January 11, 20206

I have never been a huge fan of boxing but I have seen enough to know that in a fight it’s important to not take damage yourself, further to inflict enough damage on your opponent that they are motivated to stop trying to inflict damage on you. Thus the old saying, that good offence is the best defence. 

While in many sporting contests this adage is held to such is not often the case in discussions of morality, social issues or religious issues. In these discussions defence is often believed to be the best offence and even then, we are sometimes uncomfortable with even the idea of offence. This is because of the risk of offence. 

The term apologetics means defence and so when we engage in Christian apologetics we are making a defence for what we believe as instructed by I Pet 3:15-16. There are other words which describe how we discuss issues beyond apologetics. These are Polemics and Irenics. Polemics is somewhat the opposite of Apologetics it can be described as an attack or refutation of the belief or practice of another. The aim of polemics is to critique an idea showing why it is wrong or inaccurate. Irenics on the other hand is the pursuit of commonality or reconciliation. When you seek common ground with an opponent you are practicing irenics. 

Of these rhetorical efforts Apologetics and Irenics are often viewed most favourably while Polemics is often cast in a more negative light. I would like to ask you to take some time to examine why we view things in this way? If we are missing out on an important aspect of persuasion and argumentation by not valuing polemics more than we do?

In subsequent notes we will define these terms further and seek the wisdom of scripture. I would like to challenge you this week to see if you can think of examples from the bible of people defending the truth (apologetics), seeking common ground (irenics), and attacking untruth (polemics). If you can find example what do they teach us about the value or danger of each approach?

~ Kevin Cleary