4. The Importance of the Audience
4
The Importance of the Audience
Possibilities and Issues
We need to ensure the message of the cross is proclaimed as effectively as possible. This means asking what points of contact there are for the gospel. How can we make sure it scratches where folks itch? To lapse into jargon for a moment, the gospel proclamation must be receptor-oriented; that is, it must be addressed to the opportunities that await it among its audience. Just as the science of apologetics is partly concerned with the theological analysis of the Christian proclamation, so the art of apologetics is concerned with the imaginative and creative application of its respective components to its audiences.
So how might the identity of any audience shape our apologetic approach? After all, surely we are trying to present the same gospel to everyone, yes? Why not use a single presentation of the nature and significance of the gospel? It would make the apologist’s task a lot simpler. Yet a little more reflection makes it clear that we cannot adopt such a simplistic approach. As we shall see, the New Testament itself develops a variety of apologetic arguments and styles of engagement, clearly intended to facilitate connection with each specific envisaged audience.
Consider Paul’s use of the image of adoption as a powerful visual image of redemption. Paul clearly uses this image in his letters in the expectation that his readers will be familiar with it and understand how it illuminates the consequences of Christ’s death and resurrection. Yet the concept of adoption was neither known to, nor permitted by, Jewish law. It was a legal category familiar to people throughout the Greco-Roman world. Unsurprisingly, Paul uses this image in letters written to churches in Rome and other regions in the Greco-Roman world—such as the city of Ephesus and the region of Galatia. No New Testament writer uses this image when writing to a Jewish readership.
Most evangelical apologists rightly base their apologetic strategies on the writings of Paul, especially his letter to the Romans. Yet Paul’s letters are written to Christians—that is, to people who already believe, and who need instruction, encouragement, and guidance. They are not addressed to interested unbelievers or inquirers. It is certainly true that Paul has the interests of such people at heart, and at several points in his letters it is clear he is concerned about the negative impression the behavior of certain Christians may create for such people. For example, 1 Corinthians clearly expresses anxieties about what interested unbelievers will think about the gospel if they judge it on the basis of what was rumored to happen in public worship at Corinth!
The two sections of the New Testament that presuppose their audiences are interested unbelievers are the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. The Gospels record encounters between Jesus and individuals that are clearly of value to us as we work out how to best present the person and work of Jesus Christ to our own culture. But my particular interest in this chapter concerns the Acts of the Apostles, which records a series of addresses and apologetic approaches adopted by Paul and other prominent early Christians, especially Peter. Here, we find material that is explicitly apologetic in nature. In a series of addresses and incidents, we find Paul and others directly engaging with the ideas and concerns of a number of major social groups. As the narrative of Acts (and, indeed, the history of the early church) makes clear, each of these groups came to be represented in the early church, and to play an important role in its outreach.
These early apologetic approaches in Acts offer us important insights into authentically biblical methods of apologetics, as well as suggesting strategies for engaging with specific groups of major importance to the development of the early church. We will explore the broad apologetic strategies developed by Peter and Paul in key speeches in Acts, in which they engage directly with the concerns of three significant groups of people: the Jews, the Greeks, and the Romans. In each case, the concerns and approaches are different—yet the same gospel is defended on each occasion. It is conveyed and affirmed in different manners, resting on reflection about the most appropriate manner of bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to each specific group. Let’s begin by exploring the defense and commendation of the gospel to the Jewish people set out in Peter’s famous Pentecost sermon of Acts 2.
Apologetics to the Jews: Peter’s Pentecost Speech (Acts 2)
Christianity has its origins within Judaism. It is clear that a major issue faced by early Christian writers was the question of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. In what ways did Jesus Christ relate to Israel? To what extent was there continuity and discontinuity between God’s dealings with the Jewish people and the new dispensation inaugurated through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Christians themselves have always been clear that Christianity is continuous with Judaism. The “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” is the same as the “God of Jesus Christ.” Early Christianity emerged within Judaism, and most of the first converts to the movement were Jews. The New Testament frequently mentions Christians preaching in local synagogues. So similar were the two movements that outside observers such as the Roman authorities tended to treat Christianity as a sect within Judaism rather than as a new movement with a distinct identity. So how could the gospel be explained to Jews? It is clear that one central issue concerned the identity of Jesus, particularly his status in relation to the people of Israel.
The major text to be analyzed here is Peter’s famous sermon, preached on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14–40). Luke—who is widely believed to have written both the Gospel known by his name and the book of Acts—is absolutely clear about the identity of the audience to which Peter preached. They were “devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem” (Acts 2:5). The theme dominating this sermon is that the coming of Jesus—or, to be more precise, the entire economy of salvation, including the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and the giving of the Holy Spirit—fulfills Old Testament prophecy. The basic structure of the address is as follows:
Section 1 (2:14–21): Setting the events of the Day of Pentecost in the light of Old Testament prophecy. The remarkable events that unfolded before the eyes of this Jewish audience can only be understood in the light of God’s promises to his people in the Old Testament—promises that have now been fulfilled.
Section 2 (2:22–28): The affirmation of the exaltation of Jesus of Nazareth in the light of Old Testament expectations. Once more, the continuity between the Old Testament and the coming of Jesus is demonstrated. The consistent appeal to prophecy, which would have been devoid of significance to a Gentile audience, would have been of the greatest importance to pious Jews.
Section 3 (2:29–36): The affirmation of the exaltation of Jesus of Nazareth, along with the theological interpretation of this: “This Jesus whom you crucified” has been made “both Lord and Messiah.”
Section 4 (2:37–40): A call to repentance in order to benefit from the salvation that results.
The first point to note is the way in which Peter’s apologetic is directly related to themes that were important and comprehensible to a Jewish audience. The expectation of the coming of the Messiah was (and still remains!) significant for Judaism. Peter here makes three very significant apologetic moves. First, he demonstrates that Jesus meets the specific expectations of Israel. Second, he appeals to specific authorities (here, prophetic passages in the Old Testament) that carry weight with his audience. And third, he uses language and terminology readily accepted and understood by his audience. Note in particular his specific reference to Jesus as “Lord and Messiah.” No explanation of these two technical terms is offered, or necessary. Both ideas were familiar to his audience, and both mattered to his audience. What was new about Peter’s message was his emphatic insistence that the resurrection of Christ was the basis of recognizing him as both Lord and Messiah.
The importance of interpretation in apologetics needs to be highlighted here. Peter does not merely assert the historical actuality of the death and resurrection of Jesus; he offers a specific interpretation of them. An appeal to history is a vital and distinct function in the armory of the Christian apologist. It reassures insiders of the reliability of the Gospel accounts of the great historical events upon which faith rests.
But what of outsiders? What role does an appeal to historical evidence have to someone outside the faith? Will it enable them to come to faith? An appeal to the evidence of history unquestionably has an important role to play here. It minimizes a significant obstacle to faith—the criticism, often made by atheist writers, that the New Testament is “made up,” lacking any real historical roots. It poses a powerful challenge to those who argue, usually on rather flimsy grounds, that Christianity is just some kind of wish-fulfillment, by stressing the historical events that brought Christianity into being. Christian faith arose in part as a response to the history of Jesus of Nazareth.
Yet historical apologetics is vulnerable. It details events; the gospel concerns an interpretation of events. Historical apologetics asks, “Did this really happen?” Yet the big questions of life concern the meaning of events, not just the events themselves. Indeed, it is fair to suggest it is their perceived significance that gives historical duration to events.
It’s an important point, and needs to be considered further. To help us appreciate the issues, consider a critical moment in the career of the famous Roman soldier and statesman Julius Caesar. In 49 BC, Caesar led an army south from Gaul (modern-day France) into Italy. At one point, they had to cross a river—the Rubicon. Contemporary reports suggest it was not a particularly wide or deep river. Crossing it posed no particular physical difficulties. The act of crossing the Rubicon, in itself, was thus of no real historical significance.
Yet the Rubicon was a political marker, defining the northern frontier of the territory governed directly by the Roman senate. Crossing this international boundary line without permission and with an army, therefore, amounted to a declaration of war by Caesar against Rome. The crossing of the Rubicon is important because it marked the beginning of one of the most famous civil wars in history. Yet only an observer familiar with the situation at the time would realize the full implications of what Caesar had done; an untrained observer would simply have noticed an army crossing a rather unimportant river. People cross rivers every day of the week. There is nothing special about even armies crossing a river—such maneuvers are, after all, the staple diet of military training. But the crossing of this specific river, at this specific time in history, represented a declaration of war.
We need therefore to establish not just what happened, but how the event should be interpreted. We must ascertain the context that gives the event its meaning. The principle is the same whether we are dealing with Caesar crossing the Rubicon or Jesus of Nazareth dying on the cross and rising again from the dead. The historical significance of the event needs to be settled. It is this process that can be seen at work in the New Testament, especially the writings of Paul. It is at this point that purely historical apologetics, dedicated to establishing what happened, begins to falter. Events need to be supplemented with interpretation. As Paul put it in his letter to the Romans, Christ “was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). Note how Paul seamlessly merges historical affirmation (Christ was handed over to death and was raised from the dead) with theological interpretation (these things happened to bring about our forgiveness and justification).
So what is the significance of Peter’s sermon for us today? It reminds us of the compelling case that can be made for Jesus representing the culmination of God’s dealings with his chosen people. As Peter insists, the resurrection of Jesus is the culmination of the many clues leading to the conclusion that he is “Lord and Messiah.” Good apologetics is not just about the affirmation of historical facts. We are not out to prove simply that Jesus died on a cross and rose again. We want to convey the significance of those facts for a fallen and lost world.
Nor is good apologetics merely about the affirmation of spiritual insights—for example, the ability of the Christian faith to meet the deepest needs of humanity. These insights are given in and through historical events. Once these events are rightly understood, their deep spiritual meaning can be grasped. The event and its meaning are thus given together, and need to be proclaimed together. Peter’s Pentecost sermon gives us some vital clues about how best to do this.
Apologetics to the Greeks: Paul’s Athens Sermon (Acts 17)
One of the most important audiences envisaged by New Testament writers for proclamation of the gospel is “the Greeks.” In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, “Greeks” are set alongside “Jews” as a defining group of considerable importance (1 Cor. 1:22). It is quite clear that sections of the Acts of the Apostles show at least some degree of familiarity and affinity with Hellenistic rhetoric, as well as the beliefs and practices of the classical period.
One of the most important early engagements between Christianity and these classic philosophical beliefs is found in Paul’s address in the Greek city of Athens, the site of the Platonic Academy. Although Athens had been a major political and cultural center in the classical period under Pericles, it had entered into a period of decline by the time of Paul’s visit. Athens had become little more than a provincial city within the Roman empire, having lost much of its former glory and importance. Greece suffered a serious setback when it was unwise enough to back the losing side in the Roman civil war. Nevertheless, Athens retained iconic significance, even if the reality no longer quite matched up to the image it sought to project. If Christianity was to take root in this city, it would have to engage the city’s formidable philosophical heritage. Paul stepped up to the plate, and rose to this challenge.
According to Luke, Paul opens his address to the Athenians with a gradual introduction of the theme of the living God, allowing the religious and philosophical curiosity of the Athenians to shape the contours of his theological exposition. He makes an appeal to a “sense of divinity” present in each individual as a point of contact for the Christian faith. By doing this, Paul connects with existing Greek theistic assumptions, while at the same time demonstrating how the Christian gospel goes beyond them. Paul shows a clear appreciation of the apologetic potential of Stoic philosophy, portraying the gospel as resonating with central Stoic concerns, while extending the limits of what might be known. What the Greeks held to be unknown, possibly unknowable, Paul proclaims to have been made known through the resurrection of Christ. Paul is able to relate with the experiential and cognitive world of his audience—without compromising the integrity of the Christian faith.
So what authorities does Paul use to connect with his Athenian audience? It is important to appreciate here that the Athenians knew nothing of the Old Testament. Whereas Peter’s Pentecost sermon is addressed to a Jewish audience deeply steeped in a knowledge of the Old Testament, Paul’s Athens sermon engages people from a very different cultural context. Paul finds himself in a situation in which he must proclaim the gospel without being able to make connections with the history and hopes of Israel. So how does he do this?
Where Peter appeals to the “book of Scripture,” Paul turns instead to the “book of nature.” It is an idea with roots deeply embedded in Scripture: “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1). Paul believed passionately in the theological truth and apologetic importance of this insight (see especially Rom. 1–2). An appeal to God as creator thus becomes a channel for introducing the theme of redemption in Christ.
Paul is clearly aware of the distinct identity and characteristics of his audience, and uses local beliefs and landmarks as anchors for his apologetic presentation. Since his audience does not know the Old Testament, Paul draws upon literary authorities with which they are familiar—in this case, the Athenian poet Aratus, widely regarded as one of the great cultural icons of his day. Aratus dates from the late fourth and early third centuries before Christ, and it is thought that his place of birth was Soli in Paul’s own province of Cilicia. Aratus studied Stoic philosophy in Athens at the school founded by Zeno. Little remains of his literary output today. Yet it is clear why Paul chose to cite from him in this way:
[God] is not far from each one of us. For “In him we live and move and have our being”; as even some of your own poets have said, “For we too are his offspring.” (Acts 17:27–28)
Paul here quotes a half-line from Aratus to reinforce—not to establish—his own point about God being close to hand.
A second local landmark also plays a key role in Paul’s approach—the inscription on an altar that reads “To an unknown god” (Acts 17:23). The literature of the age, such as the writings of Diogenes Laertius, refer to such “anonymous altars” around this time. Paul here argues that a god of whom the Greeks had some implicit or intuitive awareness is now being made known to them by name and in full in the gospel. The God who is known indirectly through the created order can be known fully through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Paul’s apologetic address at Athens offers important insights about how to adapt the proclamation of the gospel to a local audience. Peter’s approach to a Jewish audience in Jerusalem would not have connected with Paul’s audience in Athens, any more than Paul’s approach in Athens would have resonated well with Peter’s audience in Jerusalem. Paul adapts his rhetoric to the local situation, citing a local authority (the poet Aratus), exploiting the apologetic potential of a local landmark (an anonymous altar), and developing a line of thought that chimed in with some Athenian ideas about the presence of the divine in the natural order. It’s an approach that can easily be adopted and adapted today.
Apologetics to the Romans: Paul’s Legal Speeches (Acts 24–26)
The third audience early Christianity encountered was the Romans. At that time, Rome was the imperial force dominating the Mediterranean world. It is clear that the imperial Roman authorities regarded the emergence of Christianity with suspicion. One reason for this was its potential to create trouble in a socially volatile region of the empire. Yet there was another, perhaps more significant reason for this anxiety about Christianity—the so-called imperial cult.
The imperial cult was a form of civil religion based on a highly elevated view of the Roman emperor. It emerged during the Augustan age, and appears to have become especially significant in the decades immediately preceding the birth of Christ. By AD 50—when Christianity was becoming a significant presence in the eastern regions of the Roman empire—the imperial cult had become firmly established as a routine aspect of Roman colonial life, especially in the eastern Mediterranean colonies. Worship of the Roman emperor was seen as an important means of ensuring social cohesion and stability throughout the empire. A refusal to take part in the imperial cult was seen as tantamount to political subversion or rebellion. Christians were vulnerable to charges of sedition if they refused to conform to these imperial cults.
Paul was accused of precisely such sedition at one point in his career. Charges were brought against him by the professional orator Tertullus (Acts 24:1–8). According to Tertullus, Paul was “an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarene” (Acts 24:5). This was a serious charge, amounting to an accusation of political subversion and insurrection against the imperial Roman authorities. Paul needed to respond to these charges effectively and persuasively. The Greek word apologia—from which we get our term “apologetics”—often bears the sense of “a legal defense.” This is precisely what we find Paul offering.
The most important speeches in Acts dealing with Christianity in the eyes of the Roman authorities are found in Acts 24–26. Recent studies have stressed the way in which these speeches conform to patterns that were well known in the legal proceedings of the period. More than 250 papyri of official court proceedings in the early Roman empire exist, and they offer important insights into the way forensic proceedings were conducted and the manner in which they were recorded. In general terms, forensic speeches—whether offered by the prosecution or defense—tended to consist of four or five standard components. In the case of a speech for the defense, this would include a refutation of the specific charges brought against the accused.
The importance of this point can be seen by examining Paul’s defense speech in Acts 24:10–21, in which he responds to the charges brought against him by Tertullus. It is important to note the way in which Paul follows—in the view of many scholars, with great skill—the “rules of engagement” laid down by Roman legal custom as he subjects Tertullus’s accusations to a point-by-point refutation. In particular, Paul stresses the continuity between his own beliefs and those of the Jews who had accused him, particularly in regard to the Scriptures and the resurrection. But most significant is his appeal to Roman rules of evidence, which he deploys skillfully to outmaneuver his opponents.
Our concern in this discussion is not so much understanding what is happening in this important historical confrontation, but identifying its relevance to our apologetic situation today. The fine points of Roman legal arguments are not our concern here. The point is that Paul knew how Roman courts assessed evidence and was able to work with the grain of the system. Two points emerge with particular clarity.
First, it is important to note how Paul makes highly effective use of the “rules of engagement” of the Roman legal system. He grasps the importance of certain arguments in the eyes of those who would make the critical decisions concerning his future. And knowing what really matters, he is able to deliver the most effective defense of himself as a believer and of the Christian gospel. This point remains important today. We have to defend the gospel against its many critics. Yet we cannot simply treat all those who dislike or reject Christianity as being one homogeneous group. The reasons for rejecting Christianity vary, as do the reasons for accepting it. What may seem to be a highly persuasive argument for Christianity to one group of people may be an equally effective argument against it for another! We need to know the arguments that will carry weight with our audience.
Second, it is quite clear that both Paul and the Christian gospel were being misrepresented by his accusers and their legal representatives. Paul’s general apologetic strategy is to set out clearly what he believes. A rejection of Christianity—whether this takes the form of a deliberate decision to have nothing to do with it or an unconscious sense of hostility toward it—depends on a prior understanding of what Christianity actually is. There is every possibility that a caricature or distortion has been rejected and the real thing has never been encountered or understood. For Paul, one of the best defenses of the Christian faith is its explanation.
Apologetics and Audiences: General Principles
As we have seen, it is very important to understand the different audiences we engage. Each has its own distinct identity, reflected in the particular concerns or difficulties it may experience concerning the Christian faith and the gateways that may be used to connect with it.
Three general principles emerge from our reflections on the apologetic addresses of the Acts of the Apostles. It may be helpful to summarize these points, and consider how we can make use of them today:
Apologetics and Audiences: Specific Issues
So how do we develop these points today? Their historical importance and biblical warrant is obvious. But how can we incorporate these ideas into our apologetic conversations, addresses, and writings? It is at this point the importance of apologetics as an art becomes obvious. The wise application of these principles demands imagination and flair as much as a good understanding of the situation.
The real issue concerns identifying the gateway that works best for our audiences. For some, that gateway will be evidence-based reasoning. Apologists have long recognized the importance of demonstrating the reasonableness of faith, and this remains an important task for contemporary apologetics. Other audiences, however, will use different criteria. Some will not see the question of the truth of the gospel as being of primary importance. For them, the question is whether it works. When engaging a pragmatic audience, the apologist will need to emphasize the difference the Christian faith makes in life. Other audiences will see morality as a key issue: Will the gospel help me work out what the good life looks like, and help me live it?
It is interesting to note that C. S. Lewis develops three quite different apologetic strategies in his writings, each of which relates to a distinct audience. In Mere Christianity (1952) and Miracles (1947), we find Lewis developing the case for the Christian faith based on an appeal to reason. The dominant apologetic theme in The Pilgrim’s Regress (1933) and Surprised by Joy (1955) is that the Christian faith is the fulfillment of human longing. In the celebrated Narnia novels (1950–56), Lewis appeals to the imagination as the gateway to the human soul.
There is no inconsistency here; Lewis is simply identifying different elements of the Christian faith and deploying them apologetically—the approach we outlined in the previous chapter. Lewis rightly appreciated that each of these approaches would connect with different groups of people, and each needed a slightly different style of writing to enable these points to be communicated.
Moving On
In this chapter, we have considered the importance of the audience in shaping and informing apologetic approaches. In concluding, we noted how there are many gateways to faith—such as through beauty, imagination, or a longing for justice. We shall consider many of these approaches in a later chapter. Our attention first turns to one of the great themes of classical apologetics, which remains as important today as ever—namely, the claim that Christianity makes sense of things.
For Further Reading
Clark, David K. Dialogical Apologetics: A Person-Centered Approach to Christian Defense. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
Heim, S. Mark. The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Placher, William C. Unapologetic Theology: A Christian Voice in a Pluralistic Conversation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1989.
Stackhouse, John G. Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.