Cultural apologetics has enjoyed a rise in popularity in the last few years among evangelicals. Paul Gould’s excellent book Cultural Apologetics, in my mind, marked a serious shift toward thinking about the technical details of this apologetic method.[1] Gould moved beyond simply using cultural artifacts to make an apologetic case but instead focused more heavily on cultural dynamics and biblical anthropology. In 2025, the Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics released the book The Gospel After Christendom: An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, which operates as a wonderful primer to this apologetic approach and includes elements that have not received as much attention.[2] Furthermore, D. A. Horton provided the chapter on the most recent “multi-view” book on Christian apologetics: Understanding Christian Apologetics: Five Methods for Defending the Faith, demonstrating this approach’s prominence in modern apologetic circles.[3]
More books, articles, and interviews could be added to this list. Suffice to say, though, cultural apologetics has gained more popularity within the evangelical subculture—and for good reason. Individuals seem more keenly aware of the culture around them and are more open to the ways in which Christianity speaks to cultural issues. That said, while I do not think that this approach is entirely new or novel, I do think that the increase in its usage in current discourse should encourage us to evaluate its viability and helpfulness. Therefore, I want to take the remainder of this article and assess the dangers and opportunities presented by cultural apologetics.
Concerns
Beginning with the dangers, my most significant concern with cultural apologetics is the potential for theological drift. This prospect happens when apologists seek to accommodate to the culture, hoping to make Christianity appealing to its cultural despisers.[4] The problem is an obvious one: when apologists seek to make an apologetic case, often trying to make Christianity more attractive, they may feel a temptation to soften their theological views and thus make the Bible more culturally palatable. However, cultural apologetics, if it is to be successful and theologically faithful, must be theologically convictional. Because cultural apologetics relies so heavily on “bridge-building” between one’s Christian worldview and the current cultural milieu, the apologist must hold strongly to his theological convictions—especially those theological beliefs of a first order.[5] To mix metaphors, we need to be careful not to build our houses (or bridges) on sinking sand.[6]
With this idea in mind, cultural apologists need to do more work to substantiate their approach as robustly biblical; we need to have more than Acts 17 as a proof text. Being convictional about our theological beliefs may actually have the reverse effect that some apologists would think. Specifically, being convictional and courageous about historic Christian doctrine can be a compelling apologetic in and of itself.
My second concern, though lesser, is that cultural apologetics can easily be reductionistic. That is, cultural apologetics can, if one is not careful, distill into simply making cultural references to make an apologetic case. If done poorly, making analogies or allusions to cultural artifacts can actually muddy the theological waters rather than purify them.[7] These arguments are not without merit, but one should not assume the easiest argument is the best one. Cultural apologists can make arguments from beautiful paintings or music, or conversely, by pointing out the ugliness of the world in avant-garde art. But these references should be part of a larger pool of arguments—ones that engage with theological retrieval, cultural plausibility structures, anthropological nuances, and more.
Hopes
We have numerous reasons to embrace and be hopeful about the opportunities that cultural apologetics provide. The book The Gospel After Christendom is a hopeful sign of thinking in this area. Though not all the chapters are equally strong, I was encouraged by deeper engagement on the subject. Joshua D. Chatraw rightly notes that cultural apologetics is ripe for theological retrieval, yet we must be careful in our methodology. Chatraw argues that Augustine, Blaise Pascal, and C. S. Lewis are all great apologists, whose work we should mine. He also encourages readers toward the work of Thomas Aquinas, Johann Georg Hamann, G. K. Chesterton, and Herman Bavinck. Chatraw has taken his own advice and provided a thought-provoking and engaging work with Mark D. Allen, entitled The Augustine Way: Retrieving a Vision for the Church’s Apologetic Witness, which I recently recommended on the HSF.[8]
Likewise, Alan Noble’s chapter on not accommodating or condemning elements of culture is worth reading as well. Noble notes the temptation, in reference to one’s cultural engagement, either to accommodate fully or to condemn fully when engaging in cultural apologetics. Instead, he seeks to help apologists form the correct cultural posture. Likewise, Chatraw and Allen argue for an “Inside Out Apologetic.” Their approach is to find points of both agreement and contention with others. This suggestion includes points of connection but also includes places where worldviews collide. They write, “The most beneficial approach is first to affirm the aspects of the other person’s position that you find admirable and then identify points that are impractical or inconsistent.”[9]
They encourage apologists to help non-Christians see the connection between “A” doctrines and “B” doctrines: “‘A’ doctrines are Christian beliefs that are generally affirmed in a given culture.” Examples include, but are not limited to, basic human dignity, care for the oppressed, and a desire for justice—to name a few. Many in these cultures would easily agree with these “doctrines.” They continue, “‘B’ doctrines are Christian beliefs that a particular culture finds difficult to accept, if not all together repulsive.”[10] Examples include the judgment of Hell and beliefs on human sexuality and gender. Of course, the task of the cultural apologist—as Chatraw and Allen make clear—is to help the non-Christian connect the dots between “A” doctrines and “B” doctrines. Healthy work in these areas of navigating the cultural landscape between agreement and rejection is crucial for this approach. Again, I am thankful for the work that is being done here and hopeful to see new ground being covered.
Conclusion
Cultural apologetics does not seem new. As early as the Letter to Diognetus (c. AD 130), or before, Christians were making cases from and through their culture for the viability of the Christian faith. Even so, non-believers within our cultural milieu are often looking for something different, perhaps because we have moved away from the more latent forms of modernism in our apologetics. As faithful believers, let us provide our unbelieving friends with a cultural apologetic that is both theologically robust and richly biblical. Let us not default to easy analogies but give our apologetics the best of our theological and philosophical thinking. If we do so, I am hopeful for the future of this approach.
[1] Paul M. Gould, Cultural Apologetics: Renewing the Christian Voice, Conscience, and Imagination in a Disenchanted World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019).
[2] Collin Hansen, Skyler R. Flowers, and Ivan Mesa, eds., The Gospel After Christendom: An Introduction to Cultural Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2025).
[3] Timothy Paul Jones, ed., Understanding Christian Apologetics: Five Methods for Defending the Faith (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2025).
[4] I am riffing here on Friedrich Schleiermacher’s work, whom many regard as the father of Protestant liberalism. See Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, trans. and ed. Richard Crouter (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
[5] I am thinking here specifically of those doctrines we might refer to as “the fundamentals”: the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, inerrancy of Scripture, etc.
[6] See Lindsey Medenwaldt, Bridge-Building Apologetics: How to Get Along Even When We Disagree (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2024).
[7] Just today I saw a pastor who noted that the recent Hail Mary movie includes a ship called “Hail Mary” whose pilot is named “Grace” and how “Grace” is the Savior of humanity. Moreover, his friend is “Rocky” like Peter in the Bible. The “connections” are interesting but are more clever than substantive, failing to engage with larger themes and motifs of the artifact itself. See OK, so Here’s My Thesis: “Project Hail Mary,” Starring Ryan Gosling, Is a CHRISTIAN Movie. Give Me a Couple Minutes to Make My Case! Agree or Disagree? 👀✍️ | Josh Howerton, July 27, 2026, https://www.facebook.com/reel/2006583493297418/.
[8] Joshua D. Chatraw and Mark D. Allen, The Augustine Way: Retrieving a Vision for the Church’s Apologetic Witness (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023).
[9] Joshua D. Chatraw and Mark D. Allen, Apologetics at the Cross: An Introduction for Christian Witness (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2018), 216.
[10] Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 218.
Recent Comments