Youth Apologetics in Singapore: Recovering the Place for Rational

Argumentation

By: Mok Wei Woon Marcus

Introduction

What is the most appropriate apologetic approach to evangelize the young people
educated within the Singaporean context in the 21st century? Recent literature on
youth ministry, especially books by Youth Specialties, seems to advocate the
embodied apologetics articulated by Christian postmodernist thinkers1, and largely
discarded traditional, rationalistic arguments for Christianity2. In this essay I shall
argue for rationalistic argumentation as an indispensible component of effective
youth apologetics. I will first briefly survey the local educational and religious context
before critiquing the effectiveness of postmodern apologetics, then propose an
approach that combines the strengths of both rational and embodied apologetics. I
also interviewed some local students for the purpose of this study, and will be
referring to some of their responses for substantiation.

Educational Context

Singaporean students undergo an education system that emphasizes on

critical thinking. Secondary school academic subjects have shifted from rote-learning
to modes that require more critical thinking on the part of the students. For example,
Social Studies, a compulsory upper secondary subject, trains the critical thinking
skills of students applied to studies of human societies. Junior college students take
either the General Paper, which required them to write informed, critical essays on
global and contemporary issues including religion, or Knowledge and Inquiry, which

1
Tony Jones, Postmodern Youth Ministry (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan/Youth Specialties, 2001). Mike
King, Presence-Centered Youth Ministry: Guiding Students into Spiritual Formation (Downers Grove, Illinois:
InterVarsity Press, 2006), also shows similar inclination (see pp.40; 64-65).

2
Jones, Postmodern Youth Ministry, pp.136-137.
is more philosophically rigorous and demanding as it deals with sophisticated issues
such epistemology and knowledge acquisition3.

The sciences as taught in Singapore’s secular education system presuppose

the naturalistic theory of evolution. Biology and non-biology students are taught that
natural evolutionary processes account for the origin of life, without reference to God
as Creator. This poses a necessary challenge for any apologetic conversations with
thoughtful students to deal with creationism-versus-evolution, theism-versus-
naturalism and other related issues.

Religious Context

Many students come from traditional family backgrounds that profess some
affiliations to religious beliefs. According to the Year 2000 Population Census, the
most common religion among young people aged 15-24 is Buddhism (38.9%),
followed by Islam (18.6%) and Christianity (12.8%).4 Although the majority claims to
be Buddhists, they practiced a ‘popular’ form of Buddhism, believing in karmic
retribution and reincarnation, but largely ignorant of core Buddhist teachings such as
attaining enlightment or nirvana. Three out of my eight interviewees are Buddhists.
Their religious life consists mainly of following their parents’ rituals and ceremonies.
One of them explicitly said that she knows nothing about Buddha.5 Another
considered herself a Buddhist because her grandparents are, but “not a hard-core
Buddhist, just goes to temple occasionally”.6 Also, students without religion are quite
high (17.3%), especially among the younger Chinese (about 23%)7. In this sense,
the majority of non-Christian students are either Buddhists or secular atheists, or
‘freethinkers’. My other five interviewees coined themselves as ‘freethinkers’,
3
Knowledge and Inquiry is introduced in January 2006. See teachers’ newsletter Contact, Issue 07 Apr 2006,
http://www3.moe.edu.sg/corporate/contactonline/2006/issue07/sub_professionalMatters_art01.htm . Date
accessed: 22 July 2008.

4
Singapore Census of Population, 2000, URL: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/c2000adr-
religion.pdf (p. 5). Date accessed: 5 August 2008.

5
Interview, Student HXY, dated 10 June, 2008.

6
Interview, Student JH, dated 28 June 2008.

7
Singapore Census of Population, 2000, URL: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/c2000adr-
religion.pdf. Date accessed: 5 August 2008.
2
believing certain concepts about God but unwilling to commit themselves to any
particular religion.

As a multi-racial, multi-religious society, Singapore highly valued religious

tolerance, and students are socialized in schools to respect other religions. For
example, they recite the Singaporean pledge every morning (“regardless of race,
language or religion”) and were taught the tenets and virtues of major religions in
Civic Moral Education, from primary to secondary level. This led to the common
(mis)perception that “every religion is the same—they all teach people to do good”.
For example, Student NC believes that “every religion leads to God”8. Student JH
says, “Ultimately different religions bear different beliefs, [which] may contradict but I
don't think it's significant…we must learn to respect what one believes. They have
the right.”9 Thus Singaporean students generally hold to a form of religious relativism
—believing that no religion can be objectively or universally true. William Lane
Craig’s description that “people are not relativistic when it comes to matters of
science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in
matters of religion and ethics”10, fits the relativistic mindset of Singaporean students
perfectly.

The educational and religious context of Singaporean students thus requires an

apologetics that can both meet the intellectual needs of the students and remain
sensitive and relevant to religious pluralism. Singapore’s secular education and
religious pluralism also resemble their Western counterparts, such that one is
justified in asking whether Singaporean youths also experience postmodernization
as happened in the West. Given the advent of globalization and the internet,
postmodernism can indeed gain influence among Singaporean students, if not
already. We thus need to evaluate the effectiveness of postmodern apologetics that
Western scholars advocated for reaching the new postmodern youth generation.

Postmodern Apologetics—‘Embodied Apologetics’

8
Interview, dated 28 June 2008.

9
Interview, dated 28 June 2008.

10
William Lane Craig, ‘God is Not Dead Yet’, Christianity Today, July 2008, Vol 52, No. 7, p. 27.
3
 What is ‘embodied apologetics’ about? According to R. Scott Smith, Christian
postmodernists such as Stanley Hauerwas and Brad Kallenberg argued that since
there is no way to get past the influence of language and know reality objectively, we
can show the truth of the gospel by how we live in the Christian community.11 In
short, we embodied the Christian truth within the life of the Christian community.

In practice, there is nothing wrong with demonstrating the truth of the gospel
with our lives. We are called to love one another, that others may know that we are
Christ’s disciples (John 13:35). It is their rejection of traditional, evidential apologetics
that I disagree. Hauerwas and Kallenberg believed that evidential apologetics are
misguided because giving such arguments presupposes that we can know reality
objectively, which is wrong in their opinion. Also, they argued that such arguments
only make sense within the Christian language, and not to non-Christians who are in
their own “different” language.12

Building on similar postmodern philosophy, Tony Jones in his book

Postmodern Youth Ministry, argued for the same kind of apologetics, that is, to
"invite this pre-Christian student to experience the truth of Scripture by inviting him
into the life of our community".13 In practice, he denied the feasibility of using
traditional/evidentialist apologetics by saying that, "if we think that the evidence
demands a verdict, it's only because we are standing within the Christian tradition".14

A Critique of Postmodern Apologetics

The proponents of the postmodern apologetics implied that we need not prove
the truth of the faith through human reason and with certainty, because we simply
cannot be objective about it. This abortion of reason and logic in apologetics is
precisely what will render Christian witness in Singapore ineffective.
11
R.Scott Smith, Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church
(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2005), p. 42.

12
Ibid.

13
Jones, Postmodern Youth Ministry, p.137.

14
Ibid.
4
 Firstly, such an approach failed to take into account the context of Singaporean
education for young people. As described above, against the backdrop of intellectual
and academic rigor in the local education system, one cannot ignore the role and
importance of reason in the minds of any conscientious Singaporean student. Under
this system, students are trained to exercise critical thinking on almost every subject.
A Christianity that is portrayed as irrational or antirational can be easily dismissed as
irrelevant at best, or untrue and deluded at worst. Also, the emphasis on science and
the challenges of naturalism necessitate rationalistic argumentation for the Christian
theistic worldview. In my interactions with students who studied biology, questions on
biological evolution are almost guaranteed to surface, even among Christians.
Embodied apologetics that does not engage the minds of the students at the
scientific level, albeit relationally satisfying, is ultimately intellectually unconvincing
and appears implausible to them.

Secondly, despite its claims, postmodern apologetics cannot adequately address

the unique context of religious pluralism among Singaporean students. Although
largely relativistic in their religious outlook, many students are prepared to listen to
sound arguments for the Christian faith. Through my interactions, I observed that
some of them lack the rational basis that could account their own non-Christian
worldviews, leaving them empty and yearning for a rational basis to believe
something.15 It is often the Christians who are inadequate in providing that sound
defense of their faith that leads them to disillusionment with Christianity! This theme
recurred quite frequently in my students’ experience—although most of them have
Christian friends and had visited churches, few of their Christian contacts actually
presented them a rational basis for the faith, nor answered their questions
satisfactorily16. The church has an obligation to equip her youths with rational
apologetics to evangelize their friends.

15
Student JH, for example, was perplexed when asked to explain why she believed in karma and reincarnation.
Interview, Dated 28 Jun 2008.

16
And these are common questions already addressed in Christian apologetics. For example, Student HXY
(Interview, dated 10 June 2008) asked about why there are still bad people in the world if God created us good,
and why sometimes good people seemed to have a shorter lifespan; Student WSY (Interview, dated 10 June
2008) questioned the perfection of God given an imperfect world of sinners.
5
 Thirdly, postmodern apologetics advocate the use of narratives to reach
postmoderns, such as telling the narrative of the Christian worldview and personal
testimonies. But given the relativistic worldview and religious pluralism in Singapore,
one can easily dismiss the Christian narrative with a ‘good-for-you-but-not-for-me’
response. A student who heard several Christian testimonies admitted, “Christianity
does help someone who believes to change for the better”, but still found Christian
truth-claims incredulous17. Another student also knew friends who “apparently
changed for the better, under the influence of Christianity”, but she believe that
“Buddhism has that influential means also”.18 As Craig observed, with narrative
apologetics alone “Christianity will be reduced to but another voice in a cacophony of
competing voices, each sharing its own narrative and none commending itself as the
objective truth about reality”.19 The truth or meaning of the narrative only makes
sense to an outsider when the framework of its worldview has been shown to be
rational or at least plausible.

Thus, if Christianity cannot be shown to be rational, but merely experiential within

its own community, then it will lose valuable ground in witnessing to Singaporean
youths who are academically trained in the local education system. This could also
alienate honest seekers with genuine intellectual questions about the Christian faith.
Worse, disembodying the mind from the heart in apologetics might even jettison
one’s faith. I knew of at least 2 friends who left the Christian faith because of
“intellectual reasons”. If embodied apologetics is all it takes to communicate our faith,
it is not doing very well on its own!

Furthermore, I argue that there is no inherent contradiction between embodied

apologetics and rational apologetics. Such contradiction only arises when
postmodernists misunderstood foundationalism (which characterizes rational
apologetics) as requiring absolute certainty. Smith concluded that postmodern
Christian thinkers had misdescribed modernity by equating it with narrow

17
Interview, Student HXY, dated 10 June, 2008.

18
Interview, Student JH, dated 28 June 2008.

19
William Lane Craig, ‘God is Not Dead Yet’, Christianity Today, July 2008, Vol 52, No. 7, p. 27.
6
foundationalism, and therefore have misidentified the nature of the problem.20 If we
accept a broader definition of foundationalism—that we can know objective truths in
varying degree of certitude21, then rationalistic apologetics is not only
epistemologically justified, but strongly recommended to complement the inadequacy
of mere embodied apologetics.

However, Smith also rightly highlighted several strengths in the postmodern

apologetics, such as the need to live out our faith, the emphasis on community and
the use of stories to help communicate truths22. A purely rationalistic apologetics that
fails to provide an authentic community will equally fall short. The best apologetics
approach would thus incorporate the strengths of embodied apologetics without
forsaking rational argumentation.

Singaporean Youth Apologetics

Firstly, we ought to reaffirm rationalistic arguments for the truth-claims of

Christianity. Craig argued that “by laying aside our best apologetic weapons of logic
and evidence, we ensure modernism's triumph over us.”23 The traditional theistic
arguments for God such as the cosmological, teleological and moral arguments can
effectively arouse the curiosity of the academic Singaporean students, since they
typically regard religious faith as something irrational. I once tried using the moral
argument, in reference to the Rape of Nanking, to argue for the existence of God
grounded on moral objectivism, with some success.24 Naturalistic atheism as
assumed by the local secular education should be addressed here. After presenting
the theistic arguments, the question, “How do you account for the beginning of the
universe, the apparent design, and the existence of objective morality?” can be
asked. The apologist will then demonstrate how naturalism fails to account
adequately for these questions. Finally, rationalistic arguments must ultimately point
20
R. Scott Smith, Truth and the New Kind of Christian, pp. 110-120.
21
Ibid.

22
Ibid., pp. 108-110.

23
William Lane Craig, ‘God is Not Dead Yet’, Christianity Today, July 2008, Vol 52, No. 7, p. 27.

24
See my blog entry “Universal Morality and the Rape of Nanking”, URL:
http://marcusmok.blogspot.com/2008/08/universal-justice-rape-of-nanking.html, dated 1 August 2008, for my
attempt in applying the moral argument with reference to the Rape of Nanking.
7
the student to experience a living relationship with the God of the Bible. This is
especially crucial to help ‘freethinker’ students appreciate the implications of
objective Christian truths. If, cosmologically, the universe begins with God as its
Creator, and He is self-existent, free and all-powerful, then we ought to worship Him
as our Sovereign Lord. If He designed every detail in the universe purposefully for
us, then we should seek and trust Him for the purpose of our existence. And if He is
the Giver of objective moral laws, then we ought to obey Him. I conducted a youth
apologetics class using this apologetic model, entitled “How Can I Know that God
Exists?” The Christians who attended all found it helpful, and a non-Christian, aged
15, accepted Christ one week later. It is erroneous to assume that our younger
generation abhors the rationalistic aspects of Christianity!

Secondly, we simply cannot afford to relativize Christianity when challenged

by religious pluralism—this is the drawback of postmodern apologetics. Rather, we
should expose the self-contradiction in religious pluralism, and faithfully contend for
the core propositional Christian truths (e.g. the atoning sacrifice and resurrection of
Christ, the exclusivity of salvation), yet doing this in gentleness and respect (1 Peter
3:16). In Paul Copan’s three-tiered apologetic approach against non-Christian
relativism, his first step is to demonstrate that objective truth is inescapable.25 Copan
rightly reasoned that without a belief in objective truth, the non-Christian will not
accept the implications of the Christian message for himself.26 Such a step affirms
the Christian view of objective truth, and is crucial in any apologetic encounter with
the relativistic-minded Singaporean student.27

In arguing for Christianity against other religious worldviews, I concur with

Harold Netland, who recommended the cumulative case argument because it
maintains that Christianity “provides a coherent and reasonable explanation for the

25
Paul Copan, That's Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics who Challenge Your Faith, (Grand
Rapids, MI : Baker Books, 2001) pp. 10-11. The three tiers are: 1) Truth—demonstrate that objective truth is
inescapable; 2) Worldviews—establish theism as the true worldview; 3) Christian apologetics—establish
Christianity as the most likely theism.

26
Ibid., p.10.

27
Using the application in Paul Copan, True For You But Not For Me, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House
Publisher, 1998), I interacted with some of Student NC’s relativistic beliefs, and managed to convince her to
accept the existence of objective truths. Dated: 28 Jun 2008.
8
data” in this world that is “more satisfying and plausible than the other alternatives.”28
To this, I would add that a good cumulative case argument first requires a good
grasp of the individual rational arguments. The case for a personal Creator, the case
for the Bible as the revelation of this Creator God, the case for the historicity and the
deity of Christ, and the case for His death and resurrection, to name but a few of the
key arguments in the cumulative case approach, are all rationalistic arguments in
their own rights, and should thus be mastered by the Christian apologist as far as
possible. In the apologetic encounter with the Singaporean student, such an
approach should be carried out in a reasonable and amicable manner. The student
can be invited to share what he learnt about the other religions in his education, and
evaluate their respective coherence in comparison with the coherence of Christianity.

Thirdly, we ought to invite students into our community of faith, the church.
Dennis Hollinger reasoned that although rational argumentation may still resonate
with postmoderns since narrative alone will not suffice, nevertheless “the rational
appeal will be most powerful when it is connected to a living body that expresses the
Christian worldview in multiple ways, so that rationality is not severed from other
dimensions of the human self”29. The church serves as the “plausibility structure of
the Christian faith” in creating a holistic framework for non-Christians to comprehend
the gospel message.30 As such, the best place to carry out apologetics is in the
context of the church: there the student can experience the genuine Christian love in
the community that undergirds our reasons for the faith. But as I had argued earlier,
the challenge that churches in Singapore face is not that our non-Christian students
are not stepping into our churches. It is that they had entered—and have found it
wanting in providing the “reason” for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15)! Our
churches should endeavor to equip our saints to know why we believe (Christian
theology) and how we can best communicate our beliefs (Christian apologetics) to

28
Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission, (Downers
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 280. See his chapter, ‘Apologetics and Religious Pluralism’, for his
analysis of other apologetic methods and why they fall short of addressing the challenges of religious pluralism.

29
Dennis Hollinger, ‘The Church as Apologetics’, in Timothy R. Phillips & Dennis L. Okholm (ed.) Christian
Apologetics in the Postmodern World (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), pp. 187-189.

30
Ibid., p. 186-187. Hollinger defines “plausible structure” as a “social structure which manifests the worldview of
a people” (p. 186).
9
our non-Christian friends (evangelism), without compromising on authenticity and
Christian grace.

Conclusion

As I have endeavored to demonstrate in this essay, rational apologetics is

indispensible in evangelizing Singaporean youths even today. Both the educational
and religious contexts necessitates an appeal to reason and objective truths in our
outreach, and although postmodern apologetics does suggest valuable insights in
reaching the ‘postmodernizing’ generation, the false dichotomy between rational and
embodied apologetics had unfortunately persuaded some to abandon the former for
the latter. This error has dire consequences, such as relativizing the gospel to make
it ‘politically correct’ in a religiously plural society, distorting the orthodox Christian
view of truth by abandoning a foundationalist understanding of it, and ultimately
rendering the faith anti-intellectual, thus further alienating the educated youths in
Singapore’s context.

In composing a suitable youth apologetic approach in Singapore, I argue that

a combination of both rational and embodied apologetics is not only possible, but
desirable and necessary. Our Lord Jesus Himself was declared to be “full of truth
and grace” (John 1:14), and our apologetics ought to model that. While Singaporean
students, like other postmodern youths, wait to see genuine graciousness in our
Christian communities, we also need to validate the Christian truth-claims through
rational persuasion.

Every apologetic approach must meet its challenges in the specific context to
which it is employed. The unique context of Singaporean youth is an especially
challenging one, which I tend to see as a transitional phase between modernism and
postmodernism, in which our young generation is increasingly influenced by
postmodernism, yet still live and are educated under the assumptions of modernistic
thinking. But if the essence of human beings remains the same regardless of
whether the times are premodern, modern or postmodern—that the definition of the
whole person entails the heart, soul, body and mind—then we cannot solely count on
an embodied apologetics that is itself disembodied from the mind. Every legitimate
10
apologetic approach—be it embodied or rational—should and must be employed to
reach out to the whole person, connecting the heart, soul, body and mind to God.

Word Count: 2,920 (not including footnotes)

11
Bibliography

Books:

• Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian

Faith and Mission, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

• John G. Stackhouse, Jr., Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today,

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

• Mike King, Presence-Centered Youth Ministry: Guiding Students into Spiritual

Formation, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

• Paul Copan, True For You But Not For Me, Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House
Publisher, 1998

• Paul Copan, That's Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics who

Challenge Your Faith, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001.

• R.Scott Smith, Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of
Postmodernism in the Church, Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2005.

• Timothy R. Phillips & Dennis L. Okholm (ed.) Christian Apologetics in the

Postmodern World, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

• Tony Jones, Postmodern Youth Ministry, Grand Rapids, Michigan:

Zondervan/Youth Specialties, 2001.

Essays/Articles:

• Dennis Hollinger, ‘The Church as Apologetics’, in Timothy R. Phillips & Dennis

L. Okholm (ed.) Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, Downers
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp. 182-193.

• William Lane Craig, ‘God is Not Dead Yet’, Christianity Today, July 2008, Vol
52, No. 7.

Online materials:

• Contact, Issue 07 Apr 2006,

http://www3.moe.edu.sg/corporate/contactonline/2006/issue07/sub_professio
nalMatters_art01.htm . Date accessed: 22 July 2008.

• Singapore Census of Population, 2000, URL:

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/c2000adr-religion.pdf. Date
accessed: 5 August 2008.

Interviews:

• Student ST, Date: 31 May 2008

12
• Student NTW, Date: 5 Jun 2008

• Student VT, Date: 5 Jun 2008

• Student KJJ, Date: 5 Jun 2008

• Student HXY, Date: 10 Jun 2008

• Student WSY, Date: 10 Jun 2008

• Student JH, Date: 28 Jun 2008

• Student NC, Date 28 Jun 2008

13