What’s Wrong with the World

As a full-time housewife and home schooling mother, I'm one of that small proportion who can spend their time doing (much of the time) fascinating and worthwhile things. If you want to disregard my advice because I am privileged, you can do so, but please don't think I'm unaware of the greatness of the undeserved blessings I have received. Despite my speaking from a sort of specially padded bower within the ivory tower,

That, for those of you who cannot read between the lines, is Lydia speaking with double meaning: greatness and undeserved blessing indeed...expressed in diapers, the nth time around teaching the same phonics and same basic subtraction facts to a child, and the 19,356th family meal prepared on the fly between a dozen competing claims on time. Great and graceful doings are, to an extent, found wherever you are, if done for God's sake and not just your own.

Which just goes to show you: the other side of the coin is that even the life of those in the ivory tower are, significantly, made up of the humdrum, the repetitive, the prosaic. When the teacher (of whatever stripe, philosophy or math or English) teaches the same topic to the 20th set of new students, he is going to get a fair amount of the same (dumb) questions. He is going to get the same proportion of students who cannot be bothered to crack open the book before the exam, and whose final is dreadful, trying to find SOMETHING to grade positively. And the same ungrateful failing students who complain about the D they got (instead of the F they deserved or the C they thought they deserved).

Lydia, I too have been blessed with a career, after getting a master's degree, in which I spend a fair share of what I do on things that I more or less enjoy doing, at least in some sense. I work with numbers, and a lot of people would find it incredibly tedious, but a long time ago I learned to work mainly for the good of people, and make that the reason I work with numbers. A significant share of the time, my work involves telling people they cannot actually do what they wanted to do, but there I view my REAL task as helping them see, grasp, and accept the rationality of the underlying reality so that it is not really ME telling them, it is reality telling them.

But in any case I heartily applaud your main thesis here. Most people most of the time are called to the kind of work that is the backbone of an economy, and most of us should be ready for that eventuality. If you want to be in ministry, your best bet isn't really to get a degree in divinity or (heaven help us) "youth ministry" and expect to jump directly into a job that way. Instead, get a steady job that the economy actually pays for, and with your spare time just volunteer in a worthwhile area as a grunt. If God wants you in a job description with a fancier title than just volunteer pot scrubber, he can always pull you upwards on his own steam. Study on the side, devotedly, either alone or with a sound group. A serious Christian volunteer who puts himself forward for onerous tasks and not for glory will be noticed if God wants that to go somewhere exciting. You can treat volunteer work as an internship for a better prospect: nearly all employers would love to get their hands on interns who have proven they can handle the mundane stuff like showing up when you said you would, as well as having good ideas.

At the same time, you should do your best to locate activities, both the economically rewarding kind (i.e. a job) and worthwhile volunteer work, that are actually at least somewhat suited to your capabilities and temperament. That way you have a pretty decent chance of being satisfied doing what you spend so much of your time doing even if it is not your first preference. Maybe only a small percentage of people get to do their first choice of jobs, but a LOT higher % get to do second choice careers (like me), and that's nothing to sneeze at. And in a position like that you have better motivation to developing your potential so that you are more able to contribute greater value. There is a big difference between demanding that you get the one single best job, and angling for a compatible job. If you cannot stand talking with strangers, don't try to be a waitress. But if chatting with new people is what energizes you, then by all means waiting tables is a fine way of serving God and fellow mankind. Rarely indeed is it the case that God wants a person to intentionally delve into a career where they actually dread doing the main activities of the job.

Tony, I like your point about a lot of people getting to do their second choice job. That's a good point.

This post was being discussed on Facebook, and one of my friends brought up something else that should be thrown into the mix: The trades. Electrician, plumber, etc. They are needed and don't pay too poorly. Is it really the case that one of the trades wouldn't even be a _second_ choice for a lot of people? I can't help thinking that a lot of the problem there is sheer ignorance. I myself am abysmally ignorant about how someone enters the trades. It's a big black box. College has become such a default setting that everyone assumes it is the natural route to a paying job. I bet being an electrician would even be interesting for a lot of people.

Lydia, great stuff. I am a former adjunct prof/pastor, now working in a full time retail sales business in a Christian owned car dealership. I didn't leave the full time ministry, but am in full time ministry (not in the popular sense). I would love to be like Tim and teaching full time, but don't have the PhD. At the same time there are a lot of starving Ph D's out there as well. But I get to share with as many as the Lord opens up the opportunity. I look for speaking opportunties and get them as the Lord gives them.

We are in full time ministry. Our culture calls for the paradigm you have described. Great thoughts and many should think about what you have shared.

Thanks,
Rob Lundberg, Chapter Director
Tent maker apologist with Ratio Christi at Germanna Community College

Amen and Amen and Amen.
Coming from an Apologist and Engineering Tentmaker :)

Neil Mammen
Technologist
Tentmaker Systems Consulting Group
www.TentmakerSystems.com

At the same time, you should do your best to locate activities, both the economically rewarding kind (i.e. a job) and worthwhile volunteer work, that are actually at least somewhat suited to your capabilities and temperament.

I find that most of the people around me tend not to care about that, and seem to think they know better than me what I should be doing. I don't know, maybe they are right, but I am certainly not particularly happy with what I have been spending much of my time on over the past few years.

I am in the trades right now. I work in the humble profession of carpenter. Ever hear of any famous carpenters? Well, just One is enough I guess.

I am also a retired police officer who has taken up construction after over 20 years as a cop.

But for years my passion has been to strengthen the faith of young people. I have a daughter, now 30, who walked away from her faith shortly after she entered college. She has not (yet) returned. I had two sons who were younger and I determined to do all that I could to make a difference before they left high school for the big bad world. I intentionally spend many hours learning. To know what I believed and why I believed it. Then I discussed the results of those studies with my sons. Not telling them what conclusion to draw from the evidence, but rather encouraging them to examine the evidence, carefully, and come to their own conclusion. I am happy to report they are still active in Christianity now at ages 24 and 22.

I am the budding Director of a Chapter of Ratio Christi at Winona State University in Minnesota. We have a group but the student senate has not approved our application for official recognition yet. I also teach a weekly high school bible study in which we do much of the same thing I did with my sons, examine the evidence for the faith. In addition, I lead a small group of high school sophomores studying scripture as well as other material. My hope, dream and prayer is to be in a financial position to do less carpentry and more mentoring in the next few years.

But the post really strikes me in another way. My 24 year old son has graduated from college, has for years been interested in theology and philosophy (geez, I wonder where THAT came from) and is applying to grad school. Ugg, I want for him to be able to follow his desire, yet the reality, as spelled out in the post, is somewhat bleak.

Thanks to all for the additional comments. Bernie, send your son the link to this post. :-)

Beyond that, I do have a few additional comments. If someone is bound and determined to go to graduate school in theology (e.g. divinity school) or in the humanities, such as philosophy, here are a few tips for keeping one's options at least somewhat open:

--Do NOT go into debt to go to graduate school. It's a risky enough proposition to invest years of your youth getting a degree in these fields. Don't mortgage your future as well. Not going into (or increasing) student debt by going on to graduate school should be a non-negotiable. If you can get some sort of fellowship or assistantship and live on black beans and Ramen noodles for the next four to six years and get your PhD debt-free, and if that's really what you (and your wife, if there is a wife in the picture) want to do, at least when you emerge into an uncertain job market at the other end you won't have a load of debt just waiting to leap onto your back and demand to be repaid.

--Have an exit plan or backup plan in mind. For example, do something in the summers that involves honing a separate skill or getting some other experience in a backup area. Figure out what you would do if you didn't become a philosopher/theologian/professor. And make it realistic. This may mean researching other career possibilities and the path to them. Remember that if you have followed tip #1 you may have more options for following other career paths later--If, for example, you have to get some kind of one-year vocational degree or training in addition to graduate school, at least you won't have graduate school debt already hanging around your neck.

--If you're already close to getting an MA, consider stopping there rather than continuing for the PhD. Not that a humanities MA is very marketable anyway, but it just gives you a place to break off and reconsider while having the satisfaction of having earned some credential. Also, _some_ jobs (mostly part-time, I'm afraid) are available for MA holders.

--Ask yourself if you want to get married and what is fair or not fair to ask of your wife if you do want to get married. Ask yourself about children, as well.

Mr. McGuire has supplied this website with what might be its Best Opening to a Comment:

I am in the trades right now. I work in the humble profession of carpenter. Ever hear of any famous carpenters? Well, just One is enough I guess.

I wonder if some of the Catholics in these Christian groups you talk to are actually being called to the priesthood, but don't realize it.

Rob, ages ago I taught some math as an adjunct at Germanna Community College. Small world.

Anymouse, I have been more and more convinced that there usually is some sort of major activity, one that pays a wage, that a given person would more or less be satisfied with doing most of the day - though it can be hard to find it and to make yourself available at the right time and place for it. Maybe I am wrong and there are plenty of people God is just plain saying "suck it up and work at X even though you will hate it your whole life", but given the sheer number of different types of jobs out there that seems to me unlikely. Everyone has a combination of skills that come readily (even if they need developing), and several interests, and somewhere in the mix of those is usually some possible activity that others would find beneficial enough to pay for.

Just taking Lydia's example, most of us at some point or other are amazed and curious about how electrical things work. My next door neighbor is an electrician, he loves to put up complex Christmas displays with all sorts of electrical stuff. It just seems likely to me that somewhere between electrician, electrical technician, electrical engineer, and other sorts of working with electricity many people would enjoy parts of such jobs, even if not the whole business.

I think your advice should be more nuanced. I have spent time outside of academia and hated every minute of it. Work felt like prison; life in general felt like a prison. My love of philosophy - not apologetics, just philosophy - is so great that I would willingly sacrifice having a spouse, kids, and years of income, without any hesitation or doubt. How could you possibly recommend that someone with my proclivities abandon graduate level work? It's not just a matter of not doing what one loves; it's a matter of hating everything that one does.

Also, one's chances of finding work after completing a doctorate depend on where one gets one's doctorate and what one did while completing it; these factors dramatically alter one's prospects. At least in philosophy, one's chances of getting a job coming from a Top 10 or Top 20 department are far greater than if one comes from a lower ranked department. One's chances are also greatly improved by having published in a journal.

Well, y'know, if you're willing to sacrifice everything, etc., etc., to do philosophy, then go for it. Nobody has to take my advice. At least you know what you're getting into.

As for top tier schools, etc., etc., I think that's way overrated, in both directions. On the one hand, students are wrongly told, "Don't go to x school, they aren't in the top tier," when actually x school has a pretty decent (as such things go) placement record. On the other hand, if you do get into one of the "top tier" schools, the whole school snobbery thing could easily make you think the job crunch won't really hurt you that badly, and then you could be in for a big surprise. Comparatively, sure: Hiring committees are influenced by school snobbery. But it's pretty bad all over out there, especially if you're hoping for a tenure-track job. Publishing, for sure. Go for it. As a graduate student and an untenured professor, publish your tail off. But again, look at the jobs listings and just see how many jobs there are in a given (legitimate) specialty.

Oh, it also helps if you're a woman. But you either are or you aren't, and some aren't.

It also un-helps (for quite a few departments) if you're a Christian, especially if your resume shows an interest in philosophy of religion, or if at any time in your life you got a degree from a Christian college, and it was to Christians I was especially speaking here.

I'm giving the advice I would give to someone I cared about very deeply, so it isn't lightly given or lightly intended. But ultimately, people have to make their own life decisions. Just don't be under any illusions that if you "do everything right" you can be sure of getting that dream job.

Theology and philosophy are important, and Christians should seek to gain at least a basic knowledge of those fields. But there is a need for Christians in other areas – particularly, I would contend, in STEM fields, law, and medicine, for example.

Regarding being a Christian un-helping when applying for jobs: I've genuinely wondered about this. It seems like philosophy of religion is gaining some mainstream acceptance: Rutgers is opening a new center for phil. of religion, and that has to be evidence of something. In addition, there are quite a few Christian colleges/universities, and I would think that being Christian would help with applying for those jobs. Is the net effect of being a Christian on job prospects really so bad?

"Rutgers is opening a new center for phil. of religion, and that has to be evidence of something."

Yes. It means that Rutgers will be more than happy to fill its students' heads with nonsense about anything related to religion, but it remains just as hostile as ever to any hint that one religion may be better than another.

I would be inclined to disagree, ME. Dean Zimmerman is at Rutgers, I believe, so it might be quite decent.

Anon, at the same time that there is a growing interest in philosophy of religion in some quarters, there is a reaction in precisely the opposite direction in others. I definitely see a backlash happening along the lines of, "Who the heck let all these Christians in here?" Then there is the question of getting letters of recommendation. You have to find profs who are willing to write them and make them very positive despite your Christianity. Some are professional enough to do that. Others aren't. And don't forget the influence of the B.L. crowd. It's something of a muddied situation, but I can say for sure that there are departments where not only being a Christian but even having articles in philosophy of religion on your vitae will count against you, because, "We don't want to be known as a philosophy of religion department."

As for there being "quite a few Christian colleges," kinda sorta. There are going to be plenty of other people who think as you do, hence, real competition for those jobs. The economy is hitting Christian colleges at least as hard as anyone else, so how many are hiring, esp. for tenure track? (And what does tenure mean at a Christian college?) Plus politics come into play there. What if you're a Christian _and_ a conservative? At some Christian schools that might be good for you. At others bad.

My own opinion is that overall the net effect of being a Christian is not going to be a positive.

Anon, another relevant point here is the present (and I'm afraid growing) power of naturalism in philosophy, across sub-disciplines. Now, it is not that one _has_ to be a Christian in order to see that naturalism is false. And, most unfortunately, there are some who call themselves Christians who have tried to make their peace with naturalism in various ways. But statistically, and for good reason, a Christian philosopher is likely to take various unpopular philosophical positions--dualism or hylemorphism in metaphysics/philosophy of mind, internalism in epistemology, essentialism and "speciesism" in ethics. That fact _alone_, aside from discrimination against Christians per se, means that it is, statistically, harder to get a job as a Christian philosopher than as a non-Christian.

(A bit of disclosure: I'm in a philosophy Ph.D. program, pre-comps. I have a wife, but no kids--yet. And, in case anyone thinks it is relevant (I am not entirely sure that it is), I do know the McGrews, and am at my current program largely due to their recommending it to me.)

First, I just want to echo everything Lydia has said thus far, particularly about not taking on debt.

Second, I want to emphasize the amount of time it might take to complete graduate studies. Yes, we all know someone who finished a Ph.D. at a ridiculous age. Yes, some students go straight from undergrad to a Ph.D. program, and finish by 27. But this, I think, is not the norm. I, myself, will likely not finish until I am 30 (22 +1 (year off) +2 (terminal MA) +5 (Ph.D. program). It is very difficult to finish a Ph.D. in less than five years, and, honestly, there isn't much motivation to do so (usually, you'll have funding for five years, so it is often wise to spend the extra time working on the dissertation, publishing, and presenting at conferences). This is a lot of time to invest in something about which you're only lukewarm.

Third, related to this last point--and this is what I want to tell everyone considering graduate education--will you be happy if you spend your twenties doing graduate work, and then have to do something else? I asked myself this question during my MA, and decided this was probably the best way to spend my time. Sure, my chances of getting a full-time job are slim, and sure, I'll likely have to do something else. But I can get paid to think for close to a decade. For me, that's a great deal. If you aren't willing to do the work, and then have to walk away, I would reconsider graduate education.

Fourth--and I hope this will not be taken as a lack of charity--you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You will likely face a lot of rejection. The most successful students in my year--much smarter and harder working than me--got rejected from roughly half of the Ph.D. programs they applied to. The job market is even worse. Rejection rates for _poorly regarded graduate conferences_ are sky-high. When you get to grad school, it will likely be the case that no-one even understands your most brilliant ideas, because they are ill-formed. When you make your ideas clear, it is still likely that very smart people will find them crazy.

Fifth, grad school can be a lot of fun, and very fulfilling, if you're willing to accept the problems. Choose wisely.

Thanks, RC, I think that's a very balanced comment. I would add that that "being paid for thinking for a decade" isn't being paid very _well_, as I'm sure you would agree, which makes the whole "kids" thing rather complicated. It would be all the more complicated if the couple had children and they wanted, understandably enough, the wife to be able to stay home with the baby/children.

I think what you say about likely having to do "something else" after graduate school is really important, _especially_ if the person will or might plausibly have to take additional training in order to do that "something else." Now, maybe you won't. Maybe you have a skill that will allow you simply to say, "Okay, didn't get a job in philosophy, now I'll go do x. That was still a really stimulating ten years of my life." But suppose that a person didn't have a skill like that; he might have to do _more_ school to get some additional credential, be it trade school, an MA in a different field, or what-not. And the additional schooling might not be something for which one could get an assistantship. There are no assistantships for a one-year or two-year credential to be a paralegal or an electrician, etc. Doing additional schooling at thirty, with a family, could be kind of disheartening.

The trades. Electrician, plumber, etc. They are needed and don't pay too poorly.

And in fact often pay substantially better than many white collar positions. If they are combined with an entrepreneurial spirit they can turn into some serious cash much faster than many white collar, college-educated lines of work.

Sometimes your purpose in God's ministries is just to provide the funds they need. I don't know of many ministries that can carry out the works of mercy without regular infusions of cash and supplies.

Lydia, thank you for this thought provoking article. You offer some good advice that needs to be pondered deeply by those desiring to teach and/or do full time ministry. I just happened to be reading 1 Corinthians 9 this morning and it is with these very things that Paul is wrestling, though from a different angle. There is always a pull-haul between the practical aspects of ministry and the God given desire to make an impact in our spheres. This seems like a good thing to some degree as we are both in this world, yet looking for another at the same time.

First, a little of my own journey in this respect--though I do not want to impose my own circumstances on anyone else. I worked extremely hard for 15 years in engineering and had a great paying job. I liked my work and was decent at it. It was God given and it is where I was supposed to be and I did what I could to flourish there. Yet, at some point I had the unmistakable impression that God "had his thumb on me" including a persistent and distracting desire to pursue ministry, particularly in the area of apologetics. And for many reasons it could have been called fool-hearty. Imagine talking to your father-in-law (as I did) telling him that I wanted to take his daughter and grandchildren away from a stable job, move to a location where we had no family, go back to school in my mid-thirties, and pursue a field that had no job opportunities. However, it was not just a passion, but I believe I would have been disobedient to God had I not done this. Before going to seminary I was also involved in ministry in my church for years doing apologetics ministry. Then for the next couple years as I attended school I continued in engineering as a tent maker. I was working less hours and God provided in many ways, but it was hard work. Then I had the opportunity to work at the seminary while getting schooling, but make no mistake, that was hard work as well and was really just another form of tent-making, though more focused on the issues I cared about. Then, I faced unemployment for 8 months (somehow God provided through that). My old career far enough behind me that it was hard to get a job there (it would have taken enormous effort to re-engage in that field in a productive way). I looked for work in ministry and out of ministry. However, it was not until I decided to follow full throttle the track God had set me on (apologetics) that a way was provided for me to be employed. Now, I am in a position of working for an organization full time in the field of apologetics. I have found, though, that God had given me my previous career track for a purpose and I did not entirely "leave it behind." God has combined my past experiences to His benefit. Neither is the job entirely without "tent making." That is, there is much more to ministry than sitting with people and "ministering." It involves very hard work, demands lots of time, is intensely practical, can not ignore financial concerns, and weaves in much more than pure apologetics. Costs have to be counted and sacrifices are made--in all of these phases of the journey my family and I have been on.

Lydia, I agree that people need to go into schooling, ministry, teaching, etc. with eyes wide open. The professional jobs in philosophy are few and far between. The competition is intense. Statistically speaking someone will not find a job as a university professor. That's just the facts.

Yes, have an alternate route for making money and providing for one's family--whether through schooling or after. Being multi-skilled is wise no matter the track.

Don't wrack up large debts for this type of training--or for almost any career path if you can help it. Debt isn't evil, but it puts everyone under it at a severe disadvantage (I know from experience). Take the slow and steady route (pay as you go) if possible. Pursue the alternate means of education that is now available as Lydia suggested. All good education doesn't have to end up with a certificate on the wall.

I whole-heartedly endorse the idea that we need an army of "tent makers." There is no split between the sacred and the secular. Every vocation is a calling before God to influence individuals and society for Christ. Prepare yourself and go into those spheres as an apologist.

However, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from pursuing studies in philosophy and apologetics as long as they have a realistic idea of the available options. We are in desperate need of many more Christian thinkers, not less. Even if it doesn't "bring home the bacon" pursuing Christ with your mind is a worthwhile thing to do. It is in part, what makes us human and modern education with its limited focus on "skills" and "job placement" is horribly deficient. I long for more Christian philosophers and apologists whether that means they are carpenters, accountants, or scholars. I hope an army of people having a growing, gnawing passion to pursue the reasonable nature of Christianity and inundate the academy and the business world.

Here's where I might diverge from what you wrote when you said:

"if all the eager young apologists were to flock to start apologetics and/or campus ministries, they would be competing among themselves for a finite number of available dollars from donors."

First, is it harder to raise funds and start ministries in hard economic times? No doubt. But, by the numbers there is plenty of money to go around even in the current environment. Citing Scott Morton, "Each year, Americans give more than $200 billion to charity, with the greatest share going to churches and religious causes. And the amount increases each year, often exceeding inflation. Yet,...the IRS says that Americans give only 1 to 2 percent of their gross income." There is plenty of money for missionaries!

Second, I disagree that ministry (like economics in general) is a "zero sum game." That is, there is not a finite supply in the sense that it is stagnant. In an economy it is a mistake to think that there is only "so many" dollars to go around and if one person gets more all the others get less. As economic opportunities present themselves the "pie" of dollars actually increases. Similarly, I have seen ministries think that there is only a finite amount of interest and funding for certain ministry sectors and if another ministry starts of this same type that the available "pie" will be depleted leaving less for their needs. I take a distinctly different view. Ministry is not zero sum any more than economics. The more an area of ministry is recognized, utilized, and supported it actually creates more opportunity. 40 years ago the "market" for apologetics material was VERY small. Now, it is growing substantially (a fact not lost on publishing companies). The pie has grown. There is more to do for everyone and more resources. This trend will continue if we keep hard to the plow and create opportunity.

Third, along those same lines, apologetics is growth oriented. That is, it goes hand in hand with evangelism. One is impotent without the other. If churches and individuals continue to increase their focus on apologetics, evangelism will be the natural outgrowth. Churches will grow through evangelism instead of only through "church swapping." Rice Broocks did his dissertation on the fact that only 3% of churches currently grow due to evangelism. Imagine an evangelistic church... the pie would grow exponentially. I think we need to stop thinking of the church as a zero sum game:-)

Some Principles:
- minimize debt
- be aware of severe limitations on out of the box jobs in the humanities (whether Christian or not)
- get educated however you can!!
- tent making is a good plan; integration of ministry with vocation is needed
- full time ministry is a good goal also (we need more laborers not less)
- please flock to start apologetics and campus ministries (being aware of the practicalities)
- be a practical idealist not an impractical idealist
- there is financing for ministry if we are so bold as to seek it
- be ready to do whatever you have to do to provide for your family and to do ministry
- flexibility is important

With these in mind I now "have" to mention Ratio Christi--an apologetics ministry starting student led clubs on college campuses. (Lydia, I know you are aware of this, but this is my shameless plug for everyone else reading:-) We are a mobilization organization for apologists and trying to do this in a maximally flexible way. Do you have just a little bit of time each month to participate? You can. Do you want to be a tent maker apologist earning your living via another method and leading a group on campus? You can. Do you need part time compensation for apologetics ministry? You can (with hard work). Do you want to be a full time apologist working at the university and throughout your community to raise awareness of apologetics and evangelism? You can! Is it hard? Yes. Can it be done? Yes.

Don't want to be a part of Ratio Christi? Can we still help you? Yes. We'd be glad to help people in your area know you are trained, able, and willing to do apologetics in your community and let people know about your events.

I would encourage anyone to read 1 Corinthians 9 today. I find there is wisdom in the Scriptures;-) Wrestle with the ideas there and in this blog thread. Thank you Lydia for starting a conversation!

I will add that Ratio Christi was started in part to provide opportunities through the conundrum being discussed here; more and more apologists getting training...still very little opportunity. Ratio Christi is trying to provide an outlet for ministry and vocation--in addition to full time faculty or church pastor--for some of the best thinking and most dedicated Christians I know.

Blake, I appreciate your comment and your various emphases on being realistic. I'm afraid we are to some extent going to disagree. For example, I question the relevance of the dollar amount that Americans give to charity as a whole. That tells us little about how much they will give to support a full-time Ratio Christi missionary who has to raise his own support. As for the zero-sum game, I of course agree that economies as a whole are not a zero-sum game, but I think there is definitely _more_ pressure of that sort in charitable giving, and that is _precisely_ because people aren't buying something when they do charitable giving. I think you are to some extent mixing apples and oranges by talking about the growth in interest in apologetics books and assuming that this will translate into a similar "growth industry" in full-time apologetics ministries, supported by individuals and local churches. The two may well track each other to some extent, as local churches come to understand the importance of apologetics, but giving money to support someone who wants to be a full-time apologetics missionary still isn't the same thing as buying a book to read oneself, nor even close.

The other portion of your comment I'm rather concerned about is this:

Do you want to be a full time apologist working at the university and throughout your community to raise awareness of apologetics and evangelism? You can! Is it hard? Yes. Can it be done? Yes.

I'm afraid that does have something of a Pollyannish sound to me. Why tell people, "You can" when, for all you know, maybe they can't? Whether they can be such a full-time apologist is not simply a function of _wanting_ to be one. It's a function of how good that particular person is at fund-raising, for one thing. It's a function of whether enough people are moved in their conversations or other contacts with him to want to support him. It's a function of location. It's a function of the economy in that location. It's a function of the philosophies of the churches he approaches. And on and on and on.

It just doesn't seem to me like a good idea to tell people, "If you want to, you can." Especially when (again, this is my own opinion) the (wonderful and important) burgeoning interest in apologetics is having one unfortunate spin-off effect--namely, there are too many people who think there are, in a sense, "slots" just waiting out there for them to be full-time apologists, when this is in fact not true.

You know what? I'll even expand on my earlier comment. If you are a Catholic who thinks you are being called to a ministry where you teach and preach to people, then you should seriously consider joining a seminary and becoming a Priest. Vocations are down, and we need exactly the type of passion and zeal in good, orthodox Christianity that you seem to be talking about. Catholics have this option, and sometimes we forget. We need more people to answer the call.

Second, I disagree that ministry (like economics in general) is a "zero sum game." That is, there is not a finite supply in the sense that it is stagnant. In an economy it is a mistake to think that there is only "so many" dollars to go around and if one person gets more all the others get less. As economic opportunities present themselves the "pie" of dollars actually increases.

That last statement is only true to the extent that overall charitable giving increases. The only way for the overall economic pie to increase within a given section of the economy is for demand to increase. Since ministry is charity, it does not have a complementary wealth exchange back into the economy. It's similar to government in the sense that a certain level is a necessary societal expense and even facilitates the health of society which promotes wealth production. However, any rapidly expanding cost center be it ministry or government, will come at the expense of the pie invariably.

Blake and Lydia:

I love this conversation. It is so needed, and, to some extent, I will be talking about some of these things at the January SALT Conference in Montgomery, AL.

As a guy that has worked in development in more than a few 501c.3 for several years, I am of the opinion that we need to be very clear what we mean when we tell people "it can be done." It can. But Scott Klusendorf and I were just talking about this the other day and there is a big conditional "IF" that follows that statement. If you are the type of entrepreneurial individual that pursues their goals in a particular way and is not discouraged by apparent failure.

I was talking to man that runs a firm specializing in high capacity donors and he confirmed what I have heard through other fundraising organizations. Donors are focusing more and more on outcomes in their giving. Outcomes are what we accomplish versus outputs which is simply how busy we are. This is a response to tougher economic times and the need to focus their giving where it impact the most for the kingdom. These giving patterns affirm that if you are the type of individual that can put together an effective plan and implement it with genuine outcomes then you will find it easier to raise money than others. If you struggle to plan, if you are asking people to give you money to help you become busy, or if you cannot even define what your expected outcomes are then you are probably going to struggle to raise money in this environment.

What does struggling look like? It means real genuine struggling. My family has survived the last few years due to the generosity of our donors and the grace of God. There were months where we didn't know where it was coming from or how we were going to make it. If your family isn't 100% on board with the mission then this sacrifice can undermine your relationship with your wife and even your children. It they are on board, as mine is, then the struggles can work to draw your family closer to God and closer together. I don't know a single man or woman doing well in the apologetics community that has not faced terrible struggles, so we need to be clear that with all the good work that element is a reality. It has been a blessing for my family thus far, but more people than not abandon full-time vocational ministry because of these realities.

Blake, we have similar stories. We both knew, I assume, that we were risking quite a bit by leaving a field that paid well and in which we had real work experience to pursue ministry. The strange thing is that I meet young people pursuing work in apologetics ministry straight out of college and seminary that don't get that. They don't understand that making a place for yourself in this world entails risks. That is why I encourage people to become a part of an established organization whenever possible rather than trying to start their own ministry. Joining organizations provides structure, institutional credibility, and a supportive community. Too many are determined to start their own 501c.3 and fail to see the value in Scott's advice to find a mentor that can continue your education and set you on the right path.

I acted for years when I was younger and there was a term they used in performance that I loved. It was called a rage to succeed. Everyone you met in the entertainment industry would do all that they could to discourage you from pursuing a career in that field. One guy that wanted to be famous was offered a spot as a stage hand and prop master to see if he would hang around. An accomplished character actress once told a group of young actors that the best advice she could offer them for their career was to quit. All of this is similar to the stories told of the Shaolin monks making prospects sit out in the weather with no encouragement to see if they were willing to sacrifice and endure to reach their goals before finally welcoming them into the fold. The people in the industry told me that those with the rage to succeed would not be deterred. They would persevere through the discouragement because they assumed the warnings were for someone else. They were going to make it.

Blake, your story that you shared includes that important element. Pursuing this was your way of being right with God. I have the same experience. Reading, studying, writing, talking about God; this is who I am. Jan Craig once told me something before I went up to the podium to talk that stuck with me for all of these years. She placed her hand on my back and in her own cool way said, "You were made to do this." She says the same if you ask how Bill is so at peace and cool headed in debates. This is what Bill was made for. It is just Bill being Bill. If you are made for this, then the sacrifices and struggles are nothing in comparison to the joy of, to borrow from Eric Liddell, feeling HIs pleasure flowing through your work.

Do we need educated Christians ready and able to articulate the faith? Absolutely. Do we need talented philosophers, historians, and theologians willing to sacrifice and suffer the costs in order to become a resource for the body of Christ? Absolutely. Do we have a responsibility to communicate the truth of those costs so that those who would be deterred by such a future can make informed decisions about what they wish to suffer? Absolutely.

To Lydia's point, in our zeal to draw out those willing to do what is necessary I'm not certain that the costs are being communicated. I also think that an army of tent makers or J Warner Wallace's million one dollar apologists are vitally needed to help translate and transfer the incredible material being produced by the Christian scholars to the churches and laity that don't quite understand what any of this stuff has to do with them or how it helps in their daily lives. If it is discouragement, it a particular kind of discouragement that leads some people to an encouraging place that benefits the whole body of Christ.

That it about all I have to offer. I appreciate both of your thoughts on this.

There seems to be an assumed strong connection between being a Christian philosopher and being a Christian apologist. Why is that? It's true that much philosophical work could be put to apologetic purposes, but I don't think it's the main task of a Christian philosopher to be an apologist. How many of the great medieval philosophers were primarily apologists? Probably none. That doesn't make them any less great Christian philosophers. In fact, if someone enters into philosophy in order to become an apologist, I suspect that person will be sorely disappointed.

MarcAnthony, I don't know that the overlap between priesthood and apologetic work is very great, much less priesthood and philosophy. Much of being a priest is administering the sacraments and quasi-therapy (I don't know of a better term for it); priests don't usually produce a philosophical argument for the existence of God when confronted with a doubting parishioner, but wrestle with his emotions. The situation is different for some religious, like Dominicans and Jesuits, who are often scholars, but I suspect the Church most needs diocesan priests rather than religious.

Thanks very much, Jay.

I can't help wondering if that "rage to succeed" is to some extent correlated with a particular personality type and set of talents that make it more likely that one will succeed. In fact, that seems to fit with what you are saying. Suppose we're talking about becoming a full-time Ratio Christi missionary, for example. Some people probably have a personality type that makes people want to listen to them talk and that makes other people want to give them money and support their ministry. I realize that's putting it too simplistically, but I think there is also something to it.

Anon, the reason the conversation is circling around apologetics so much is because of my centrally intended audience and because of the other places where the post is being promoted. You are correct to see that the group of people who are interested in doing Christian apologetics and the group of (Christians) who are interested in becoming philosophers do not have completely overlapping Venn diagrams. I'm concerned about both, but I think that a great many Christians who do want to become philosophers have at least some degree of idealism, a hope that God will use them in a _special_ way related to philosophy if they go this route. That is at a minimum.

On the even more heated end of the enthusiasm spectrum we now have people actively trying to get credentials in philosophy *so that* they can influence the world for Jesus Christ via apologetics. I think the enormous (and extremely laudable) influence of William Lane Craig is part of the cause of that. People see all the good that he has done and wonder if they could do something at all similar, if on a smaller scale.

Jay, thanks for that. I love that term "a rage to succeed." And I agree with your 'big conditional "if"' statement. Maybe that's where I wasn't clear enough in my first post so that Lydia thought I was too "Pollyannish. The fact (not opinion) is that it can be done. We have people in Ratio Christi doing it. In the broader Christian context, Bill Bright proved that it can be done decades ago with a resulting army of thousands of full time missionaries. I'm no Pollyanna. I'm in the unenviable position of counseling people on a weekly basis about the cost and opportunity for full time ministry. I'm living "the dream" and my wife would concur with me that it is not for the faint hearted. It's been brutally hard at times. It's not right to tell people "you can" if other factors point to it not being good for them. Many are not cut out for this by disposition, training, etc. etc. I'm not a "you can be president" sort of person. What's the alternative though? Telling people they can't? It some cases that's true. In some cases that's simply false. Often it seems best to counsel people on the costs and the potential and let them make choices. Often my advice is deficient. The lives of real people are at stake and it's no light thing. Often, people ignore the advice you give them anyway. Sometimes the functions of economy and location and church philosophy, etc. are not apparent until something is tried. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they fail. Should we put before them the risk for them to choose or should we play it safe? Some of both seems prudent.

Jay is correct in that maybe the costs are not being communicated effectively enough. And perhaps, neither are the rewards (not referring to money). There are certainly not "slots" sitting out there waiting. In fact, I've never met a person who thought there was. The contrary seems to be the case with almost everyone I come in contact with. They assume there is no opportunity for someone with their gifts and they are resigned to doing the very best they can as a tent-maker (indeed a good thing), Tet there is opportunity for those with the "rage to succeed." Though it is much more about God's provision and plan than our own effort.

I'm going to come back to the "zero sum" analogy between economics and ministry because I think Lydia and Mike T misunderstand exactly what I am getting at with that analogy. However, I will have to get back to that when I have some more time.

For now, I will end with this. The field is ripe for harvest but the laborers are few (be they "volunteer" or vocational"). Let's count the cost then not look back.

Great comments, folks.

From the outside looking in, to me it seems that the character of the American economy has to be a major factor in these decisions. And that character, while somewhat depressing in certain ways, is not without its opportunities.

Christians ought to evaluate their skills, talents, intuitions, and find suitable remuneration. Labor productivity is soaring while those left out of the labor force are perishing:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-self-perpetuating-problem-of-long-term-unemployment-20131208

For single men, as thought experiment, consider the boomtowns of the Dakotas:

http://www.theawl.com/2013/04/hey-foxy-being-a-woman-in-the-north-dakota-oil-boom (some salty language)

These workers need godly wives, need housing, need companionship, need ministering, need the Cross. To sign on with a fracking outfit might be the best ministry opportunity available right now. Can you work hard in tough conditions? As a bonus if you add to tenacity and technical capacity, that managerial insight which is called leadership, you might ride this boom to considerable prosperity. For a disciplined man, what better method to fund scholarship and ministry than self-finance?

In Canada, too, it seems like an enormous business opportunity is in the offing. The resources of Western Canada (long looted by the more populous East, but that may be changing) are mind-boggling, especially if the Japanese have indeed discovered a way to extract methane hydrates.

Christian, do you have the guts to take the gospel to the bitter arctic cold of Alberta's tight oil operations?

Anyway, those are just some private sector musings of a wannabe academic. Newman said that to be an autodidact is a misfortune. He was right.

Paul, that's a fascinating sidelight. Sort of like becoming a gun-slinging missionary to the Old West.

Yeah, and just look at the quiet concessions reported here:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/power-play/why-obama-should-thank-the-oil-and-gas-industry-20131208

My heavens, NO WONDER Step2 and Al have been scarce around here!

The article begins with this

America's vast resources of oil and natural gas have enabled Obama to move forward on aggressive policies, including tougher environmental rules and Iranian oil sanctions, which he would not have been able to do nearly as effectively without them.

and commences to quote a bunch of socialist staffers who have opposes every inch of the boom that made their environmentalist dreams come true.

Anyway, let's not delude ourselves that American business and industry is doomed. On the contrary, in some old and unfashionable industries America is booming, and able-bodied responsible men who are willing to discipline themselves have opportunities, and not just economic ones.

For those who are new or haven't usually read my material, I don't want to play close to the vest. Part of what lies behind my concern here is my own traditionalism regarding gender roles. Ideally, I think that married women should be able to have children while they are (fairly) young and should be able to stay home and raise them, hopefully even home school them if they have the aptitude for it. It seems to me questionably fair for a man to marry a woman and to expect her either a) deliberately to delay child-bearing until she is at least thirty or b) to place her infant in daycare because her wages are indispensable to supporting the family while he is in school. Nor does, "I regard this as a ministry" erase these considerations.

Now, I realize that these statements open up a whole can of worms, and people are likely to bring up, fairly enough, that there are plenty of people who _aren't_ in graduate school and _aren't_ in ministry and whose wives have to work full-time anyway because the husband cannot find a job that supports the family. I know that is true, and all the more true in the present economy. However, it seems to me to be a different matter *deliberately* to walk into a situation where you *know* that you cannot support a family and where you *intend* to stay deliberately in that situation for something on the order of a decade of your life. In that context, if you are married, all of my traditionalist instincts cry out that there is something problematic here, and all the more so if it is questionable as to whether you will be able to support a family even at the end of that lengthy period. It seems as though the wife faces the choice of delaying child-bearing or taking on a "modern woman" working mother role, even if that isn't where her own heart lies. What, then, of her calling to be a mother?

I do not say all of this to cause offense. I say it because I think that an authentically Christian approach to vocations, including the academic vocation or the vocation to full-time ministry, ought to be compatible with a complementarian view of men, women, and children. It seems to me unsatisfactory for us either to fall into a kind of default feminism because "the husband has a call from God" (so his wife has to bring home the bacon) or, on the other hand, to expect a wife in that situation to _act_ like a career woman for an indefinite period of time while retaining all the complementarian ideals and feminine graces.

Compare the Humanities categories in each of the tables in this article, published just yesterday.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/12/09/data-show-modest-gain-number-new-phds-jobs-upon-graduation

Thanks, that's useful data. I just did a little digging, in case anyone else wonders. In those tables in the Inside Higher Ed article, mathematics is included under "Physical Sciences." I know a lot of mathematicians who might find that a bit surprising, but there you have it. :-)

Blake:

Ministry is not zero sum any more than economics. The more an area of ministry is recognized, utilized, and supported it actually creates more opportunity.

Mike:

That last statement is only true to the extent that overall charitable giving increases. The only way for the overall economic pie to increase within a given section of the economy is for demand to increase.

Mike is more correct here. In terms of economic development, ministry is almost always unlikely to generate a positive gain. In order for an activity to overall constitute a net gain, it has to either actually generate new wealth itself, directly, or be part of a network or cycle where it actually increases the amount of wealth that someone else in the network or cycle can create / perform. It isn't enough for the activity to be part of more "opportunity" if the new opportunities are, themselves, all opportunities to consume wealth instead of generate it. Take a doctor: if he absorbs $200 of resources, and makes you healthy, with that health you can work more and with your work you can put back into the economy $1000 of new wealth. Net gain. Take a preacher: by preaching well his hearers...may or may not generate any new wealth in any quantifiable sense. No net gain.

There are a few ministries where a net economic gain will actually happen. The most obvious is ministry to drug and alcohol addicts. If you get them turned around and effective members of the economy, that's a net gain. The second area is the social / therapeutic improvement of people who are unable to function for reasons of mental health and emotional difficulty - though here there is a huge cross-over between ministry and actual health professionals. Outside of these 2 areas, there is almost no real opportunity for ministry to be an integral part of a wealth-generating cycle.

Which is not a reason to not get into it, all by itself. It's a reason to be realistic: God wants workers in the vineyard, but he wants enough people producing the wealth that will support those workers who are not generating wealth themselves.

Ideally, I think that married women should be able to have children while they are (fairly) young and should be able to stay home and raise them, hopefully even home school them if they have the aptitude for it. It seems to me questionably fair for a man to marry a woman and to expect her either a) deliberately to delay child-bearing until she is at least thirty or b) to place her infant in daycare because her wages are indispensable to supporting the family while he is in school. Nor does, "I regard this as a ministry" erase these considerations.

I think this is definitely an important consideration. Generally, part of knowing whether you are really being called to perform X service is ascertaining whether you can fulfill that role while meeting your other obligations. If you are a man and married, your primary obligations are to support your wife and family, and if that duty cannot be met while studying and seeking a professorship or ministry job, then maybe what God is really calling you to do is forego attempting to be in that role just yet, and instead get on with meeting your primary level obligations.

Or taking it from the other end of the yardstick: I know a young man who was one of the brightest of his college class, who is just the sort you would want and expect to go into philosophy. He did, and is finishing up grad school. He chose to wait on getting married until he was closer to done, and has a paying job also (though not a great one), because he knew he could not support a wife and new family while in a student's financially narrow position.

The point is that generally speaking we husbands cannot expect to be doing fine, doing a thoroughly satisfactory job of raising a family, if we are doing so off the back of Mom having to work a full time job as well. And if that more or less permanent prospect is the only way you can go into one of these ministry jobs, then you would have to have one heck of a darn good reason for thinking that God is calling you to that even though that's not what doing well raising a family looks like most of the time. A reason that would be invalid for almost all of us. Far more likely is it that what God is calling you to do, rather, is to (a) look for ways to serve the ministries as a contributor or a part-time unpaid volunteer, or (b) to put on the yoke of patience and WAIT for Him to clear out the obstacles.

Our society is losing the memory of what it means for wives to generally expect to stay home with the kids. That's both a grave social loss AND a grave temptation to us Christians to remodel the family into a secular-leaning entity. We have to be clear about this: there ARE gender-driven roles in families, and God does want children raised within the family rather than in businesses. Not every family will do this in the same exact way, but within the vast range of relatively OK ways of doing it, there is a common core picture that we recognize: Dad providing the economic resources and Mom staying home with the kids.

I've known two people over the years that have left secular jobs, went to pastor a church, then came back after a few years. Both quit the ministry because they could not feed their families. The last one told me he was working a very full time senior pastor job at a church, and with his wife and two kids was below the federal poverty line. He could have gotten welfare while working 55 hours a week at a church. He told me that if it were just himself, he would have stayed since he didn't mind being poor. But he could not, in good conscience, watch his kids go hungry. So he left and came back to work and found another church that would let him pastor part time.

So if you don't mind raising your family in poverty, by all means dive in head first. I think what Lydia is trying to say is that this is the future, and you'd better love the field enough to give up being middle class to do it. That's the reality. The rest of us will continue to be tent makers and do ministry part time.

I wish more people listened to Lydia McGrew.

Humblesmith, I do appreciate your comment, but I am putting on my "Mrs. Moderate" hat for this particular post, and I don't actually think that _everybody_ who goes into ministry is going to end up raising a family in poverty. However, it is a real possibility. That, or asking your wife to support you and/or any children.

I have to admit that the more I have thought about this the more reasonable the Catholic idea seems of having people actually decide to be celibate all their lives in order to serve God. St. Paul certainly endorses the notion that one has more flex-room to sacrifice for the kingdom if one is not married at all. However, there are drawbacks to that as well, the most obvious being the "occasion of sin" problem.

Tony, I couldn't have put it better:

Our society is losing the memory of what it means for wives to generally expect to stay home with the kids. That's both a grave social loss AND a grave temptation to us Christians to remodel the family into a secular-leaning entity.

Or taking it from the other end of the yardstick: I know a young man who was one of the brightest of his college class, who is just the sort you would want and expect to go into philosophy. He did, and is finishing up grad school. He chose to wait on getting married until he was closer to done, and has a paying job also (though not a great one), because he knew he could not support a wife and new family while in a student's financially narrow position.

This is exactly what someone with these plans needs to do.

I cannot in good conscience marry a women without being able to support her and my children.

That should be woman.

One question there is this: Will such a young man be willing to marry a woman several years younger than himself when he does have a job and is ready to marry? It might be a good idea to be willing to do that if he is going to be thirty or older by that time. Not that there is anything wrong with marrying a woman who is herself at least thirty years old! Not at all. It's just that it is preferable to a young woman herself, if she has a traditional outlook on these matters, to marry when she is younger.

There has always been a social inclination for prudent men to marry a woman several years younger - precisely so the man can get his feet down in a career. But also because men take about 5 years longer to mature than women, so they aren't really ready at the same time.

I have to admit that the more I have thought about this the more reasonable the Catholic idea

We'll get you yet! :-))

Seriously, though, is there no strain of thinking in Protestant circles for a young man to forego family for a time in order to be a missionary? Does that not have carry-over into more ordinary ministries? Seems to me that the curates were generally assigned an income that would hardly support a wife much less children, a man would have an expectation of waiting until achieving the higher state of a vicarage before feeling free to marry - or at least sound prospects of it soon. So, is the difficult state of affairs we are seeing for young men feeling called to ministry a difficulty primarily due to basic incompatibilities of 2 divergent states?

Seriously, though, is there no strain of thinking in Protestant circles for a young man to forego family for a time in order to be a missionary?

I'd say mostly, no. That's because being a missionary is often considered a life's work, so the idea has been you and your wife might as well both be "called" to it together. I don't know so much how missions boards look at this now, but twenty-odd years ago when I was very aware of all that thinking (because I was considering being a full-time missionary myself), it was extremely common for couples to go to the field together. In fact, some mission boards even had a policy of refusing to take single *women* who were considered too young (less than twenty-five was a number that got buzzed around), because they were regarded as insufficiently emotionally and psychologically settled, especially in their single state. I gather the fear was that they might be a disruptive influence on the field or that they might be so unhappy over being unmarried that they wouldn't concentrate on their work or something like that. Probably all of that is out the window now as being "sexist." There was also a pretty strong notion of male sexual urges and of the need for a wife to give a man stability and to help him minister to women on the field without any appearance of impropriety, especially in cultures that would frown on foreign men spending much time with their women.

This idea that a man *should* have a wife was even stronger in the Protestant pastoral ministry. The pastor's wife was expected to do the counseling for the women in the church.

The most prudent reason to marry a much younger woman if he can would be that they could have the family they want and not have to sacrifice her figure and health over the long run. If he's 33 and she's 22 to 23 when they get married, she can have 5 kids over 10 years and with diet and exercise be in her early 30s in outstanding shape. If you've ever seen what happens when a Christian couple wants to start a big family when the wife is at least in her late 20s if not 30-32, it's not pretty by the time she's 40 or older. Not only is that not good for her appearance, it's just flat out not good for her health.

Mike, that's one of those comments one hardly knows how to respond to. Figure and health are actually not the same thing at all. But let's not go off on an odd rabbit trail.

Figure and health are actually not the same thing at all.

No kidding, Lydia, which is why I separated them with the word "and." Both of them are important for their own reasons. I hope I don't have to explain to you what happens when a husband starts to note his wife has a "IDGAF" attitude toward her figure and how he sees that reflecting on him in their marriage.

The important part here is that if you pair a traditional-minded younger woman who aims to raise a family and make her husband happy with a man who has a go-getter mentality about making something of himself, you are actually quite likely to have a lasting, God-honoring marriage.

Anon Grad Student,

While I appreciate your needed distinction between philosophy and apologetics, I believe you are quite mistaken about the historical (and particularly medieval) view of the strong ties between apologetics and philosophy (and theology). Indeed the "overlap between priesthood and apologetic work" IS (or should be) "very great" as should the overlap between "priesthood and philosophy." It is precisely the dearth of both philosophy and apologetics that makes the priesthood (and I am including in that term the Protestant pastorate) so anemic. It is precisely that connection that needs to be recovered. Yet, that is another discussion.

But let's look at your statement,

How many of the great medieval philosophers were primarily apologists? Probably none.

This is quite far from the truth. Look at this quote from Benjamin B. Warfield,

It was not, however, until the scholastic age that apologetics came to its rights as a constructive science. The whole theological activity of the Middle Ages was so far ancillary to apologetics, that its primary effort was the justification of faith to reason. It was not only rich in apologists (Agobard, Abelard, Raymund Martini), but every theologian was in a sense an apologist. Anselm at its beginning, Aquinas at its culmination, are types of the whole series; types in which all its excellencies are summed up. The Renaissance, with its repristination of heathenism, naturally called out a series of new apologists (Savonarola, Marsilius Ficinus, Ludovicus Vives), but the Reformation forced polemics into the foreground and drove apologetics out of sight, although, of course, the great theologians of the Reformation era brought their rich contribution to the accumulating apologetical material.

The assertion of the medieval's was this: "Philosophy is the handmaiden to theology." Thomas Aquinas, the giant of the middle ages, was first and foremost a theologian, secondarily a philosopher. And apologetics was also at the fore of his task. His great work "Conta Gentiles" is just one example. The medieval theologian/philosophers were quite concerned about the encroachment of Islamic (and other) ideas into the church and they employed everything at their disposal to address them. Apologetics, philosophy, and theology were inseparable (and this connection was the issue which occupied much of their efforts).

I am not asserting that a philosopher must be an "apologist," but it is hard to separate them particularly as a Christian. You might read Alvin Plantinga's "Advice to Christian Philosophers" for an insider perspective on this.

You say,

In fact, if someone enters into philosophy in order to become an apologist, I suspect that person will be sorely disappointed.

From personal experience and of many that I know well, I would have to disagree here as well. Again, someone need not enter philosophy with the primary intent of being an apologist, but as many apologists will attest, once you dig into the apologetics task deep enough you will inevitably be thrown into philosophy.

Lydia,

I share many of your underlying concerns. For instance, the disturbing trend to marry and have a family later and later. I personally believe this to be heading in the wrong direction for many reasons. I also agree with your statement that "I regard this as ministry" does not erase the considerations of necessity to care for and provide for a family properly. Encouraging extended education in any profession can create these concerns and they must be addressed on a case by case basis. The suggestion of some in this thread that delaying marriage while pursuing degrees is an option (be they philosophers, doctors, or whatever). That course of action has some negative implications of its own as has been mentioned, but is the right course for many. Bottom line, the husband needs to provide for his family and ministry is not an excuse. We should be careful however, not to impose an exact level of subsistence on others. Where some families are content with less, others are not. We should not impose our wealth factor on everyone else (and no one in this discussion has).

Anecdotally, I will make this observation from my time in seminary and in watching others enter full time ministry. The younger, early to mid twenties seminarians and missionaries are the minority (by a good margin it seems to me). It is common to have families that are already established and have pursued a previous career step up and begin the process of "re"-education and full time ministry. This brings with it many of the same financial risks, but tend to be done with more intentionality and understanding. Many already have older children or are empty nesters. Others have some means of transitional finances, or are jointly prepared to make the sacrifices to a different lifestyle. Now, many of these become tent makers as well, and that is a good thing. I very much agree with the title of your post, "An Army of Tentmakers." We need this army. May more continue to join the ranks. Yet, this is not the only path nor is it necessarily the best for all. By the time many re-enter schooling and ministry they are almost at their wits end to find a way to be more actively involved. Taking all other factors into consideration, it is this demographic that I would much rather have enter full time ministry. ~ 1 Cor. 9:5 "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas."

Neither do I condone the idea that an individual or family in ministry should be expected to live in poverty. This is where I would depart from some of the thinking regarding the Catholic model. The difficulty "primarily due to basic incompatibilities of 2 divergent states" (as Tony said) is only a difficulty if you assume that one of the states is better served by poverty. At least one alternative is to empower the families of ministers instead of empowering the church. But that's a big rabbit trail I don't know that we want to embark on here.

Again, someone need not enter philosophy with the primary intent of being an apologist, but as many apologists will attest, once you dig into the apologetics task deep enough you will inevitably be thrown into philosophy.

I suppose that Anon grad student's hesitation about the overlap between "Christian philosopher" and "apologist" would concern the opposite question: Once a Christian digs into philosophy deep enough, is he inevitably thrown into apologetics? Not at all. For example, someone might be a Christian philosopher who does philosophy of logic or probability theory and just does them, full stop. He might not have an interest in the philosophy of religion, and he might not apply probability to the specific historical matters surrounding, say, the events recorded in the Bible.

I can pretty easily imagine a Christian who is a philosopher and quietly goes about being a philosopher for decades or even his entire career in this way without being an apologist at all. Which is fine. He might have some other role in the Body of Christ.

As for "being disappointed" if one goes into philosophy in order to become an apologist, which is another claim Anon makes, I can see that happening, as well, because if a person goes to philosophy graduate school chiefly as a means to the end of becoming an apologist, he'll run into a few problems. 1) A lot of what he's studying won't be relevant to apologetics, so he'll be bored. 2) His professors won't take kindly to his attempting to bring philosophy of religion into everything, and sometimes they will be right, 3) relatedly, he'll be expected to learn some sub-field very well, learning the entire literature, not picking and choosing the parts that are most helpful to apologetics.

Now, to some extent you can get around this by specializing in the philosophy of religion, but that will narrow job prospects, and there are also distribution requirements in degree programs which are there precisely to prevent students' study from being too narrowly focused on one sub-field.

Also, if you're _trying_ to focus super-narrowly, you probably aren't going to become a very good philosopher. This is where I think that both undergraduate and MA programs in philosophy at Christian schools need to be careful to prepare their students well in general--making them take logic, learn general epistemology and metaphysics, and so forth.

So I think there is some truth in Anon Grad Student's concerns.

But at the same time, I think it _is_ possible for a philosopher to take a thoroughly professional approach to his field while at the same time having apologetic goals in mind. He just has to keep those two things in balance.

And now... (they all sigh)...I would like to revisit the zero sum analogy I discussed earlier. One that I think is very important and that I think was at least partially misunderstood.

First, Mike T I will clarify a notion about "charity." I posted a quote about the overall giving stats on giving and it used the word "charity." In this sense the word is meant as "charitable giving" or giving to non-profits or for non-business related causes. But I disagree with the application of "charity" to ministry if applied in its usual sense of giving to the poor or those who can not provide for themselves. Ministry (be it pastor, missionary, or other) is not charity. It shouldn't be at least. And that is not a New Testament view of ministry. Pastors, et. al. should work just as hard as anyone else, if not harder and they are providing a valuable service just like anyone else who is paid a wage for a valuable service. The difference is that the give may or may not be getting the direct reward themselves for the wage as is typical in most direct economic exchanges. Instead, the benefit goes to a third party--the one being ministered to. A transaction of work for money, nonetheless, takes place. Lydia said,

people aren't buying something when they do charitable giving.

While this may be true if charity is defined in the first sense above (though not entirely there either), it is definitely not true in the second sense of giving. When a parishioner gives to a church (i.e., a pastor) they are buying a service to themselves and to all the others to whom the church provide valuable service.

Further, though I understand the technicality you might be describing when you say,

Since ministry is charity, it does not have a complementary wealth exchange back into the economy.

yet this is not really the case. 1) As mentioned in the last paragraph there is an exchange. 2) You said yourself,

that a certain level is a necessary societal expense and even facilitates the health of society which promotes wealth production

This should not be too quickly swept past. This is a very different topic for a different time, but I would assert that if you removed all the pastors, churches, and missionaries from a society there will be a corresponding collapse in the economy. This have proven true historically and should not be undervalued. The more righteous an economy (in general) the more it will trend toward economic prosperity and stability. Ministry (which is not charity) does have a "complementary wealth exchange back into the economy," though it is not as easily quantifiable.

Then, you (Mike T) say,

However, any rapidly expanding cost center be it ministry or government, will come at the expense of the pie invariably.

This is not true. While government most often drains from the economic exchange there are circumstances in which it (appropriately so) enlarges the pie. For instance, when certain infrastructure such as highways are built. This reduces the "friction" quotient of economic efficiency and tends to create wealth. Ministry, as well, can reduce the "friction" quotient in an economy and stimulate more efficient exchange of wealth. Studies could be cited describing the economic benefit of a spiritual healthy community. An analogy would be the health of the family in a society.

Furthermore, any sector of a society can generate new wealth as they inject things that are valued into an group and others decide to purchase those goods and services. When a book is written by someone (a pastor or businessman) that did not exist previously and that item is in demand wealth is created. The pie is expanded. This is a simplified view of course, but the pie does not remain the same. This sort of economic view is the root of much irresponsible social policy.

But all of that is not what I was really getting at in my initial analogy of the ministry pie to the economic pie. I did not say that just as revenue is increased in an economy through wealth creation, so *revenue* is increased in ministry through ministry creation. What I hoped to convey was that just as revenue is increased in an economy through wealth creation, so *ministry opportunity* is increased in ministry through ministry creation. Now, as said above I believe there is a wealth creation through ministry creation, but that was not my point. Rather, I said,

The more an area of ministry is recognized, utilized, and supported it actually creates more opportunity.

This seems quite apparent if you look at the history of movements and trends in churches and communities. I then gave the one small example,

40 years ago the "market" for apologetics material was VERY small. Now, it is growing substantially (a fact not lost on publishing companies). The pie has grown.

Lydia, then focused on the the publishing portion and said,

but giving money to support someone who wants to be a full-time apologetics missionary still isn't the same thing as buying a book to read oneself, nor even close.

First, this confuses the analogy as described above. Second, I didn't say that buying a book to read is the same as someone supporting oneself as a full-time apologetics missionary. The differences in scope are quite apparent. I used that quick illustration as a microcosm. The publishing industry by their very nature are very perceptive to changes in society at large (and the church on a smaller scale). It is no accident that they have begun to generate more and more apologetics books. It is based on seeing an increased demand. The creation of new materials to meet the demand only increases the demand yet again.

Within the church we can see other such "movements" of focus and supply and demand: the youth culture movement with accompanying youth pastors, etc; the worship pastor expansion and related add ons; the "focus on the family" (pun intended) life and equipping; expository Bible study; etc. etc. The examples from the broader culture are too numerous to contemplate.

Obviously, just because something increases does not mean it is ready to sustain full time employees engaged in that enterprise. My basic point was to say,

The pie [apologetics/philosophy] has grown. There is more to do for everyone and more resources. This trend will continue if we keep hard to the plow and create opportunity.

This was tied closely in my thoughts to the assertion that "apologetics is growth oriented" (in a substantive, rather than superficial, way). Lydia, you are right to question whether that translates,

into a similar "growth industry" in full-time apologetics ministries, supported by individuals and local churches.

From my view (with a little bit of knowledge) I'd say it is heading in the right direction. There is a long way to go. With a number of the right factors it is possible now. I think we are just dipping our toes in the water, though I can say with confidence that if we (as in the apologetics community/proponents) back off now we will lose the foothold we are gaining. I think we are in the foothills of a mountain range, but I admit that is speculation as I can't see the future. It's not a blind belief though. As a (poor) student of movements there are encouraging signs. We have to keep our hand to the plow.

You are also right in questioning the relevance of the dollar amounts that Americans give as a whole. It means absolutely nothing unless we insert ourselves there which brings up your point about "how good [we] are at fundraising." It becomes intensely practical at this point. Again, letting off the pressure surely won't do any good. But one thing that figure does tell us is that there is plenty of wealth in our economy to support the work of the Gospel. Even in our "economic slump" we (in the US) are at the pinnacle of wealth throughout world history. I don't doubt that enough can be "wrestled" from the good people of this country to support some level of people pouring their lives as missionaries into this declining culture. Yes, we have to work hard. But look at the results--students recovering faith and themselves becoming evangelists and disciple makers. On the shameless side, I'll mention Ratio Christi was just given a $40,000 matching grant and we wouldn't turn away help to double that contribution:-)

In conclusion (and they all cheered), I'll have to dispute for the reasons given above and others what Tony said,

Outside of these 2 areas [recovering workers & mental/therapeutic help], there is almost no real opportunity for ministry to be an integral part of a wealth-generating cycle.

That seems not too far removed from saying, outside of fixing blood pressure and replacement heart surgery there isn't much use for heart doctors. Tony says,

Mike is more correct here. In terms of economic development, ministry is almost always unlikely to generate a positive gain. In order for an activity to overall constitute a net gain, it has to either actually generate new wealth itself, directly, or be part of a network or cycle where it actually increases the amount of wealth that someone else in the network or cycle can create / perform.

Mike's statement doesn't directly relate to mine as I was not making a one for one "dollar/ministry opportunity" zero sum analogy. I was saying that within its own sphere ministry is not zero sum. From there it's not too hard to make the correlation from an increased ministry awareness to participation in an economy (whether strictly eating part of the existing pie or increasing the pie size). Ministry initiatives can certainly be

be part of a network or cycle where it actually increases the amount of wealth that someone else in the network or cycle can create / perform.

We see that happening and let's do all we can to push it along.

One of the reasons I have taken so much time to interact with this great discussion thread is that I believe that there are many more factors at play than we often recognize. It's too easy to take one situation--or several--and extrapolate to a broader principle that, in the end, doesn't represent the complexity of life and circumstances. It is right to bring a warning to impractical thoughts of the "romantic scenario of scholar or pastor." It gets trickier to say (which no one here has directly) that 'tent-making is the more appropriate option' in general.

Once a Christian digs into philosophy deep enough, is he inevitably thrown into apologetics? Not at all.

Quite true. As are your examples. It does seem difficult to altogether avoid the apologetic implications in most areas of philosophy. Certainly a philosopher does not have to be an "apologist" any more than a car mechanic must be an apologist, though as I imagine you would agree there shouldn't be a sacred/secular divide no matter the vocation.

And I can see the point about someone being disappointed if they enter philosophy professionally simply to be an apologist. The distinctions between disciplines needs to be carefully understood while at the same time seeing their interconnectedness (is that a word?).

I do hope that Anon will read Plantinga's thoughts if they haven't already http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/advice_to_christian_philosophers.pdf

Thank you Lydia and all for this fruitful dialog.

But all of that is not what I was really getting at in my initial analogy of the ministry pie to the economic pie. I did not say that just as revenue is increased in an economy through wealth creation, so *revenue* is increased in ministry through ministry creation. What I hoped to convey was that just as revenue is increased in an economy through wealth creation, so *ministry opportunity* is increased in ministry through ministry creation. Now, as said above I believe there is a wealth creation through ministry creation, but that was not my point. Rather, I said,

The more an area of ministry is recognized, utilized, and supported it actually creates more opportunity.

To the extent that as an area of ministry increases in prominence it'll create more openings, I think that's quite reasonable. It may even create a business case for churches to dig into their pockets for more money for ministry work, increasing the pie of resources. Heck, they may even go so far as to create some really good media worth buying and that does stimulate the economy to a degree. Nevertheless, the only wealth creation that will take place is through the production of new wealth.