A New Kind of Apologist: *Adopting Fresh Strategies *Addressing the Latest Issues *Engaging the Culture

by Sean McDowell (General Editor), Holly Ordway (Contributor)

A New Kind of Apologist, edited by Sean McDowell, discusses important topics often ignored by apologists, emphasizes a new kind of apologetics that is relational, gracious, and holistic. It includes interviews with seasoned apologists as well as with skeptics, providing insights into how to do apologetics effectively in today's culture.

Genres: Christian, Religion, Faith, Nonfiction

333 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 1, 2016

About the author

Dr. Sean McDowell is a gifted communicator with a passion for equipping the church, and in particular young people, to make the case for the Christian faith. He connects with audiences in a tangible way through humor and stories while imparting hard evidence and logical support for viewing all areas of life through a Biblical worldview. Sean is an Assistant Professor in the Christian Apologetics program at Biola University.

Sean still teaches one high school Bible class, which helps give him exceptional insight into the prevailing culture so he can impart his observations poignantly to fellow educators, pastors, and parents alike.

Read more about Sean on his website.
Connect with Sean on Facebook.

Reviews

[Kathy Baldock · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to be encouraged by the chapters on gay and transgender issues in Sean McDowell’s A New Kind of Apologist (Harvest House, 2016) in which McDowell acted in the role as editor over 27 authors with “a new approach to apologetics.” (Apologetics is reasoned arguments used to establish and defend the Christian faith.)

I have personally met and spoken with McDowell and two of the contributors to his book whose chapters I will be discussing here: Alan Shlemon, author of the “Transgender: Truth and Compassion” chapter, and Glenn Stanton, author of the “Being Authentically Christian on the LGBT Issue” chapter.

I had hoped each of these three men would indeed reject the myth-filled rhetoric on LGBT issues inside the evangelical bubble and instead address their respective topics well, as McDowell tells the readers the “new apologist” must. Along with being humble, relational, and living out their advice to readers, McDowell informs us, the new apologist must also be “studious.”

“Studious” as defined by McDowell:

“Apologists today must do their homework. We must critically examine our arguments and read both sides of every issue. We must know what we are talking about and do proper research to backup our claims.

This younger generation has been raised with endless information in the palm of their hands, and they frequently check the veracity of what they hear. If we make a claim that is not true, our credibility will go out the window. Apologists today must do the hard work of learning a discipline and presenting the truth fairly and accurately."

Well, that sounds quite encouraging, doesn’t it? But I do not think fact-checking is a “younger generation” thing. I am about to turn 60 and began seeking answers for myself when I entered into a friendship with a fellow hiker who is a lesbian.

I regularly bemoan the fact that many conservative Christians lack a wide range of expert input in their commentaries on human sexuality or gender identity, and I am dismayed at how often they fail to make good use of academic sources when doing their research to construct theological stances on the intersection of faith with these topics.

Having met McDowell, Shlemon, and Stanton, I trusted their writings might indeed lean generously toward the “truth and compassion” (to borrow Shlemon’s phrase) that so many of their contemporary current evangelicals are coming to understand is necessary in engaging in LGBT issues.

I was encouraged to read McDowell say that “truth,” especially for the new apologist, seeks to find a balance of both an accurate translation of Scripture and well-researched science and academics.

Sadly, that is not what I found.

Alan Shlemon’s Chapter on Transgender Issues

First, I met Alan Shlemon when he and McDowell attended the 2014 conference hosted by The Reformation Project (TRP) in DC. I applaud McDowell and Shlemon for coming to the conference. I know how potentially uncomfortable it might be to go amongst the “other side.” I had attended the 2014 conference hosted by the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberties Commission (ERLC). Just as was the case for McDowell and Shlemon, I was likewise welcomed at ERLC. On the opening night of TRP, McDowell, Shlemon, and I shared a long, delightful conversation, and for the two follow-up days, I was the facilitator for a group of about 30 people, including Shlemon.

I had hoped attending TRP could become be a catalyst for Shlemon’s information on, relationships with, and compassion and empathy toward LGBT Christians. But none of this is reflected in his chapter.

Unfortunately, "Transgender: Truth and Compassion" is appalling and will only add to the misinformation about transgender people, including transgender Christians, increasing their pain and furthering rejection of them by some of their Christian communities, which will only make the disconnect between them and the wider Christian community stronger.

When I first read the chapter, I challenged Shlemon on Twitter about his dishonest tackling of this topic by using only two academic studies: one discussing male birth defects, and the other a study on sex reassignment from 1977 (published in 1979). I also challenged Shlemon for quoting the work of a highly disregarded doctor in the sex reassignment field while ignoring the testimony of transgender Christians themselves. Shlemon called on me to “retract the charge” of dishonesty.

However, I have no intention of letting Shlemon’s sloppy work stand uncontested; therefore, I will detail some of the more egregious errors in his chapter.

“Transgender: Truth and Compassion” opens with a challenge to the reader: If a transman (born a biological female and transitioned to a man) were to introduce himself with a male-gendered name, should the reader call him by his male-gendered name?

Let’s get this clear from the onset: Gender identity is what a person self-identifies as, not what others choose to call that person, or how others see that person.

If the “new apologist” is indeed one who is relational, he/she should know it is the height of disrespectful treatment toward transgender people to call them by a name or gender they do not identify as.

When I changed my name from Kathy Verbiest to Kathy Baldock, no one argued or insisted they had only known me as Verbiest for almost three decades, and therefore it was uncomfortable for them to use my new name. My name change was my choice, and without exception, people respected my desire. Calling transgender people by their chosen name is a sign of respect, and relationally, it is a smart move.

Shlemon continues by attempting to build a case that gender should be fixed to biological sex. In an attempt to shine light on what he thinks is the absurdity of gender not matching anatomy, Shlemon mockingly quotes Simone de Beauvoir, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” This citation deceptively suggests it was said in 2011.

Some background concerning de Beauvoir. She was an mid-1900s existential feminist, meaning she was concerned about the power of a woman to be able to determine her own destiny. The quote Shlemon cited is from a book (The Second Sex), written in 1949, almost a decade before the term “gender” as we now know it was ever used. De Beauvoir’s statement bemoans the fact that the destiny of women in society was predetermined by the dominant patriarchal structure and under social expectations. She did not like this outcome. She was writing about gender roles, not gender identity, a concept that was still about 50 years out on the horizon.

Shlemon certainly used the quote out of context and misused it.

One of the few stories Shlemon relates in his chapter is the well-publicized case of a Planet Fitness gym customer encountering a masculine-looking transwoman in the locker room. Planet Fitness corporate had a policy in place of allowing members to use the locker room associated with their gender identity. When a member encountered a masculine-looking transwoman, a complaint was filed. The complaining member subsequently had her membership revoked. She sued.

Incidentally, the suit brought by Yvette Cormier, the woman whose membership was revoked, has since been dismissed. The judge in the case found the gym’s policy on transgender members allowable, and further noted Cormier’s behavior in her aggressive warning of other members. The court also dismissed Cormier’s request for emotional damages of $25,000. After all, the transwoman simply went into the locker room in her baggy tee shirt and leggings and hung up her purse before going to work out.

Shlemon predictably used the scary-man-in-the-ladies-bathroom trope, which is sadly all too frequently employed to marginalize the trans community. Absent in the chapter is any story representative of 1.5 million Americans who are only trying to live, survive, thrive, pee, and change their clothes, just like the rest of us.

Next the focus shifts to Christians who “face another great challenge. The culture thinks they’re backward-thinking on moral issues, bigoted about homosexuality, and probably biased against transgender people.”

Shlemon adds, “Apologists need to be savvy enough to know the truth revealed in Scripture (special revelation) and in science (general revelation). Both sources of knowledge come from God and, as a result, conform to each other.” If you want the culture to move from labeling conservative Christians as bigoted and biased, an excellent antidote might be education about and relationship with LGBT people. Perhaps then the constant stream of harmful and dishonest statements, ideology, and theology about gay and transgender people might be stemmed.

Back to gender roles—Shlemon tells readers there is “biblical grounding for the gender roles we intuitively know to be true.” We often forget that the Bible was written within the context of a time dominated by extreme patriarchy. It was even shameful for a man to carry a jug of water. That simple task was considered “women’s work.”

Ancient gender roles are just that—ancient. I do not live in their confinement. I know I am fully equal to a man in the roles and tasks I am gifted to do. I like science. I like to fix things. I have an engineering degree. Those are intuitive to me and not restricted and hampered by biblical dictums about gender roles.

Shlemon writes that, from the beginning, God has followed a pattern of separating in creation—heaven and earth, day and night, male and female. Yes, but that is simplistic, as we clearly see. He also created dawn and evening, fishes that live in sea and land, and intersex people.

Shlemon does make a casual nod to those who are intersex. He writes that intersex people are those with “malformed or sexually ambiguous genitals.” Actually, external genitals and internal reproductive systems and sex markers on the 23rd pair of chromosomes indicate sex. So being intersex is far more complicated than the presence of ambiguous genitals. There are 31 known conditions of intersex, and most of them are not visible to the eye.

The section on complementarity is sloppy. Shlemon says complementarity (a concept echoing the way of reading of Scripture called complementarianism) is taught in Scripture. That is not true.

The word complementarian was coined in 1987 to stem biblical feminism, which had made its way from cultural feminism into the church. Women wanted to be pastors, leaders, and teachers. Patriarchy, during the height of cultural feminism, was becoming an offensive word. Complementarianism was created, and it codified patriarchy and gender hierarchy as biblical tenets. Same pig, new pearls.

Complementarity between the genders as a concept is used in three ways: the reuniting of the male Adam with woman Eve to recreate the whole original, or two genders coming uniquely together, or anatomical body parts fitting together.

No matter which variation of complementarianism you pick, you’d be hard pressed to find a Bible verse stating that it is required in marriage. So no, it is not true that “gender complementarity is explicitly taught in the Bible.” It is true that complementarianism is explicitly taught in conservative Christianity, and only since 1987.

Shlemon writes, “Anatomy is intended to denote gender identity.” Where is that in the Bible?

What do we do with Deborah from the Book of Judges? Was she really a man, or out of God’s will, or just being who God created her to be—a strong woman leader?

Anatomy may be in alignment with gender identity, and maybe not. When not in alignment, the person is transgender.

On to Shlemon’s idea that body parts fit together with the imperative to create a baby: Shlemon states as evidence that humans were made for heterosexual sex because “the sex organ is the only body part that requires another human being of the opposite sex (his italics) to fulfill its ultimate function.” That function being the creation of a baby.

But procreation is never stated in the Bible as a requirement of marriage. In fact, there are far more infertile and sterile heterosexual couples and people than there are gay people. Far more. Baby-making was essential to God’s plan to grow His tribe of children, the Israelite, in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, however, Jesus redefines how God expands His family: God’s family is expanded by spiritual growth (Mark 3:31-35).

Sex is also a sort of glue that hold couples in intimate relationship. Sex organs are used in same-sex relationships. After all, if men don’t fit sexually with men, and women don’t fit sexually with women, there seems to be a whole lot of satisfying sex going on regardless. After all, if the parts didn’t fit together, people wouldn’t be putting them together.

Next, Shlemon asks, “What is Transgender?”

He defines biological sex as a physical trait determined at conception, and gender identity as a non-physical trait that develops after birth. Well, that is not what the overwhelming body of medical and health care professionals assert. Though we do not yet fully understand the workings of the brain as it relates to gender, it is agreed that gender is established in the brain by about the fourth month in utero.

Shlemon supports his gender identity theories by citing the views of a highly discredited physician who once worked in the sex change field, Dr. Paul McHugh. McHugh, despite overwhelming disfavor amongst members of his profession and the transgender community, has become the go-to man for quotes used by those who disregard the medical, psychological, and social needs of transgender people. In his chapter, Shlemon doesn’t cite any academic sources from McHugh; he cites a blog post also lacking peer reviewed academic sources. A blog post is not of equivalence in credibility to peer reviewed academic studies. McHugh is not representative of consensus.

Shlemon reiterates that conservative thought holds that gender identity should follow biological sex. Incredulously, Shlemon follows with, “When gender identity matches biology, this results in heterosexuality.” Read that again. “When gender identity matches biology, this results in heterosexuality.”

No.

Every human has a biological sex (male to female along a spectrum with intersex), a gender identity (self-identification from woman to man along a spectrum), a gender expression (how they present to the outside world from feminine to masculine along a spectrum), and a sexual orientation (from heterosexual to homosexual along a spectrum.)

So, following Shlemon’s reasoning, one who identifies as a woman (gender identity) and has a female sex (biology), must therefore be heterosexual. This is absolute nonsense, and lacks even rudimentary understanding of human sexuality.

Digging himself further into a hole of promoting junk science, Shlemon writes “a transgender, similar to a homosexual, has a female subconscious gender identity.” Ugh! The therapists of the early 1900s already cycled through this bad psychological model about what creates homosexuality on the way to eventually finding truth. Again, if today’s apologist seeks to be relevant to those who can can check their work and findings and easily research the truth, one should not attempt to pass off junk science or outdated ideology as truth.

Perpetuating outdated myths or using severely out-of-date studies to support one’s narrative is dishonest.

Shlemon does this. He uses a 2004 study of the effects of incorrect medical decisions and subsequent misgendering made on babies with male birth defects. The doctors thought it easier to make these babies into social females. The results, unsurprisingly, were disastrous. One would not know at the birth of a child if the child is transgender. This male birth defect study is misused to support Shlemon’s narrative.

Next, Shlemon, cites a 1977 (!) study in which he says the outcome shows “most (transgender people) still have the same emotional and psychological problems they had prior to the surgery.” (When the study was complete, it was read before a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in 1977, and it was accepted for publication in 1978 before being published in 1979 in the journal Shlemon cites.)

Deceptively, Shlemon is only quoting one part of a final concluding sentence, which in full states, “Sex reassignment surgery confers no objective advantage in terms of social rehabilitation, although it remains subjectively satisfying to those who have rigorously pursued a trial period and who have undergone it” (reported on p. 1015 in Arch Gen Psychiatry Vol. 36, August 1979).

Social rehabilitation was used as the determination of successful transitioning. Social rehabilitation factors included: job, education, living arrangement stability, and marriage. Considering the study was conducted in the 1970s, Table 3 of the study shows improvement in most these categories for those who transition. Keep in mind that in the 1970s, transgender people were far less understood or culturally visible than today. It would be expected that social transition would have been less successful than transitioning now.

Transitioning today has dramatically improved due to hormonal and surgical advancements over the past four decades, and there have been increased cultural awareness and social acceptance of those who are transgender.

Rather than resorting to a 1977 study to represent how transgender people fare in transitioning, there are far more current studies on sex reassignment that show overwhelming satisfaction with surgery.

Using a severely out-of-date study from 1977 and misrepresenting the results is not acceptable academics and should never be acceptable in a discussion and creation of Christian ethics or apologetics.

Finally, we come to the more pastoral, relational, and compassionate recommendations at end of the chapter. The author encourages readers to focus on establishing a relationship with a transgender person as a top priority over telling them “a transgender identity rejects a God-given identity.”

Considering the many distortions and untruths in the chapter to this point, one really must wonder how many transgender people Mr. Shlemon knows or consulted in writing his chapter.

Let’s look back at McDowell’s call for integrity in modern apologists in the introduction of the book: “If we make a claim that is not true, our credibility will go out the window. Apologists today must do the hard work of learning a discipline and presenting the truth fairly and accurately."

Shlemon, in his own words, is a professional apologist. He tells the reader transgender people “are beguiled by a false belief” and “[f]ew people are willing to tell them the truth.” Shlemon, though, is not afraid to tell his version of truth.

As shown, Shlemon’s credibility on the issue of transgender identity is “out the window.” His chapter in A New Kind of Apologist is appalling.

Glenn Stanton’s chapter on LGBT issues

As a person, I very much like Glenn Stanton. I find him to be warm and compassionate and willing to listen. Still, we are at distant odds on many of his statements about homosexuality and about those who are gay.
Stanton opens his chapter “Being Authentically Christian on the LGBT Issue” by calling homosexuality a “sexual ethic completely contrary to what Christ taught.”
I have a far longer explanation of why this is an inaccurate statement. I deal with it over a span of ten chapters in my book Walking the Bridgeless Canyon. (Continued on Blogsite and Amazon.)

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sean McDowell, in A New Kind of Apologist, clearly states his goal that his readers will be “challenged and equipped to defend classical Christianity in a manner that is relevant for today” and that this will involve adapting their approach for ministry today. In his introduction Sean sets this tone by defining the characteristics of a modern apologist as humble, relational, studious and authentic. If you want a great book that expands what Sean says in his introduction then pick up & read “Foolish Talk” by Os Guinness.

This book provides many different perspectives (I think there are 25 different contributing authors) on thoughtful ways to approach defending the Christian faith for those seeking a way to assist friends and family who need timely help. It will be of particular interest to believers concerned about preparing children for life as adults leaving home to live in a post-Christian society. Very good resource.

[Timothy Smallwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Seeds of a great message.

Read this book with the thought of it being a series of essays were then by several authors from their various fields of study. It is good, but I was hoping for more thoughts from Sean McDowell than I received from this collection. There are many good tools for me to sharpen with further study down the road.

[Brianna Silva]

For Christians who want to have relevance and influence in our current society, this is a worthy read. Very easy and enjoyable to ingest, too. I didn't agree with all of it, but there are some profound and encouraging statements in here. Also, two passages on the power of storytelling gave me goosebumps.

[Christian Fiction Addiction · Rating 4 out of 5]

For any Christian who may be struggling to defend their faith in a culture that is becoming increasingly hostile to their beliefs, "A New Kind of Apologist" provides a great foundational place to begin to understand apologetics. I really enjoyed the compilation of essays by a variety of authors who were able to speak clearly and knowledgeably about their subject matter. The overall aim of the book is a vitally important one, as the authors call on Christians to not beat people over the head with truth, but to listen to people's stories, engage them well, and share the truth with love. Readers are called to know not only what scripture says but what science says and what people's experiences are. I liked how one writer states, "Apologists need to be savvy enough to know the truth revealed in Scripture (special revelation) and in science (general revelation). Both sources of knowledge come from God and, as a result, conform to each other". The book tackles a number of hot-button issues of our day, including issues of transgender, gays and lesbians, or how to engage with people who no-longer see the Bible as a source of truth. I greatly appreciated that in the midst of the chapters there are interviews with non-believers as well, helping readers understand a variety of view points. Although readers will need to find other books if they are wanting to learn in-depth about the issues discussed, this book provides an excellent overview and place to begin the discussion.

"A New Kind of Apologist" is really a book that should be mandatory reading for all Christians. Too often, non-believers can see Christians as uneducated Bible-thumpers who blindly stand on their beliefs. McDowell's latest book is one that can help Christians present well-rationed arguments for their beliefs, bathed in grace. I award this book a rating of 4 out of 5 stars.

Book has been provided courtesy of the publisher, Harvest House. Available at your favourite bookseller!

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A SERIES OF ESSAYS ABOUT VARIOUS IMPORTANT TOPICS IN APOLOGETICS

Sean McDowell is a professor of apologetics at Biola University, and a popular speaker and author (as well as the son of the famed apologist, Josh McDowell). He has cowritten a number of books with his father, but he has also written/cowritten many other books

He wrote in the Introduction to this 2016 book, “Apologetics has been a staple of the church since the time of Jesus and Paul. More than ever before, we need Christians who will both live and proclaim the Christian worldview… And yet HOW we do apologetics must change. That is exactly the goal of this book. My hope is that you will be challenged and equipped to defend classical Christianity in a manner that is relevant for today… In this book, you will see the intersection between apologetics and important topics such as economics, politics and race. You will learn how to tackle thorny matters of our day such as the transgender issue and religious liberty.” (Pg. 15-16)

In the first chapter, he wonders, “In apologetic conversations, why do we Christians usually find ourselves doing most of the talking? I think most of us suffer from what one communication scholar described as ‘agenda anxiety,’ which he defines as the overwhelming anxiety to ‘get across all points’ of a subject regardless of the spiritual state of the person we are speaking with… In the end, listening is sacrificed when so much needs to be explained and opportunities are few and far between. To listen to a person will require that we temporarily set aside our objections to what a person is saying and allow him or her to speak openly without fear of being challenged.” (Pg. 23)

McDowell interviews Bart Campolo [coauthor with his famous father Tony Campolo of 'Why I Left, Why I Stayed: Conversations on Christianity Between an Evangelical Father and His Humanist Son,' who tells him, “I gradually lost the ability to believe the supernatural parts of the Christian narrative, despite having every incentive to stay in the faith. Eventually, all the doctrines I used to rely on seemed so clearly fabricated by human beings that I wondered how I ever managed to believe them… I call myself a secular humanist these days, not because I’m angry or fed up with the church, but because I want to attract folks who no longer or never could believe in supernatural forces but still want to actively pursue goodness as a way of life… Honestly, I think you [Christians] should stop trying to reason with thoughtful nonbelievers… people become Christians because they are born into or enfolded not a loving community that provides meaning and purpose to their lives, and they are able to believe the Christian narrative because it makes sense in the context of that community… your work as apologists… [enables] your fellow Christians to stand confidently, secure that their faith is not unreasonable… You’re wasting your time with the rest of us.” (Pg. 37-38)

Ken Wytsma and Rick Gerhardt suggest, “Our most robust defense of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s life and teaching will fall on deaf ears if we ignore his commands to plead the cause of the poor, the orphan, the widow, the immigrant, and the prisoner… We believe and pray that the Lord is raising up a new generation of apologists whose rhetorical defense of Christian truth will be accompanied by just and compassionate living, and that as a result, a broken world might see our good works and glorify our Father who is in heaven.” (Pg. 63)

Dam Kimball acknowledges, “We need to admit that the Bible does contain crazy sounding things, and we don’t have neat and tidy answers for all of them… I can give some reasoning for the violent war passages and explain they don’t represent an out-of-control bloodthirstiness but instead the judgment of a compassionate and just God who had warned and warned for hundreds of years and eventually could no longer tolerate the evils the people were doing… I believe we gain credibility when we share that some things are tough to understand. And it does not then seem like a copout of a ‘we’ll just have to wait for heaven to get that answer’ when we are teaching about the many difficult things we can give solid responses for.” (Pg. 74)

Mary Jo Sharp observes, “I had come into the field of apologetics through my own doubt about god’s existence… I began to understand that apologetics was a relatively new area of the Christian faith. Women’s ministries generally did not have materials for this… Doubt is common to the human experience. We do not have all the answers, no matter what the field of inquiry… Further, doubts can arise … when our life experience does not match up with what we perceive our life should be… a crucial element of having doubt is how one handles it. This is the difficulty I see for women… Yet, in order for women to bring their doubts to the table, they must have a save environment---free from ridicule, suspicion, or rejection---in which to do so… When we focus on building safe communities within our churches for answering doubts and encourage women to bring their questions about God to our churches, we will begin to build up their confidence in what they believe.” (Pg. 159-161)

There is a LOT of valuable material in this book, which will be “must reading” for those studying Apologetics for the MODERN world.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like most collections of essays, this one's a bit uneven. Some chapters (Derwin Gray's on multi-ethnicity, for example) shine, while others are more dry, dull, or unhelpful. Overall, though, the tone of the book is gracious and relatively thoughtful, which is much-appreciated in the world of Christian apologetics.

The book does "skew" in a conservative direction. It is telling that a chapter was included on "defending Intelligent Design" but no such defense of evolutionary biology can be found. Similarly, the chapter on "the transgender topic" was a bit simplistic. So let the reader take this into account before picking it up.

All this to say, it's more gentle and thoughtful (though maybe not quite as nuanced as I would prefer) than most approaches to apologetics in our culture.

[Mike Morris · Rating 4 out of 5]

McDowell here collects a bunch of essays by apologists, organized by subject. Some of the material is more in-depth, while some essays are barely a page. Some of the essays are better than others, obviously, and I was given a lot to think about. I feel better-equipped to argue for the faith, having read the book, however my one qualm is that, having purchased this on Kindle, I don't have a nice thick physical copy to toss at a debater when an argument isn't going my way!

[Alisha · Rating 4 out of 5]

great book for your second or third apologetics book, because it talks about how you go about discussing what you’ve learned from studying apologetics. Interesting real life accounts keep it interest, but he doesn’t answer each of the questions he mentions, which is a bummer. Definitely dives into very modern topics near the end so it doesn’t slow down or drop off at the end at all. Good through to the end.

[Joseph Bradley · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you were just getting into apologetics, this would be a good, general resource to get you thinking outside the box. However, it is very much “a mile wide, an inch deep”; doesn’t add much to the conversation and most the chapters are not very informative. I think that’s the point, but for a 280 page book, I’d hope it would have offered more.

[Lilyan Turner · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished A New Kind Of Apologist. I recommend anyone who is interested in Christian Apologetics or wants to even teach Christian Apologetics. This book has been a great blessing to me and I pray that God uses what I learned in this book in my everyday life

[Faith Baboolal (Tuttle) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like how it is a collection of writings by different authors discussing their more specific area of expertise. The interviews with aethiests and non-christians (on the gray pages) are also really fascinating and a great add.

[Nathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great source for those seeking to learn more about apologetics. The collection of authors and interviews was helpful to me and gave me a wider perspective on the different subject matter's in varying apologetic fields.

[Caleb McCary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid book covering a range of topics. Good for introducing the reader to some leaders in the apologetics field.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many of the essays in this collection are essential reading for the thoughtful Christian believer seeking to defend his or her faith in a winsome, effective way through genuine relationships.

[Abi McCoy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book with various takes on diverse subjects!

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Audio book

[Chris Delany · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are some helpful chapters, but this is a collection of essays, rather than a deep dive. It is decent for what it is, but I would have preferred a more cohesive book from one author.

[Bridget Golubinski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Addresses a ton of different topics

[Nicolas Upton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess I’m not normal? (you’ll understand later if you read though it)

The book is good at advocating for churches to implement apologetics, warning about apologetics without discernment, and setting up an abstract model that will fit into various churches.

I disagree with the unsaid “love the sin hate the sinner” idea threaded throughout but applaud the attempt to keep our Christian witness distinct. I would point readers who think the “love the sinner not the sin” cliche isn’t satisfactory or even rational to Dr. Richard Beck.

[Ashley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book, covers a wide variety of topics. One to come back to as reference.

[Clay Graham · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't remember much about this.

[Joy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The variety of contributors made this a well-rounded book that aptly addressed many of modern culture's most pressing topics. Recommended!

[Marc Axelrod · Rating 5 out of 5]

very helpful

I enjoyed this book very much. He gives great wisdom regarding how to interact with others about the gospel of Christ in a wise, winsome and winning way.

Sean McDowell is the editor, but many others contributed articles. I think I especially like Dan Kimball's article about how to answer those who raise the question of morally difficult passages from the Old Testament and occasionally from the New Testament.

The other stand that article was Michael Licona's "How to question the Bible in a post-Christian world." he says that if we understand that Genesis 3 through Revelation 19 represent God's dealings with people in a fallen world, it might help us to understand some of the strange things that we encounter. He also points out the divine regulation of social constructs does not necessarily demonstrate divine endorsement.

most of the other articles were good also. I appreciated Casey Lutkins' apologetics from intelligent design article as well.

[Elsie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Contains some scientifically untrue statements in the attempt to make certain Christian arguments on the basis of nature but I respect the attempt at addressing a wide variety of issues and the call to empathy.

[Gaven Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

possibly the best book I've read all year

[George Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought provoking

[Heidi Creasman · Rating 5 out of 5]

second time to read this book. great tips for those interested in apologetics.

[Joey Ellis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn’t read much, and what I did read just wasn’t as intellectually engaging as other material out there.