February 8, 2026

Assumptions have been the bane of human existence since the first time Adam built a shelter and miscalculated how much wind and rain would really be a problem. Mankind’s unique ability to observe and make predictions is a power which has been a key reason for our ongoing success. With that special ability comes a downside. Sometimes our observations are unable to account for all the relevant data. A native tribe predicts the movement of a herd only to discover that a new food source or flooded river has redirected them away from where they should have been. The bear that ran away the last five times has cubs this time and so attacks. The ability to account for variable and predict outcomes is wonderful but to predict perfectly we need to be able to account for all of the influences. This requires exhaustive knowledge and an exhaustive capacity to process that knowledge. These things are not available to mankind only to God. Man in his finitude is required to simplify variables and make a few unproven assumptions. Even with these flaws in the system some things can be reasonably well predicted. Sunrise times can be known within seconds; the patterns of earths movement make similar predictions possible in regard to the view of the sky at various times through the year. The ancient Egyptians famously gained great benefit from the regular flooding of the Nile. This success is a testament to the wisdom of God’s design. We are right to work hard to learn about the nature of reality and engage in behaviours that take the best advantage of the knowledge we gain.

There are a couple of downsides to this phenomenon. First as noted above sometimes we become overconfident and believe that our knowledge is greater than in fact it is. This leads to overconfidence and often to serious downfalls. We might think of the great depression or more recently the sub-prime mortgage fall. The titanic was believed to be beyond the ability of natural phenomenon to sink. Weather is a great contemporary example, meteorologists have become very good at looking at the Jet-stream, ocean currents, pressure systems and other variable to predict weather accurately within a few days. This is a considerable achievement however when attempts are made to go beyond days into weeks there are simply too many variables to account for and we are unable to predict weather with accuracy. A similar situation occurs in financial markets. Limited conditions can predict outcomes over short periods however planned economies famously fail to account for human behaviour and desire and lead to serious and life-threatening shortages while simultaneously huge wasteful surpluses in unneeded commodities. 

Human pride has led to many troubling situations. None greater than man’s belief that he is good enough smart enough disciplined enough to achieve all that he needs. There is only one hope for us in the world and that is Jesus. 

~ Kevin Cleary

 

February 1, 2026

Last time we looked at examples of Polemics in scripture. We learn that at the very least there is a time and place to go on the attack and expose an idea as simply bad. This is more important than we may think. It’s important because it’s honest. When we engage in discussions of Christian truth, we are not neutral. We specifically want a certain outcome. Just as Jesus didn’t pretend to be open minded to the false teaching and moral failings of the Pharisees and Sadducees, we are not required to pretend we have no vested interest in what someone concludes. In fact, doing so may come off as somewhat dishonest and make us look devious. Related to this we also don’t want to be neutral toward truly bad and harmful ideas. It’s not always enough to say that’s an idea I suggest this is a better one. Rather sometimes it important to say that is a terrible and wrong idea and this is why. 

The examples we have considered also point out that circumstances matter. Jesus doesn’t use a polemic approach against sincere seekers or even honest doubters. Paul doesn’t attack the deceived in the same way that he does the deceiver. This reveals an important truth. There are times when lies must be exposed so that the larger audience can see them for what they are. There are also times when care must be taken to help people slowly work toward a conclusion. Maturity is knowing which is which. 

Personality also matters in these discussions. Some people will be deeply wedded to their conclusions and may only consider abandoning them when shown just how bad they truly are. On the other hand, some people will be capable of doing the math on their own and just by being shown a better way can start to see the weaknesses in their view of something. In other words, some people do need to hear “hey that’s a really dumb idea.” As Christians we are called to do our best to approach people in a way that is most effective for them (Col 4:5). 

As we consider each of these important rhetorical tools, we find that as with most things it’s important to use the best tool for the job. Sometimes that may be Apologetics sometimes it may be Irenics, other times polemics may be important. Often these are best used in co-ordination with one another. We must keep in mind the warnings discussed in these articles so that in doing so we don’t compromise the very truth we are seeking to advance. In all of this we must aways keep in mind that our goal is not to win an argument, demonstrate our intelligence, persuasion ability, or show how foolish someone else is. Rather our goal is always to glorify Christ and point people to Him. With that goal in mind we can and should work hard to demolish arguments and every high minded thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to obey Christ. 

~ Kevin Cleary

January 25, 2026

Apologetics and Irenics then seem to have good Biblical support with the understanding that immorality is not on the table as a viable option for Christian debate. Polemics is slightly more controversial. There are several reasons for this which we will outline and then address. The first reason polemics may be problematic is that it has a reputation for being contest driven. That is, polemicists are not interested in seeking truth but rather winning an argument by any means necessary. This Machiavellian approach is clearly not consistent with Christian morality as Christian’s are called to speak the truth in love. Second polemics is closely associated with character attacks on the opponent. We call this an ad homonym argument, and it is a well-known fallacy. We can however understand how this fits with wining an argument at any cost. Finally, polemics are typically associated with a highly aggressive approach. This is problematic for a few reasons. First biblically we are commanded that when defending faith or answering an opponent we must do so with gentleness and respect, with a view toward their conversion 1 Pet 3:16 and 2 Tim 2:25-26. Second an aggressive approach is likely not only to put off your opponent but also make you appear mean or hurtful thus pushing anyone who hears your attack to defend the position you mean to diminish. 

Given all of this it’s easy to see why polemics is not always popular in debate or discussion in general and especially in discussions of religious truth. That said there are some passages and principles which we may want to consider before we dismiss a polemical approach completely. 

First of all there are times and places in scripture where inspired authors and even Jesus himself seem to not just share the truth but to specifically attack a wrong idea and sometimes even those who hold it. Probably the most famous is the book of 2 Corinthians in which Paul specifically takes aim in chapters ten through twelve at certain opponents of his and God’s in Corinth. Another similar example is found in Galatians where again Paul specifically goes on the attack against those who are insisting that to be a Christian one must observe Jewish practices like circumcision. In chapter five verse twelve Paul expresses his wish that these false teachers would emasculate themselves. These are not that only places. The book of Jude comes to mind as does Elijah and the prophets of Baal along with a few other examples from the Prophets. Many readers are probably already thinking of Jesus as well who in Mathew 23 calls the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, whitewashed tombs and even sons of hell. Similarly, He responds to the Sadducees saying they know neither the scriptures nor the power of God in Matthew twenty-two verse twenty-nine. What can we take from these clear examples of polemics? We will consider this next time.

~ Kevin Cleary

January 18, 2026

Irenics as we mentioned last week is about finding common ground or even reconciliation. 

The first and most important question at least for a Christian is not just about effectiveness but also about morality. We want to ask what does the Bible say about a topic and how we should apply it. Many have pointed to 1Pet 3:15-16 as justification for apologetics and rightly so. Just because apologetics has a more positive reputation in religious and philosophical discussion that does not mean that people will appreciate your efforts to defend Christian faith, or any belief that they don’t agree with for that matter. I won’t say too much about that, I would like to move on to ask; Is there similar scriptural mandate for irenics and polemics? First lets consider Irenics:

I would suggest that the Bible contains both warnings and encouragement about seeking common ground. We are warned for example to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness” Eph 5:11. What about Paul warning the Corinthians not to be “unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness. Or what fellowship has light with darkness.” We would take these verses to indicate that there are some things we can’t be part of or endorse. We should then exercise care in our efforts at irenics that we don’t find ourselves compromising our faith. 

On the other hand, Paul in Athens sees an alter to “the unknown God” and uses this as a point of commonality. He is careful not to accept the premise that there are many Gods and that he is just going to tell them about another one. Rather he makes the point that the God they worshiped in ignorance is in fact the only one that actually exists. The account then becomes a good example for us to consider as it does serve as a positive example of irenics but done in a way that is righteous and honourable. A similar example can be found in Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 9:22; I have become all things to all people that by all means I might save some.” This sounds very much like an endorsement of irenics, so long as it is done with the understanding that some compromises can’t be made which Paul alludes to in the previous verse.

Irenics then can serve as a helpful tool when discussing or disagreeing about ideas. Often common ground allows us to have a starting point for the discussion. Looking for common ground may also settle some disagreements completely as we learn we didn’t disagree at all. On the other hand we must be sure that we are always honest and that we never compromise or give a false impression. 

With these things in mind we can go on to consider the most controversial of these approaches next week Polemics.

~ Kevin Cleary

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