The Christian Vanguard

I've documented on this blog why I think the Protestant domination in pop apologetics unjustly snuffs out Catholic contributions. I want to talk about a particular kind of explicit disallowance (is that a word?) to continue making my case.  There have been times when, as a student, I've looked for opportunities to get involved in apologetics leadership. I did what I could in my previous Protestant denomination, teaching a class, unpopular as it was with the pastors. But, bloom where you're planted, right?  Recently, I've looked into three opportunities and all explicitly deny Catholics opportunities. First, I looked into Ratio Christi. According to their Statement of Belief, "Student leaders must hold to the historic Christian faith as approved by the staff directors." Fair enough. I'd assume this would mean things like the Apostles Creed, the Nicean Creed, etc., and while that's the case, they go a bit further and in defining what they bel...

Changing your mind, I’ve come to learn by accident, can be a dangerous thing. I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism, and I’ve learned a lot about people in the process. The most shocking discovery is how cruel and tribal people can be. I lost almost all my Protestant friends when I told them I thought we were wrong. Not that I was wrong, or they were wrong, but we were wrong. Many haven’t talked to me since. This is sad. But I am starting to see that this is also the case in my beloved apologetics community.

When discussing the resurrection of Jesus with non-believers, whether they are hostile to religion or not, the slogan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” often comes up. It is very common. It is too common. There are many different ways one could approach this claim, by either asking for clarification (what constitutes something being extraordinary?) or by laying a burden of proof (what’s so extraordinary about the Son of God coming back to life?) but for now, I want to take a look at the form of the question.