Have you ever had an apologetic interaction that went awry? I often reflect on an interaction I had with a coworker and friend, and it pains me to remember how I completely botched the welcome discussion because I couldn’t read the situation correctly.
I often look for opportunities to engage while at work apologetically. Although I dream of being in full-time ministry, my place in the workforce brings several people into regular proximity with me who would not be there otherwise. I use that proximity to open the floor to interactions, planting seeds often in hope that the Lord will provide the increase in His time. ( 1 Cor. 3:6-9) One such interaction is where my failure took place.
At work one evening, a coworker and I were engaged in a biblical discussion about the necessity of keeping the Mosaic Law. He comes from a tradition that affirms the truth of the Old Testament but not so much that of the New Testament. For the sake of anonymity, we’ll call this first friend Mike. It isn’t uncommon for Mike and I to have these discussions, as he is very openly religious and enjoys heated discussions regarding biblical truth. What is unusual is that my other coworker, Tommy, joins in on these conversations.
I had a very friendly relationship with Tommy and have attempted to have conversations regarding Jesus with him on numerous occasions prior. He was usually adverse to any serious interaction, preferring to joke about his religious past and his current atheism instead. He and I would often joke with one another, giving each other a gentle rib in a way reminiscent of siblings.
The evening in question, Tommy joined the discussion between Mike and I, and attempted to steer the conversation toward eternal judgment and his absolute loathing of the doctrine. It was here, still focused on clarifying my point from the previous discussion, that I did irreparable damage. I gave Tommy a textbook answer regarding the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment, and asked a quick clarifying question. He stated that I was dodging his question, and I responded with an insensitive quip. It was not intense or disrespectful on its face, but it was clearly enough to embarrass Tommy. He immediately clammed up and changed the subject.
I emphasize that the joke wasn’t harsh; it was just immensely poorly timed. I had never received such a welcome invitation to engage with Tommy in that manner, and when he felt most vulnerable to enter that discussion, instead of responding with affirmation and concern, I offered sarcasm; thereby closing the door. A door that has not opened since. I learned an invaluable lesson that day that has influenced my apologetics ever since.
The tone is just as important as the content.
So often in our preparation for apologetics, or in the heat of the moment, we can forget one of the cardinal rules of communication —a lesson that many of us may recall from childhood.
“It’s not what you say, but how you say it.”
In his letter to the Colossians, Paul offers the same advice; he states,
“Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time.Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” (Colossians 4:5–6, ESV)
Here, the Apostle Paul encourages the church to be wise in their “walk” toward outsiders, to be “gracious,” and to “season” their words; in other words, to make them as palatable as possible. If you’ve ever tasted a bland dish —no seasoning —it’s terrible. One can barely stomach it. The same dish, with just the right amount of seasoning and a dash of herbs, is absolutely transformational. Something barely palatable becomes a gourmet experience. So it is with our message. I wish I had considered the truth of this scripture in my conversation with Tommy.
Colossians is not the only place that addresses the delivery of the apologetic message. Another familiar passage will bolster this truth.
“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15, ESV)
This text should be familiar to all apologists, and, as true to its foundational nature, it offers much insight into our method. We are to “always be ready to provide a defense,” and this is what the apologist loves to hear. We are always so eager to defend that we often stop reading there. If we continue, we’ll see how to do this. Peter continues by stating that we are to offer that defense with “gentleness and respect.”
Takeaways
- Be mindful of your tone.
As apologists, we are often so focused on correcting falsehood that we forget to ensure that we are being charitable in our interactions. One primary focus for this should be on verbal aspects of your communication, like tone and word usage, but it doesn’t stop there.
We should be mindful of how we are communicating overall. So much can be communicated nonverbally that this should also be a focus. Behaviors such as eye contact and showing other signs of active listening can go a long way in establishing a charitable tone.
2. Interpret the situation
As I stated previously, my response was not outside of the realm of what was acceptable for my relationship with Tommy. We would often joke with one another sarcastically. Unfortunately, I misread the situation. Although sarcasm was typical for us, this conversation was not the time for it. Tommy was being incredibly vulnerable with me by even having the conversation, and again, instead of using my tone and communication to affirm that he was safe, I criticized. Be mindful of how vulnerable it may be for someone to share their worldview with you and allow you to offer your perspective on it. It is not a situation that should be taken lightly.