Or is it just the same as the old apologetics? Plenty of reflection on this question at the FAIR Conference this year, as reported in a collection of terribly useful summaries at Life on Gold Plates (quotes are from the summaries):
- "Online Apologetics" by Scott Gordon, FAIR President. He suggests that FAIR spun off its message boards because they focused on "controversial discussions" conducted in an "in your face" style. He ends with a quote from Elder Ballard noting that "there is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs. There is no need to become defensive or belligerent. ... We simply need to have a conversation."
- "What is FAIR and what isn't FAIR" by John Lynch notes that "FAIR does not debate" and that "FAIR would hope to bridge relationships even among different opinions."
- And "Humble Apologetics" by Dan Peterson, with similar comments and plenty of quips. My favorite: "The difference between apologists and historians is that the first attack the opponent and the latter want to take them to lunch." So I guess the new approach is that we should strive to be less like apologists and more like historians.
I have to admit that I enjoy some of the snarkier apologetics in their place, but ultimately they can be very counter-productive. In the end, I am hoping for a better approach.
Posted by: BHodges | Aug 30, 2008 at 11:00 AM