to the Social Justice movement.
For instance, if a Social Justice Warrior claims that you should not be heard because of your race, sex, status, etc., this can be turned around. At its heart, they are arguing that you cannot speak objectively because you are a product of your subgroups (such as white, Christian, and male). However, this means that the individual who is charging this against you is also unable to speak objectively because they are a product of their subgroups. At this point, they will tend to argue that you are speaking from your privilege. However, if there is no objective standpoint, and, as they argue, everything is a product of power, it is a power contest, and they are merely jealous that your subgroups have more power; they have no reason to claim that they would exercise power in a better way.
Another example is in how Social Justice Warriors often claim the right to self-define. We see this most clearly in the transgender movement. However, they are inconsistent in that they do not allow their opponents to define themselves but rather impose their definitions, such as hateful, upon others. This is another inconsistency.
Also, you might have noticed a core inconsistency between the two previous examples. One cannot be merely a product of their subgroups and also able to define themselves. It must be one way or the other. When this is pointed out, however, they often try to argue that logic is a product of white European males and is, therefore, a means of oppression. However, to this it should be pointed out that if logic is wrong, why should we listen to their reasoning.
I could give more examples. However, my point is that the only consistent worldview is that which is revealed to us in the Bible. Therefore, there is a need for apologetics to point out to those who are trying to redefine everything that their own worldviews will break down. In my thinking, good apologetics is a form of preaching the Law, where we convict the other of wrong thinking in order that they might then hear the Gospel and come to faith.
[1] Gene Edward Veith, Post Christian : A Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).
[2] Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2022).
[3] Nancy Pearcey, Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2015).
[4] J. Budziszewski, What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011).