The History of Apologetics
Edited by Benjamin K. Forrest, Joshua D. Chatraw, and Alister E. McGrath
A History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020.
Available at Koorong and Amazon
By Laura Joy Paul
In the eyes of many, the task of Christian apologetics has fallen on hard times. In the last few years, we have witnessed a nauseating slew of devastating revelations about prominent Christian leaders: Mark Driscoll, Brian Houston, Ravi Zacharias, Josh Harris, and dozens of lesser-known figures. There are days when, if the witness of our social media feeds were the full and final story, it would appear that almost all the public faces of the church are either deconstructing and deconverting, or in need of desperate disciplinary action. In light of this, it is little wonder that one’s confidence in the essential task of promoting the gospel can feel less than vibrant. What is one to do on those days when all apologetic wind has been knocked from their sails?
One worthy medicine would be to take up a copy of Forrest, Chatraw, and McGrath’s masterful A History of Apologetics. Here the battered and bruised apologist is confronted with the life and legacy of forty-four defenders of the faith from the earliest days of the church to the current moment. From Justin Martyr to John Henry Newman to John of Damascus to Dorothy L. Sayers and everyone in between, this volume introduces a great company of those who have faithfully clarified and commended the Christian faith in their unique contexts.
Each chapter tracks the following paradigm: beginning with a short biography of the apologist that sets the contextual and theological backdrop to their life and work, it goes on to track the apologist’s response to this context and consider their unique method of explaining the Christian message. Each chapter concludes by considering the impact and contribution of each figure to the work of apologetics at large. The result is a thoroughly instructive, informative, engaging, and encouraging survey of the great cloud of witnesses who have gone before.
Two features are especially worthy of commendation. Firstly, the editors have thoughtfully selected a truly catholic collection— Anglicans (both high and low), Catholics, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and more. It is true that the collection focuses primarily on the West, however, the inclusion of several prominent early Eastern figures and the medieval engagement with Islam round this out somewhat. Secondly, the section of the book I found most compelling was the thick interaction with the literary and imaginative apologists (Sayers, Chesterton, Lewis). The respective contributors do thorough justice to this essential yet often overlooked approach to defending the faith. Â
This volume will serve several audiences. Beneficial for seminary students, pastors, and Christian leaders, it would also, I think, be especially suited to doubters— both doubters of faith and doubters of doubt, those who wonder if their faith can really stand against intensive intellectual scrutiny, and those who can’t shake off the question of whether there might not just be more to reality than secularism and subjectivism will allow.  All in all, this is a masterful, instructive, and deeply encouraging work worthy of thorough attention.
Probably: and in a history of apologetics, is that a good idea? Seems to me that honest history looks at the charlatan too; and without minimizing these failures admits that Zacharias (and others who were seriously morally compromised) brought people to Christ by the thousands. What’s up with that? And how does that fit with the grand sweep of what God is up to? Don’t have an answer, but 2nd editions with an entire chapter redacted seem disingenuous.
I'm puzzled by the inclusion of Zacharias in this textbook. While I realize the article was written just before Zacharias's death and subsequent revelations, there certainly were red flags long before that: false credentials, NDA and payoff etc. Even if that's just 'hindsight is 20-20', it seems it would have been wise to at least include a footnote or publisher's comment in the introduction before distribution. The Zacharias article leaves a bad aftertaste that, in some ways, makes me a bit cynical about all the other modern apologists who certainly are not treated with the same clear-eyed balanced view as, for instance, a Dorothy L. Sayers.