Young Guns

A Young Teddy Roosevelt, via Historical Stock Photos

There’s a new kind of sheriff in town…or at least a new crop of deputies.

They’re young Catholics–cradle and convert–who are ushering in a new era of apologetics. If you haven’t discovered their blogs yet, start by visiting Brent Stubbs, Brandon Vogt, Joe Heschmeyer, Pat Vandapool, Tony Layne, and Called to Communion (CtC). In this post, I’ll look at where they came from, the new approaches they are using, and the results of their work.

Paving the Way

It’s hard to imagine these young apologists existing without the hard work of their predecessors. Scott Hahn, Mark Shea, Dave Armstrong, Patrick Madrid, Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, and many others hacked through the tangled jungle of apologetics with machetes, leaving a trail for others to follow.

They wrote books, took part in heated debates with Protestants, and traveled around the country giving talks. They were the first Catholics who went online when the internet boom began, establishing Catholic outposts on the Wild Web. The younger generation came behind them, learning from them, even becoming Catholic through their work. And now a happy complementarity exists between the two groups.

Old Wine in New Wineskins

So what’s different about these young guns of Catholic apologetics? Three things:

1. They’re always charitable

Keeping your cool is tough, especially when you’re being baited by the most virulent of anti-Catholic polemicist. But these guys do it. “I’m amazed by how gracious those Called to Communion guys are!” That’s a comment I’ve heard from many people. Indeed, the respectful tone of these apologists by itself is often enough to intrigue our Protestant brothers and sisters. Something is different here. They turn the other cheek when hit. They focus on the arguments and avoid ad hominems.

2. They use the new media

They’re blogging. And they’re commenting on other blogs, including Protestant ones. They’re creating podcasts and videos. They’re tweeting and using facebook and Google+. They’re saturating the web with authentic, compelling Catholic truth. And tens of thousands of people are finding their work and seriously considering their arguments. God does the rest, as we will shortly see in the last section of this post.

3. They’re systematic

Joe Heschmeyer of Shameless Popery uses his attorney-honed analytical skills to break down every Protestant argument. The guys at Called to Communion are about a third of the way through their ambitious roadmap of articles that build the case for the Catholic Church from the bottom up, brick by brick. These guys desire the truth, nothing less will do. And with clock-like precision, they present arguments to show the solid reasoning behind the Church’s teachings.

Reaping the Harvest

The fruit of their work is apparent: thousands of faithful and intelligent Protestants have entered full communion with the Catholic Church. Some we know about, those vocal few who comment and share their journey with the world via comments or their own blogs. Many more silently make the decision to become Catholic, after months or even years of reading these blogs and prayerfully considering the claims made.

We’ve entered a new era of history. The internet has made the truth of Catholicism more accessible than ever, and the young guns of the Church are there, firing off round after round in shots heard round the Web. Whether God is calling you to join their ranks or not, you can learn from their wisdom and experience to promote the Faith in your own sphere of life.

Ride on, Young Guns!

Devin Rose

Devin Rose

Devin Rose is a Catholic writer and lay apologist. After his conversion from atheism to Protestant Christianity in college, he set out to discover where the fullness of the truth of Jesus Christ could be found. His search led him to the Catholic Church. He blogs at St. Josephโ€™s Vanguard and has released his first book titled โ€œIf Protestantism Is True.โ€ He has written articles for Catholic News Agency, Fathers for Good, Called to Communion, and has appeared on EWTN discussing Catholic-Protestant topics.

Leave a Replay

26 thoughts on “Young Guns”

  1. It’s funny. I’ve heard so much that the “young set” (as my dad somewhat facetiously call us) is much more charitable than the original Catholic Blogger Generation. Maybe that’s true, but we have to be extremely careful that we don’t get complacent. “Oh, we’re the Charitable Catholic Bloggers”. It possibly sets up a divide between the “good” Catholic bloggers and the “bad”. Now, understandably we have grown up seeing the less-than-charitable things going on in the “older set”, and because of this we see what it does. But let us not fall into the same temptation of “I don’t like his approach. In fact, a lot of what he says is downright against charity.”

    In the meantime, let’s develop our charity and not take it for granted. We are a Fallen Blogosphere.

  2. Good point, Nathaniel. I almost left that part out because it implies that the “older” generation is uncharitable, which is not true at all. Also, many of us (myself included) fall to temptation to be uncharitable or trade punch-for-punch, so it is not an all or nothing kind of thing. Sometimes we do better and other times we do worse.

    It might be helpful to say instead that the young guns know how to come across better in blog discussions. To be honest I don’t see many of the older generation engaging in comments on blogs, even though they have blogs.

  3. People are people. Catholic apologists are Catholic apologists. Zebras have stripes, etc. I don’t think it is that different. The fringe anti-Catholic wing of online Protestantism despises, e.g., the folks at “Called to Communion” (especially Bryan Cross) just as much as they detest us “older” apologists. I can attest to that, having seen many disparaging remarks. Whoever defends the Church will be in for the same treatment no matter how saintly and non-confrontational they act. That’s just how it goes.

    If one is loved by one and all, I question whether they are vigorously defending Holy Mother Church, because many people get offended when you disagree with them (believe me, I know, after 30 years of apologetics in both the Protestant and Catholic worlds). This is a dynamic that hold true in all times and places because it is the perpetual struggle of truth over falsehood; right over wrong. We don’t want to be despised because we are truly jerks and uncharitable (because of our own poor behavior), but if we are loathed because we proclaim Catholic truth, then that is exactly what our Lord predicted would happen. It does not necessarily reflect badly upon how well we did our job, at all.

    I have (friendly) quibbles with some of the characterizations: drawing contrasts where I don’t see much of that, myself. You clarified on the charity thing. Good. As for Point 2, Scott Hahn doesn’t interact online much (he doesn’t debate), but all the other “old guard” named are very active in this fashion. We’re all on Facebook and we all interact. Pat Madrid has 5000 Facebook followers; Jimmy Akin is up to 4581. I have 2500 in just eight months’ time. I think most are on Twitter, too (I am). Most use radio and TV and various other media. I’m the least “public,” by far (I just write away in my own home), but I have been on the radio about a dozen times.

    As for Point 3 (being systematic), that’s nothing new to me at all: I have over 2600 posts on my blog, categorized in over 50 separate web pages. I deal with everything: atheists, science, sexual issues, war ethics, ecumenism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, anti-Catholics, Orthodoxy, Catholic traditionalism, Church fathers, development of doctrine, romantic theology a la Lewis and Tolkien, conversion and converts, you name it. So that is not “different” from me. The Catholic Answers website is quite systematic; so is Pat Madrid’s stuff, and Scott Hahn’s website(s).

    I’m not trying to toot my own horn, or that of the “older guys” or create some kind of silly rivalry (not at all); I’m merely making the point that I don’t see the strong contrast that is drawn in the article, and question the accuracy of using the adjectives “new,” “new era,” “new wineskins,” “different,” “new media.”

    Obviously, with each new wave of apologetics and outreach efforts there will be innovations and fresh approaches. I want to see “new guys” who are doing a good job, get more exposure and recognition. More power to all of ’em. I commend any such efforts and rejoice to see them. But I don’t think there is any essential (or even very great) difference here.

    We’re all in this together and can all learn from each other. If someone learns something from me I am flattered and give the glory to God; but I hope to always be open to learning from others, too, including the so-called “young guns.” I don’t want to ever become the “old dog” (at the ripe old age of 53) that can never learn “new tricks.”

    God bless!

  4. As an example of some of what I was contending above, see the feature article on the anti-Catholic Beggars All site, by John Bugay, entitled, “The Bryan Cross Method Alert” (5-10-10).

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/bryan-cross-method-alert.html

    After all kinds of swipes taken, Bugay concludes at length that Cross’s “method of argumentation is inherently dishonest.” Earlier in the article he characterized Cross’s style as “knowingly to convey a misleading impression to another person.” It’s the old “jesuitical casuistry” charge. Bugay in the combox expressly states this: “I’ve pulled out my copy of Pascal’s ‘Provincial Letters,’ and I’m going to give them a look, on the topic of ‘casuistry.'”

    Nothing new under the sun. If Cross is using some kind of “new” method that is distinguishable in any significant way from older ones, the net result in the anti-Catholic’s eyes is exactly the same. It’s not a whit more effective in convincing people who are fundamentally hostile, than anything that has been done in the last 20 years online. Bugay attacks Cross again in an article dated 3-25-11, saying,

    “Bryan is one of those individuals in search of ‘the correctly marketable term,’ a new phrase he can coin and throw out there to ‘the academy,’ which will have his name attached to it, and for which people will fawn over him. . . . Maybe, someday, Bryan can be known, like Bultmann, for having discerned ‘the separation of the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith.'”

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/03/mustard-tree-as-image-of-church.html

    These dynamics are inevitable. Called to Communion and Bryan Cross are relatively well-known, among the “young guns.” Therefore, they are being increasingly attacked and savaged. The same thing will happen to anyone else who crosses paths with the leading anti-Catholics. The closer you get to the “front lines” and the longer you stay there, the more attacks will come (and with them the altogether human temptation to respond in kind, or to act in ways quite differently from a sweet, saintly demeanor). It’s the nature of spiritual as well as military warfare.

    Once a few points are scored in debate, then the anti-Catholic fangs come out and it is never the same again. I guarantee that the young guns will not fare any differently, the more they engage these folks. And there is a time for a rebuke and strong language, too, if it is warranted. Jesus did that with the Pharisees; St. Paul did with various opponents (some of whom are named in his letters), and with entire churches (Galatians, Corinthians). Sometimes when a person is rightly rebuked, then the one doing it gets accused of engaging in the same behavior that was rebuked (I know from much personal experience!).

    Any apologist who thinks that his work can and will always be “nicey-nicey” and “smiley” and all wrapped up in a pretty bow will have to learn the hard way, and may be in for some major disenchantment or disillusionment (I’ve seen many people “burn out”). If difficult scenarios and strong (personal) opposition aren’t encountered, then (sorry), I don’t think an apologist is fully doing his job. Opposition (and hence unpopularity) is inevitable.

    With Protestants who are ecumenical, though, there is no problem achieving amiable, cordial, constructive debate. It’s like night and day. Therefore, I contend that the essential difference is not some supposedly significantly “new” apologetic method vs. older ones, but rather, the difference in how an anti-Catholic Protestant responds, vs. how a Protestant who considers Catholics brothers in Christ will respond, and how the former responds, in direct proportion to how familiar he is with a Catholic opponent, and how many times he has been bested in argument by same.

    Precisely the same dynamic also applies to apologetics in exchanges with atheists. There are the angry, irrational, “anti-Christian” ones (unfortunately the majority), and also the ones who can talk sensibly with those who differ from them. Nothing works with the former, but it is easy to dialogue with the latter. Again, the key is not the method of the Catholic, but the prior outlook of the particular atheist. This is crucial to understand. We won’t be “successful” with everyone.

    Our task as apologists is to vigorously share and defend the truth, with charity and gentleness and wisdom. The results are up to God, since it is only His grace that moves any heart closer to Him in the first place. Sometimes we are opposed and seem to achieve no result whatever (like Jeremiah); other times there is abundant visible fruit (as on the day of Pentecost or with St. Francis de Sales, winning back many thousands of Calvinists). Jeremiah was not at fault; nor could St. Francis claim final credit for “his results.”

    The spiritual battle for hearts and souls is being waged on a scale and height infinitely beyond whatever (good or bad) methods we may bring to the table. Our first and always most important task is to be obedient to our call and to be proper witnesses of Christ. If our Lord and many (if not most) saints were persecuted and killed; we will, at the very least, be personally savaged and attacked. We can expect this; if it is not present, we ought to seriously examine ourselves to see why that is.

    We mustn’t be naive enough to actually think that Satan and his demons won’t put up a vigorous fight against anyone who is effectively sharing and defending God’s truth and the fullness of the Catholic faith. We can count on it. It’s not peaches and cream and all method and PR and getting folks to like us. Apologetics is ultimately spiritual battle. We can be friendly, nice, charming; all that (and I sure hope we all strive to be that way), but that doesn’t nullify the fact that it is, bottom line, a battle (thus, “young guns” is a very apt metaphor indeed!).

  5. I take Nathaniel and Dave’s comments regarding Devin’s point about being charitable. However, what I will say is that I regularly read some of the blogs mentioned (I won’t name names to spare the authors’ blushes) and I have found that they are infinitely more patient and polite than I would ever would be… Well done chaps!

  6. I think an apologist will have to learn to be extremely patient or he will either 1) go nuts, or 2) not be engaged in apologetics very long. ๐Ÿ™‚ Sometimes you have to deliberately avoid specific folks with whom you have a short fuse (for reasons either in yourself or in them or both), for the sake of the “mission.”

  7. Dave,

    Thanks for chiming in. I did not intend my portrayal of the positive traits of the young guns to imply a lack of those qualities with you and the other more experienced apologists I mentioned.

    On my blog a few weeks ago I tipped my hat to you for engaging in discussion with the more virulently anti-Catholic Protestant apologists. You have continued to engage them for many years, which is a service to people, since it is important work to do but often frustrating and even odious.

    You are right that apologetics doesn’t change in its essentials. The arguments we make were put quite well by St. Francis de Sales in the Catholic Controversy four hundred years ago. But we put old wine in new wineskins, addressing the particular issues that are important to our separated brethren today. And each new generation has a different perspective on this, and new voices to add. There are contributors on this site, over a decade my junior, and when I read their posts I realize, I would never have said something in that way–it simply would not have occurred to me given my background, experience, and even my particular “generation” (I’m somewhere between generation X and the “millennials”).

    Just time for one more comment. Certainly all of us apologists seek to be systematic, but the Called to Communion guys roadmap takes it, in my opinion, to a new level. The way they designed the articles to build on one another, as well as the quality of the writing and the arguments, is unexcelled in my experience. That is not to take away from your work, mine, or any other apologist’s; it’s simply an admirable strength that they exhibit as a group.

    God bless your work for the Kingdom.

  8. Nice piece.

    When I started enjoying this article then it suddenly ended. Oh No! ๐Ÿ™

    In discussing issues of the Church, I prefer to be more direct in my approach and unfortunately some Catholics do not like such an approach. I believe in calling a spade a spade not a BIG SPOON. ๐Ÿ™‚

    “No matter how good food is, if poison is mixed with it, it may cause the death of him who eats it. So it is with conversation. A single bad word, an evil action, an unbecoming joke, is often enough to harm one or more young listeners, and may later cause them to lose God’s grace.” St. John Bosco

    Pro Katholikos!

  9. Thanks Gadel,

    I was trying to keep it short and sweet, though I’ve now thought of several other aspects to talk about. Well, I’ll save it for another post, here or on my blog.

    God bless!

  10. Hi Devin,

    I am enjoying the intellectual stimulation (leading me to write so much in reply). Good topic.

    I did not intend my portrayal of the positive traits of the young guns to imply a lack of those qualities with you and the other more experienced apologists I mentioned.

    You clarified that in your remarks on charity and again here, and I gladly accept your report, but I think some of the language used in the article actually does logically imply this, if we take the remarks literally, because you emphasize all this “new” stuff, and talk about new wineskins and so forth; then you said “whatโ€™s different about these young guns [?]” and “Something is different here,” and mention three aspects: charity, new media, being systematic. If you say they are “different” in these ways, then that logically goes back to us old guys that you mention earlier, since they have to be “different” from someone or something, and that was the referent. See what I’m saying?

    All you would have to do to change the logical thrust would be to say that the new guys are characterized or typified by thus-and-such, without the judgment of “different” (from what came before).

    There seems to be some subtle negative insinuation against the “old guard” in other choices of words and metaphors; e.g., “hacked through the tangled jungle of apologetics with machetes” (doesn’t sound like very subtle, fine-tuned apologetic work LOL) and “took part in heated debates . . .” The implication is thus left that newer apologists are vastly different in these respects (which I deny is the case).

    Again; you say you didn’t intend to draw this stark contrast. I believe you, but sometimes imprecise language can leave an impression that even the ones writing them didn’t intend to convey.

  11. Dave,

    For what it’s worth, I read the article as a salute to those who have blazed the trail for the new evangelization and an honest excitement about the crop of new apologists that it has produced. I can see your point, but I don’t believe many will come away with the impression you are concerned about.

    I enjoyed the article Devin and I am thankful for all of our apologists, young and old(er)!

  12. Bethanie:

    If you’re looking for female “young guns”, I suggest the Bright Maidens Trista at notaminx.blogspot.com, Elizabeth at elizabethhillgrove.com, and Julie at thecornerwithaview.blogspot.com. There’s also my friend Stacy Trasancos at acceptingabundance.com. Devin, I’m sure, can come up with others; in fact, he may be saving them up for a follow-up post.

  13. Dave,

    I have mentioned off-line that I have no intention of re-doing Dave Armstrong, Scott Hahn, et. al. I would much rather just tell someone to “look there”, if they are interested. I admire your work, and hope that my blog will always be <2,600. You have forged a path for us, and now it is our job to make sure your work is both continued and perfected when possible, as I am sure would be your hope. Even more, the world is big and humanity diverse, and it is incumbent that everyone take up his or her cross and take responsibility for their little corner of God's earth He has entrusted to them. In other words, none of us can blame you for not doing our part. : )

    Regarding apologetic tone, I think it is essential to not confuse charity with false irenicism. False irenicism puts as its primary goal the "non-offense" (subjective good) of the other. Charity puts as its goal the objective good of the other. If you believe "not X", and "X" is true, then it is charitable for me to help you understand why "X" is true–particularly if your belief and its propagation has has as its end something contrary to the objective good of yourself and others. If that means that something I write offends you, so be it. It would be accidental to what I did, and likely correlative to your personal commitment to said "not X".

    As a former heretic, I understand just how easy it is to be a heretic, and understood that the conversion of the mind is a long and tedious process–particularly when one has a deep, personal commitment to the belief.

    Apologetics will always happen behind the scenes of conversion, and we should not confuse our work with that of the evangelist. Our work comes before the evangelist, before and with the Spirit, as an attempt to clear away all that keeps those from hearing and responding to the voice of the Spirit. In a way, every apologist is a "trail blazer", forging a path in a soul for the Spirit of Truth to do His unique work. However, we should not set as our goal conversion, but as simply being a faithful witness. As Blessed Mother Teresa reminds everyone called to any vocation: "God has not called [us] to be successful; He has called [us} to be faithful.โ€

    Keep up the good work.

    JMJ,

    Brent

    Bethanie:

    Add to the list Melinda Selmys and many other great females who are a part of the new evangelization. Rather than be concerned, would you share with Devin and all of us some female names you recommend we read besides the 16 that write for this blog? Pax

  14. BTW, Dave, your warning about the more virulent anti-Catholics is very timely; in fact, my friend Stacy at Accepting Abundance has been getting a beatdown the last couple of days … not from Protestants, but from the gay-rights crowd with some atheists mixed in. The nice thing about a blog is that, if a comment makes you upset, you can walk away until you cool down โ€” something you can’t do on stage or on a call-in radio show. I have a lot of respect for you, and can learn quite a bit still. Thanks for your comments and support.

  15. Brian,

    Given the first comment, and how Devin himself responded, “I almost left that part out because it implies that the ‘older’ generation is uncharitable, which is not true at all,” it stands to reason that the language is a bit imprecise.

  16. Brent,

    Excellent comment. I agree with you all down the line.

    Anthony,

    I think we all have to constantly learn to discern when someone is simply not ready (or able) to dialogue. Arguably it is even worse to proceed under those loaded circumstances than to say nothing and simply pray. When hostility arises, dialogue is pretty much over. I don’t (technically) debate anti-Catholics anymore (haven’t for four years now), precisely because I think dialogue is literally impossible with them.

    I’ve never found one yet in 20 years who was able to really do one. They don’t know or understand our position in the first place (the first task in any debate), but even if they did, the animus would preclude any meaningful dialogue.

    We can attempt to talk to anyone, but if they aren’t listening, it’s a waste of time. It’s immensely frustrating for those of us who love dialogue and wish that much more of it could be had.

    Thanks to both of you for your kind words. I think Catholic apologetics is in great shape, with “young fogeys” like y’all carrying the torch into the future. I’m very impressed indeed. God bless you! It’s my generation (the baby boomers) who have made such a mess of the world. The younger folks would have to try awful hard to be as stupid as we have been, so there is much hope! ๐Ÿ™‚ And I believe revival will eventually hit (maybe in 20 years or so?), because Church history tells us that the worst centuries are invariably followed by some of the best.

  17. Dave,
    I wasn’t claiming that there was not any imprecise language, only that any imprecise language was such that it didn’t lead me draw the conclusions you are concerned about.

    I stated “for what it’s worth” because I would consider myself the average reader. I wasn’t debating the points you made.

  18. Devin, this is awesome – thanks!

    Dave Armstrong,

    You guys were paving the way of Catholic apologetics before it was cool – or easy. You faced all sorts of obstacles that the other young bloggers and I haven’t had to face. We showed up to find an active and enthusiastic orthodox Catholic blogosphere already existed, thanks to guys like yourself. We’ve been reaping what guys like you have been sowing.

    God bless,

    Joe

  19. Hi Joe,

    You are very kind, too. I still think, though, that the scenario is basically the same: if you encounter and attempt to refute hostile parties it will be the same dynamic. Those things don’t change.

    Is apologetics cool now? LOL That would be different. Do you think people actually know what it is (not saying you’re sorry . . .)?

  20. This is a very exciting time to be Catholic and even in just the 7 years I have been Catholic I have seen a tremendous growth in the blogosphere as well as in all the other forms of social media aimed at presenting the Catholic faith from a Catholic point of view,( vs a biased caricature from anti-Catholics.) There is so much beauty and truth in the Catholic faith that there is an unlimited amount of material to mine and contemplate and then ultimately tweet, blog ,podcast about. The most exciting thing is to see how the Catholic faith energizes the young intellectuals and spurns them on to blog and write books etc.
    Congrats to the Young Guns! Keep’m blazing for the glory of God!

    PS
    How many of us when we were evangelicals were blogging, tweeting and writing books about our faith? I wasn’t, to be honest. Why now, what’s the difference that motivates this change? I’d like to see a blog post about this.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up for our Newsletter

Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit