Evangelizing the Heart

In his book, The Stranger, Albert Camus depicts an interesting conversation between a chaplain and a murderer. Meursault, the book’s protagonist, has committed murder. While waiting to be executed, a chaplain visits Meursault against his wishes. The chaplain does his best to convert Meursault to Christianity. He offers Meursault ideas about divine justice, the afterlife, and the face of God. The priest is doing his best to argue for the Christian faith. Meursault is not convinced. In fact, Meursault replies to each argument with a version of his own beliefs and his insistence on satisfaction in them. To divine justice, Meursault responds with human justice! To the afterlife, Meursault responds with this life! To the face of God Meursault responds with Marie’s (Meursault’s lover) face! The scene crescendos with Mersault snapping by grabbing the priest and screaming at him. Mersault goes as far as to tell the priest that, “none of his certainties are worth the hair of a woman’s head.” It dies down with a chilling quote from Meursault, “throughout the whole absurd life I’d lived, a dark wind had been rising toward me from somewhere deep in the future.” This dark wind leveled everything for Meursault. Everyone is damned. One of the many implications of Meursault’s response to the priest is a response of “so what?” to Christianity. Meursault could not see any real way for the chaplain’s points to offer any real purpose or meaning to his life. Nor could he see how what the chaplain offered was better than indifference.

Shift in Cultural Questions

In many ways, the attitude of Meursault reflects a shift in cultural questions about Christianity. Today people are spiritually open and long to grow spiritually. A 2023 Barna study cited “an unprecedented desire to grow spiritually.” This has shifted the focus of questions from, “Is Christianity true?” to “Is Christianity relevant?” I spoke to a couple of college ministers recently and their experience doing ministry on campus aligns with this rise in spiritual openness. One expressed that “most of my students aren’t asking me to prove God’s existence to them.” Another campus minister echoed this sentiment, “These students have fewer hang-ups with faith.” The questions their students are asking though are more similar to Meursault’s ‘What does it matter?’ attitude. One stated that “[students] are asking, ‘Is Christianity better than what I’m already doing?’” The other minister shared a similar experience, “These students in general want purpose and meaning in their life. They want to be part of a bigger story… They tend to ask more existential questions.” 

In a context that is increasingly less Christian while simultaneously more spiritually open, how do we retool our apologetics to fit the concerns of the times? We need a helpful framework to begin cultivating apologetic responses to our current climate. I believe significant help can come from Erich Fromm (1900-1980). Erich Fromm was a German Psychologist and Philosopher. While I cannot endorse all of what Fromm wrote, I believe what he coined as “basic existential needs” can serve as a helpful framework for apologetics moving forward. 

Fromm’s Existential Needs

Fromm rightly recognized that humanity is, in our current condition, deeply broken. There is an isolation deep within us. From a Christian perspective, this is obvious and well known. Sin has isolated us from an authentic relationship with God and has deprived us of shame-free relationships with other people. Fromm called this universal isolation, the human dilemma. The human dilemma cannot be solved by caring for our basic animal needs. According to Fromm, it could only be addressed through addressing our needs that are uniquely human. Fromm identified five needs.

Relatedness

Humans crave union with other persons. Christians know this need perhaps better than anyone else. We know that when Adam and Eve were cast out from the good garden, human relationships became difficult. Brokenness is the hallmark of horizontal human relationships. Fromm called this need, the need of relatedness. A loving relationship for Fromm is one where the individual can maintain the integrity of the self, while still feeling united in some sense to another person. This type of loving relationship is a necessity for solving the human dilemma. 

Transcendence

In Christopher Nolan’s movie, Interstellar, Matthew McConaughey plays a NASA pilot named Cooper who becomes burdened with the lack of transcendence in his life. He laments the lack of connection to something above himself. Reflecting on this seeming lack of transcendence in humanity Cooper tells his father, “We used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars, now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt.” Here Christopher Nolan hits on something that Fromm identified as well. Humans need transcendence. We need a connection to something above ourselves. Deep down we know that something must be elevated above ourselves and we need a connection to whatever it is. 

Rootedness

According to Fromm, humans need to feel at home. Here Fromm reflects the reality that 1 Chronicles 29:15 depicts, we are strangers in a foreign land, and our days on Earth are like a shadow. Like a tree, it is only when our roots have grown deep and established that we can begin to feel a sense of purpose and combat the human dilemma. At least one reason for the rise in internet communities in younger generations is a constant search for fulfilling this need for rootedness. These online communities, while great, are only poor substitutes for real connections. What most young people will find over time is that they lack the depth and permanence needed for real rootedness.

Sense of Identity

Fromm’s fourth need is having a self-awareness of who we are. What is my distinct identity as a separate person? What makes me, me? How am I distinct from any other person? If you’ve ever met someone who is overly consumed with their work, you’ve met someone trying desperately to find their sense of identity. One reason people throw themselves into work like this is because it gives them an answer to the question: “Who are you?” This though, is a poor substitute for genuine identity. A job can be lost as quickly as it can be gained. This sense of self, per Fromm, is a core need for addressing the human dilemma.

Frame of Orientation

Fromm rightly identified humanity’s general helplessness in navigating life’s challenges. In order to fight this human dilemma, we need a Baedeker (a guidebook). A way of consistent living to help us navigate this confusing and often weird world. People are constantly trying and failing to find a system of living that “works” for them. There’s a reason the Andrew Tates of the world appeals to some people. Humans are desperate to find some sense of orientation that will help them navigate the world. 

Applications for Modern Apologetics

Fromm’s existential needs and shifts in cultural questions serve as a compass for the way we ought to shape our apologetics. For our modern apologetics to be successful we must acknowledge both the rational and the existential dimensions of faith. Here are some practical applications for a more holistic approach to apologetics.

Engaging Existential Needs with Traditional Arguments

To effectively engage with some of the existential needs, we need to not only demonstrate the logical coherence of Christianity, but we also have to argue it fulfills the deepest human longings. One of the ways we can do this is by reframing some classic apologetic arguments with existential needs in mind, we can show that Christianity doesn’t just offer answers to intellectual questions, but it speaks directly to our deepest needs. Here are two examples of what this could look like.

Cosmological Argument as Transcendence

The cosmological argument, simply put, states that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. Ultimately, this line of reasoning leads you to the idea that there must be some sort of cause of the universe that is outside the universe itself, God. We can reframe this argument in a way to shift the focus towards a desire for transcendence. It could sound something like this. “I think most of us have a sense of or a desire to feel connected to something greater than ourselves. Think of how little kids naturally marvel at the stars or even Christmas lights. The desire to connect to something beyond yourself seems to be baked into us. This desire for transcendence actually aligns with the idea that the universe has a cause. That it’s not just random. Everything has a cause, even our world. Whatever that cause is, it must be something beyond the universe and infinitely greater. We as Christians claim this is God. We get to know that the universe must have a transcendent creator. Not only do we get to know this about the universe, but we can know and be connected to the creator himself.”

Framing the cosmological argument like this keeps the logical nature of the argument intact. It’s still a well-thought-out argument! But, this incorporates what I believe can be a fulfilling apologetic response that speaks to the universal need for transcendence.

Moral Argument as Frame of Orientation

The moral argument can be crudely summed up by saying, If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Objective moral values do exist, therefore, God exists. This is a wonderful argument! We can, however, articulate it in a way to highlight our need for a frame of reference. We as Christians can highlight not only do objective moral values seem to exist, but their source can be a moral compass for us in this strange world. 

One way we could do this is by first acknowledging the need for a frame of orientation. Framing the moral argument in this way could look something like this: “We can tell the unbeliever that we recognize many people want a clear way to live and navigate difficult decisions. It’s easy to feel lost.

But we all seem to agree that we need some sort of standard. There seem to be objective moral values even if we have trouble seeing what they are. These values have to come from somewhere. They have to come from somewhere greater than us. We as Christians believe God is this source of values. This isn’t just an abstract idea or theory though. This idea offers us real direction for how we navigate meaningful ethical decisions in life. There isn’t a frame of orientation other than having your moral values come from an unchanging foundation. Not only do objective moral values point to God’s existence, but God’s existence allows us to face the difficult decisions with confidence and integrity.” 

Putting the moral argument for God’s existence in this framework allows us to put forward a really strong argument for God’s existence, but it also lets us highlight God as the source of morality that fulfills the basic human need for a frame of orientation. 

Engaging Non-Believers with Non-Anxious Belief

We all have existential needs. For most people, I would venture to say that these needs are not being met. One of the side effects that comes when our existential needs aren’t being met is anxiety. A lack of transcendence, identity, relatedness, etc leads to angst and anxiety in the individual. As Christians, we have the unique position of being in a relationship with the one who meets our needs, even the existential ones.

When we engage with non-believers we get to demonstrate not only the truth of Christianity but also the existential satisfaction of Christianity. A non-anxious belief is not indifferent to the argument at hand, but it’s also not defensive or combative. This posture, which stems from existential satisfaction, allows Christians to engage in apologetics without fear of losing an argument. Non-anxious belief allows us to reimagine apologetic encounters from debates to demonstrations of the peace that comes from Christ. 

There are many reasons we should strive for non-anxious beliefs. For one, holding our beliefs non-anxiously demonstrates the existential satisfaction we feel from our relationship with Christ. Second, it acts to disarm defensiveness in conversations. Conversations about faith can oftentimes be tense. It’s a subject that is deeply personal to people. When we are non-anxious we don’t see the nonbeliever as an opponent. This peace can serve to shift the conversation away from debate to more genuine dialogue. Lastly, it allows us to model our rest in Christ. In a world marked by skepticism, we get to demonstrate our trust in a sovereign, loving God. 

How do we do this? How do we hold our beliefs in a non-anxious way? Well, we start by rooting ourselves in the character of God. Non-anxious belief begins when we exercise deep trust in God’s goodness and his sovereignty. When we remember that God is seated on His throne we no longer feel pressure to “win” conversations. Further, we trust the Holy Spirit. Non-anxious belief recognizes that it isn’t our job to convince others of the truth of what we are saying. That’s the Holy Spirit’s role. Lastly, we can focus more on relationships and genuine dialogue than winning. A non-anxious belief treats even apologetic encounters as a chance to demonstrate genuine care for the person over and above trying to prove a point. 

When we can engage the non-believer in apologetic encounters in a non-anxious way it will have a few distinct markers that will in its own way, serve as an argument to the existential satisfaction we have in Christ. One marker of non-anxious engagement is that it is filled with grace. A non-anxious believer doesn’t get flustered at objections and questions. The believer with non-anxious faith approaches apologetic concerns with sympathy and kindness. Another marker of non-anxious faith is a person who can hold tension without fear. Non-anxious belief is comfortable admitting uncertainty when it arises. No matter how much knowledge one has about apologetics, it is possible a non-believer will approach you with a question that you simply don’t have an answer for. A non-anxious faith can without fear own the uncertainty and respond “I don’t know.”

A non-anxious faith is not about disengaging from apologetic encounters. Instead, non-anxious faith is about displaying the existential satisfaction that comes from our relationship with Christ. It is a posture of authentic living that invites others into conversation without fear or hostility. This posture of non-anxious faith will serve as its own argument as the existential satisfaction from the believer stands in stark contrast with the counterfeits of the non-believer. 

Challenges and Opportunities

Apologetics is already difficult enough. You’re trying to combat some of the most difficult questions a Christian can face. Throwing in a need to demonstrate existential fulfillment has some potential to add challenges. Maintaining the integrity of the truth we are presenting will take conscious effort. Yes, I am calling us as Christians to have more concern for the existential, but this cannot come at the cost of truth. Here are a few ways to ensure we aren’t sacrificing doctrinal substance. We have to ground existential arguments in biblical truth. This will make sure that our appeals to human existential needs stay in line with Christian doctrine. Develop a holistic apologetic framework. It is hard to talk to the non-Christian about their eternal life if we show no concern for their life here on Earth. The Bible is rife with truth not just about Jesus’s message for the next life, but for this life!

Conclusion

Fromm was extremely helpful in pointing out some of the basic desires and problems that are universally human. Where Fromm falls short though, is his answers to these needs. Because truthfully, apart from Christ, there are no satisfying answers to these issues! Try as people might with various other belief systems, none of them come close to addressing the existential needs we all face as well as Christianity. We as believers get to demonstrate this. When we consider how to frame our apologetic arguments, and seek to hold our belief in a non-anxious posture, let’s consider doing so in light of our existential needs.

When we consider these aspects of human needs in our apologetics we demonstrate that Christianity isn’t just true, but it’s true for the individual. It matters to their lives. We get the honor and privilege to share the hope that is within us. Not only do we get to show this hope’s coherence and logic, but it’s relevant. As we walk alongside those who are searching for reasons to live, for hope, and for a purpose let it be done with great wisdom and love and with the firm belief that the gospel is in fact the power of God for the salvation of all who believe (Romans 1:16). What I hope that we are sensitive to, is that our apologetics are not only the intellectual persuasion of the mind but also the passion of the heart, calling people unto an intimate experience with the divine.