Why think apologetically?

I heard someone say that you never need to defend yourself. Your friends don’t require it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.

I’m in the middle of a class in Apologetics with Dr. Frame, and I’m reading sections of William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, John Frame, Kelly Clark, and Paul Feinberg. All the while I am reading apologetics, my mind desires to take a step back. I can’t help it. I think that in order to think apologetically about anything, you have to step back from the thing you are defending.

[I wrote a very exhaustive paragraph here that sums up my impression of apologetic method. I decided that no one cares and eliminated it. However, the basic gist was this “It seems that no one has that much patience, fairness, honesty, or humility. We want to speak, not listen. We want to teach, not learn.”]

. . . So, while I’m reading, my mind wants to take a step back. This blog post is an apologetic of sorts. I’ll be honest when I say that I am never going to stop loving the God of the Bible. I am actually far more interested in exploring the Christian theistic worldview than I am in exploring the monism of my non-believing friends. In fact, I might go so far as to say that writing apologetically is fruitless unless it is a pure proclamation of Christ. I’m starting to see how the apostles wrote apologetically–they proclaimed Christ. Why defend a worldview when we can proclaim it?

I guess in this sense, we are speaking/writing evangelistically more so than apologetically. In truth, there is no need to draw a line at the point where apologetics (“why I believe”) ends and evangelism (“what I believe”) begins. All of truth is established upon the proclamation of Christ as the All-sufficient, Creator God, raised up and exalted; Redeemer of the lost. Above Him there is no other . . .
. . . But it’s not that simple: (See part 2 of 2)