Logic-Block

I feel I must apologize.  As we read and discuss The Problem of Pain, I realize more and more that my mind is not accustomed to the reasoned arguments of apologetics.  I struggle to follow Lewis's work.  As a result, I may not be contributing to class at quite the same level.  

I would much rather engage with a narrative.  Narnia:  great;  Lord of the Rings:  golden.  Apologetics:  yikes.  I think that the very nature and purpose of apologetics is inadequate, at best.  No argument of the mind can communicate the passion and belief of the soul.  Even in the attempt, such arguments can be refuted, rejected, ignored.  A narrative, however:  personal experience is irrefutable.  No one can deny what has happened to you.  

Even if you succeed in at least proving yourself a rational person, and not someone blindly grasping at myths, what is the risk?  Apologetics too easily turns into shouting matches, and can quickly descend into personal attacks.  When one's core is threatened, gloves come off in the defense.  Relationship is quickly sacrificed in order to preserve fundamental beliefs; after that argument is "won," what chance is there of continuing the dialogue with someone you've deeply wounded?  

Consider Christ:  he used simple parables to instruct listeners, not five-point premises.  Granted, Hebrew culture was much more rooted in narrative, as opposed to Greco-Roman foundations of reason.  Nevertheless, God is the same in whichever context, and he "chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise" (1 cor 1:27).  I would much rather love as Christ loved, share some "good news", and be thought the world's fool than look down my nose while exercising my vocabulary and eloquence in order to seem wise to the worldly.