On Post Traumatic Theology

The Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the protector of all that trust in thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy: Increase and multiply upon us thy mercy; that, thou being our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we finally lose not the things eternal. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake our Lord. Amen.

Your faith is too safe.

Safety in church is something a few people have been pondering in light of the horrific events in the United States which saw several Christians gunned down at bible study. It should, however, be noted that while they were Christians and the murders occurred while they were at Bible study in their parish home, the attacks seem to be motivated entirely by their race, rather than their faith.

In Canada, our faith is too safe, but not because these types of racially motivated mass murders are not common here (though, the École Polytechnique Massacre would be an example of something similar), nor because we face the type of persecution Christians in the Middle East or in China now face due to oppressive governments.

While it may miss the greater point over racial violence in the United States, it does raise an interesting subject for discussion. In the Early Church, Church was the people. Christians met in private and often in some amount of secrecy due to persecution, either from Jewish officials or state officials. Jewish officials were concerned with their view that Christian teaching would be subversive both to their religious orthodoxy and their temporal authority in their society. The Roman persecutions tended to be based more on concerns that Christians were subversive to state authority, due to their unwillingness to worship the Emperor, and also was reinforced by the secrecy surrounding certain Christian beliefs and practices.

In Canada, the state guarantees our freedom of religious belief as well as our physical safety. We are protected against government persecutions and private persecution on the basis of our faith. Yet one interesting further difference in this situation is that none of what Christians practice or preach is viewed as threatening or subversive to the state or society in the way that it was in the time of the Early Church.

Christians are called to live a life of truth and grace, in the image of Christ’s example, but despite the repeated warnings in Scripture that we are not meant to be a part of the world (eg. Jn 15. 19; Jn 16. 7-11; Rm 12. 2; 1 Cor 1. 20; etc) or take our teachings from the world, many Christians seem reticent today to rock the boat of secular popular opinion.

Our faith is too safe.

In the Anglican Church of Canada, we still talk about Christianity being counter-cultural, yet in the same breath in discussing the daily life of the church, the advice heard most often is some variation on, “get with the times.” We don’t want to offend anyone. On doctrinal issues, there is similarly a drive to try and show how secular views are entirely in line with the Gospel message and that the Church must therefore catch up to what society has already come to accept.

This is not to say that there is an inherent conflict between society (Canadian or other) and Christianity. In any society, there will be elements which line up with God’s will and elements which do not. Indeed, in Canada, the fact that Christian ethics and morality were the norm among the people and leaders of the country for over a hundred years. Not so today, and many people love to spend time debating when that change happened, but the fundamentals remain and in many cases, human conceptions of justice, right and good still mirror God’s laws.

In many ways Anglican, and all Christian, theology is post traumatic theology, in that it is generated to respond to some particular kind of trauma or controversy. In modern Canada, that trauma is fear of offending secular logic and sensibilities.

It is ironically a very Canadian approach to desire to be inoffensive. Yet it is not Canadian to be squeamish. Nor is it Christian. In the Acts of the Apostles, boldness is what characterizes the Apostles and disciples of Christ, in contrast to their shame and meekness following his arrest.

We have freedom to practice our faith, and yet instead, out of fear, we seek to conform our faith to what is acceptable to secular society. St Paul once wrote, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect,” (Rm 12. 2). When you limit your faith you grace and love, it is easy. No one is going to be offended by that, especially when you do not use God’s definition of love, but your own or society’s. How could they? The problem is that Christ did not come only with love, he came with grace and truth. It was love and grace that allowed Christ to approach the Samaritan woman at the well in the Gospel of St John.

Had Christ come only in love, it would have been an affirmation of her adultery. If he had not come in love, he would have been Pharisaical in his rebuke of her sins. When we are too safe, it is not simply that our theology becomes stunted, but it risk being outright wrong!

The shootings in Charleston have been supplanted in social media by the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court which has paved the way for same-sex marriage across the United States. This ruling comes during the middle of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States, where the issue of same-sex marriage has already been on the agenda and generating significant debate. If you listen to many Christians, the ruling is certainly a trauma, and General Convention is sure to have some kind of response.

The question now is whether or not General Convention will seek to play it safe and appeal to secular society, or whether they will act boldly with grace and truth in emulation of Christ. The pressure to conform ourselves to the world is strong. The pressure to have a safe faith is strong. If the inspiration of Christ and the Apostles is insufficient, we in the West ought to look to our brothers and sisters in Christ in the many places throughout the world where persecution does not mean the potential risk of ridicule or social ostracization, but rather death.

In as much as we seek to learn the circumstances of our brothers and sisters who face persecution, we must similarly seek to learn the example of how, regardless of personal safety, they choose to practice their faith boldly.

On Time

The Third Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee mercifully to hear us; and grant that we, to whom thou hast given an hearty desire to pray, may by thy mighty aid be defended and comforted in all dangers and adversities; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Last Sunday’s post began with some musings on how language influences thought patterns and perceptions. Last week’s article discussed how it affects our theology in respect of our relationship with God and our willingness to submit ourselves wholly and completely to his will. This week considers how language can affect things such as our perception of events, and in particular time.

In the Greek of the Bible, there are two words which are rendered into the English word ‘time’ namely chronos and kairos. Chronos is used in the sense of a measurement of linear time. The progression of events past to the future, or events that have yet to occur. Kairos, by contrast, is not quantitative and refers to a particular moment of time, rather than a measurement of it. It is qualitative to the quantitative chronos.

Chronos involves a way of measuring time. Kairos is a way of indicating a marked moment in the present. Now. In our Christian walk, God marks several moments. Indeed, in Christian theology, kairos is viewed specifically as the moment in which God’s purpose is ultimately fulfilled.

It is an interesting reflection on the fact that chronos, culturally, is more reflective of Western Christianity which seeks to quantify and explain, systematize and order all things, whereas in the East Christianity tends to be viewed more experientially, with less need to explore the Holy Mysteries of God, and more of a need to experience them.

A friend recently received the Sacrament of Confirmation, and it was these thoughts that were working through my mind as the Lord Bishop laid hands on her and prayed over her for a strengthening of the Holy Spirit in her life.

Some of the sacraments indelibly mark our lives. In Holy Baptism, when chrism is applied, we are sealed and marked as Christ’s own forever. It is a marked moment in our lives, in which we accomplish one of God’s ultimate purposes for us, reconciliation with him. In Confirmation to do we experience this marked moment of kairos, this fulfilment of God’s purpose in our lives.

Our Christian lives are journeys. In Scripture, the Christian path is described quite literally as a walk (eg. Gal 5. 25; Eph 4. 1; Eph 5. 8), but these passages speak to a deeper meaning, that of our sanctification and infused righteousness. In this understanding, our righteousness is not imputed by Christ, but rather is the transformative result of God’s sanctifying grace which gradually justifies the Christian. It is not instantaneous. Even for those, generally speaking Protestants and some Anglicans, who hold to a different view of justification, they still view the Christian life as a journey and process, for those same Scriptural reasons and that even once justified, the Christian must, as it says in St Matthew’s Gospel, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved,” (St Mt 24. 13).


It is therefore easy to think of the Christian life in terms of chronos. At some point in the past, I came to knowledge of Christ, and was baptised in the name of the Trinity, and since then have continued to struggle to fulfil the Gospel teachings and Christ’s commandments and be filled with God’s transforming grace.

Yet, we must never forget these marked moments of kairos in our lives. These moments which, in the Eastern Christian understanding, we participate in some way in God’s eternity. CS Lewis discusses this concept somewhat briefly in Mere Christianity when he considers God’s nature beyond time. While he discusses this in the context of doctrine and pious devotion and belief under the authority of Holy Scripture, he expresses his personal belief that for God, everything is now. God is beyond time and does not experience chronos, but rather experiences the totality of kairos at once.

Less philosophically, it is important to not simply become focused on perceptions of the process, while ignoring the moments we are experiencing now. Christianity is not meant to be a clinical process, but a joy to be experienced. There is nothing wrong with remembering past accomplishments, and indeed failures in order to avoid them again, or looking to the future, but if we do so to the detriment of the present, we will never experience the true essence of Christianity, relationship with God.

On Commitment

The Second Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, who never failest to help and govern them whom thou dost bring up in thy stedfast fear and love: Keep us, we beseech thee, under the protection of thy good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Language is important. Studies show that language affects how we think. Externally, the words we use reflect what we are thinking. In the context of Christianity, the words we use reflect not simply our thoughts, but also it reflects our theology and the doctrine of our church.

One big change that occurred in the 20th century was a transition from the language of submission to the language of commitment. Christians are now ones who make a commitment to Christ, accepting him in the hearts, while we now commonly view Islam as the religion of submission and indeed sometimes contrast Christianity with Islam in terms of viewing Islam as a religion that requires submission to God, while Christianity is more a religion of friendship and partnership with God.

While there is some truth in the view of Christianity as being more personal compared to Islam, to suggest that it is a partnership implies some form of equality with God, which is utterly false.

By making a commitment to Christ, we are approaching Christianity on our own terms, seeking to negotiate with God. “God, I commit myself to you, so long as it's comfortable.” It’s an attempt to retain control, to avoid submitting oneself completely to God’s authority.

This is not a uniquely modern innovation, as the Bible itself is full of examples of those to whom God had revealed his will, and who remained reluctant to submit themselves to it.

In the Old Testament, the Pentateuch contains a number of examples, including Numbers 16 when the people rose up to challenge Moses and Aaron, and even more directly in Exodus 16 when they grumbled that they had lived better in slavery in Egypt and murmured against God freeing them. Jonah’s story is another extremely well-known and clear example of someone who professes to follow God, but becomes reluctant and unwilling to follow God when God’s will conveyed to him becomes more difficult and goes against his own desires.

This phenomena is found in the New Testament as well. St Paul reminds the Christians in Galatia that he had been forced to rebuke St Peter and others when he found that they were backsliding into Jewish traditions under pressure from Judaisers. His criticism was essentially focused against those who were attempting to hedge their bets on their salvation. It was one thing to listen to one of the apostles coming by saying salvation was found in Christ and not the law, but here they were seeking to accept salvation in Christ while still following the law just in case.

Here, the early Christians were still professing their belief, but it was their actions that revealed that their words did not reflect their inner convictions. They were not willing to release control and submit themselves to God’s promise, instead resting on their own abilities to fulfil the law to secure their own salvation. It is no different when we say we are making a commitment to Christ, and no longer submitting to Christ’s lordship.

We can, in modern times, see this as well with the language of taking communion rather than receiving it. By taking communion, we view communion as something we control, with God as a passive partner. When we receive, it is God acting on us. This even further illustrates the troubling reality of making a commitment to God rather than submitting ourselves to God. When we make a commitment, we are saying, “I will follow you on these terms.” When we submit, we are saying, “I will follow your will always and in all things.” We are in effect replacing God in our lives by ourselves, making ourselves our own god. This is similar to anyone else who rejects God, but perhaps more insidiously, we don’t see it that way.

In a similar way, mission has become a new buzzword among Christians. Being a missional church, a missional community. In the Anglican Church of Canada, we no longer respect the Solemn Declaration and many Anglicans seem to see the Catholic Creeds as antiquated, but the Five Marks of Mission are a sacred charge. If you read statements from the Primate and other national organizations within the Anglican Church of Canada, you would see the Marks of Mission as the engine driving the Church.

The problem remains that mission is often defined on our own. Only two of the five marks, to proclaim the good news of the kingdom and to teach, baptise and nurture new believers, are distinctly Christian. Responding to human need in loving service, to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation and to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth are three goals which could easily be taken from the mission statements of any secular charity organizations.

There is nothing wrong with these statements, and they are clearly inspired by Christ’s example. The problem comes when they are so easily pursued under our own commitment rather than in submission to Christ. When we are a missional community, we are a community that subscribes to missions, based on these parameters, and that’s it. The actual missions undertaken may or may not be rooted in God’s will, even when they are clearly rooted in God’s examples to us in some way or another.

We are seeking to maintain our own agency. The goal of a missional church is to perform these missions. Its engine, what powers it, is not a desire to submit to Christ or to live a disciple’s life, but rather to accomplish missions.

In his Epistle to the Philippians, St Paul describes Christ’s ultimate submission:

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil 2. 6-8)

Verse six might be taken by a supporter of the Missional Movement to justify their position. Christ took the form of a servant. In St Matthew 20. 28, Christ himself says, “Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,” but in both these cases, that is attempting to justify doctrine and theology with Scriptural verses rather than with Scripture. In Philippians, St Paul tells us that Christ’s ultimate purpose was obedience to God, even unto death. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ finishes his sentence saying, “and to give his life as a ransom for many.” In St Luke’s Gospel, just prior to his arrest, Christ prays, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,” (St Lk 22. 42). Christ’s death was in submission to God’s will and serves as example to us.

Discipleship must be the engine of our faith and our lives. Mission will build from it, but when we do not submit and instead pick and choose how we will follow, we are not truly following God at all, but ourselves.

On God the Mother

The First Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the strength of all them that put their trust in thee: Mercifully accept our prayers; and because through the weakness of our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee, grant us the help of thy grace, that in keeping of thy commandments we may please thee both in will and deed; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

It is both topical and old news that people within the Anglican Communion are working towards adoption of a view of God as Mother. The most recent news comes from a report that fresh on the heels of approving the ordination of female bishops, female clergy are pushing for a formal review of the church’s liturgies to refer to God as mother and using feminine pronouns. In the Anglican Church of Canada, the various national working groups reviewing liturgical resources and our hymn book have long used the term “inclusiveness” to mean using gender neutral and feminine terms to refer to God. There are many reasons presented for this, including that presenting God as Father and using masculine pronouns perpetuates a patriarchal view of society and oppresses women, and that women are more capable of understanding God when he is presented as Mother rather than Father. Other arguments are also presented, but ultimately there is a general two point argument presented in support of whatever the goal for presenting God as mother, or using feminine pronouns, happens to be.

First, God is beyond gender. No right-thinking Christian would disagree with this point. God the Father may be referred to in his identity using the masculine pronouns, and with the term Father, but he is not a man or male.

This is quite true. God is beyond gender, but that isn’t always the point. It would be incorrect to refer to God as ‘it’ though it is something that seems to frequently happen in relation to God the Holy Spirit. God is neither a man, nor male, but neither is he a woman or female.

Second, God is presented often using feminine imagery in the Bible, and therefore it is entirely Scriptural to refer to God as Mother. The most compelling verses come from Isaiah 66, where God himself describes himself as a mother. God says, “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you.” Most other verses compare God to a mother in some way, either human or animal. While these verses tend to be used in support of this position, one of the two counter-arguments for the Scriptural supports is found in them.

In Psalm 131. 2, the Psalmist writes to God saying, “But I have calmed and quietened my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me.” There are two points to be made here. It is not entirely clear that the mother in this picture is meant to be God. As the Psalmist says, “I have quietened my soul,” not, “You have quietened my soul.” Even, however, if we accept that in this image it is meant to be God that is the mother, and not the Psalmist, it is mere imagery in a poem that is being used to give weight to the words. It is describing something by simile. God is not a mother, but acting like a mother acts. Similarly in Hosea 13, God says to Israel, “I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs; I will tear open their breast.” In this passage the image of a mother cub is invoked to show how God will guard Israel. Again it is imagery that conveys the meaning and weight of God’s willingness to protect his chosen people. It does not imply God is in fact a mother bear, and more than the passage in Isaiah or the Psalm should be taken to suggest God is a human woman.

Beyond the fact that these passages are merely using imagery, the most important point is that they are describing attributes of God, but not God’s identity. Again, further proof of this is found in the Gospels, where Christ himself, incarnate as a man, uses the same feminine imagery to describe himself in the Gospels. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” Here Christ uses the image of a mother hen protecting her chicks to describe how he would protect Israel, but it in no way impacts his identity. A practical example could also serve. How often has a father been described as protecting his children in the same way as a mother bear? Does this impact his identity as a father, or impact the use of the male pronouns for him? Certainly not, so why would a similar image in Hosea cause us to act any differently towards God the Father?

St Justin Martyr once wrote that, “no one can give a name to God, who is too great for words; if anyone dares to say it is possible to do so, he must be suffering from an incurable madness.” Here he makes two points. First, yes God is beyond gender: too great for words. Second, no one can give name to God. It is fine to use imagery or other words to describe God’s nature, but it is different to seek to change his identity by naming him.

One last argument that is sometimes raised, usually in connection with the first idea of God being beyond gender is that the use of masculine pronouns and Jesus’s identification of God as, “our Father,” is simply an entrenchment of patriarchal values of Jesus’s day. He spoke in terms that were acceptable to the male-dominated culture of his day, or the Bible writers merely recorded his words that way because of their own biases.

The first argument is easily disproved by the Gospel of St John. In chapter 6, Christ performs many signs and miracles, and then finishes the chapter preaching at the Synagogue in Capernaum where he tells the assembled Jews that he is the true bread of life and that all must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. This was abhorrent to the Jews, given the Jewish dietary restrictions against the consumption of blood and human flesh. They ask for clarification of what he means by this, thinking there must be some other meaning, but he again says clearly and without any desire to avoid offending their sensibilities maintains that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to receive eternal life. A few verses later, the Gospel records:

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offence at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (St Jn 6. 60-63)

It was a hard saying and they were offended. Christ came not to weave himself into Jewish society, but to reveal God’s truth and love. There is no compromising that truth or love.

According to St Justin Martyr, anyone who seeks to redefine God’s identity must be insane. There is another possibility, however, and it is that they simply are not yet ready to submit to God. Rather than transforming ourselves to conform to God, we seek to transform God to conform to our expectations of him, or in this case her, and in doing so, we replace God with ourselves.

Christ came into the world to save sinners, to reconcile us to God, not to allow us to transform God to be more like ourselves.

Upon hearing Christ’s difficult and troubling words, his disciples asked, “who can listen to it?” The answer must be all those who wish truly to follow Christ, for as he answers, “the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

The Wisdom of Saints: St Justin Martyr

Feast of Justin Martyr, Doctor, 165

ALMIGHTY God, by whose grace and power thy Martyr Justin was enabled to witness to the truth and to be faithful unto death: Grant that we, who now remember him before thee, may likewise so bear witness unto thee in this world, that we may receive with him the crown of glory that fadeth not away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

 St Justin Martyr stands out among the saints of the second century in that many of the details of his life are recorded. He was born in the first years of the second century to pagan parents in the city of Flavia Neapolis in Judea. The city had been established by the Romans in AD 72 shortly after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. In some of his writings, St Justin records that his father and grandfather were also of Flavia Neapolis, which further suggests a pagan origin.

He was given an excellent education in all the classics of philosophy, poetry, rhetoric and history. His education was completed at Alexandria and Ephesus where he engaged with the various philosophies of the day seeking both to complete his education and to find God. At Ephesus, while studying under a Platonist, he had his first broad exposure to Christianity where he was impressed by the Christian martyrs being killed there.

His conversion to Christianity occurred around AD 130, and in his own words he converted due to his desire for both beauty and truth, both of which he found in Christianity. Using his background in philosophy and rhetoric, he began to engage in debates with non-Christians and eventually opened a school for Christian philosophy, first in Ephesus and then eventually in Rome after he moved there later in life.

While in Rome he continued in his debates and defence of Christianity to non-Christians, while continuing to run his school and teach his students. He debated and beat a philosopher named Cresens who later denounced him to the authorities for practising an unauthorized religion. He was tried before the Roman authorities, where he refused to renounce his faith. The Roman prefect Rusticus pronounced a sentence of death on St Justin and he and six of his students were beheaded.

St Justin Martyr, beyond his martyrdom, is remembered for his apologetics which survive to this day. In the earliest days of the church, there was some level of secrecy around Christians and Christian rites. Justin Martyr’s apology, beyond simply helping to defend the merits of Christian doctrine, helped to dispel some of the terrible rumours which had been spread, and largely believed, about what went on between Christians.

St Justin’s first apology was addressed to the Emperor and his sons in the Senate. The introduction explains that the apology is a petion to the Emperor, “on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.” Namely, he was writing on behalf of Christians who were being accused of gross acts without merit, and faced persecution for it.

St Justin sets the tone of his apology, which speaks to the virtues of truth and beauty that had drawn him to Christianity in the first place, when he writes:
Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right.
He then goes on to conclude his introduction with words that speak to his own eventual end at the hands of Rusticus:

For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumours which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.

From the very beginning of his apology, it is clear that St Justin truly believed in everything he wrote. He was not so blunt as St Jerome, but it was clear his heart was for God’s truth and he saw no need to compromise that truth in an effort to please the Roman leaders he was addressing.

Much of the rest of the apology focuses on addressing accusations and rumours being levelled against Christians. He begins by suggesting that Christians are being persecuted on the basis of their name, and not any facts:

But as we do not think it just to beg to be acquitted on account of the name, if we be convicted as evil-doers, so, on the other hand, if we be found to have committed no offence, either in the matter of thus naming ourselves, or of our conduct as citizens, it is your part very earnestly to guard against incurring just punishment, by unjustly punishing those who are not convicted. For from a name neither praise nor punishment could reasonably spring, unless something excellent or base in action be proved.

Here St Justin not only begins to make an argument about the need to follow standard jurisprudence and actually prove guilt before Roman citizens are punished for something, a theme he develops more fully later in his apology, he introduces something of a clever wordplay on the basis of the similarity between the Greek word for Christ and the Greek word for excellent and good.

The thrust of his argument is that accusations are being levelled without proof and that no punishment should be incurred without proof (and he indeed suggests that if anything like what Christians were accused of was actually being done by any Christians, the other Christians would justly support the punishment of those individuals), and he then proceeds to spend a significant amount of time discussing some of these rumours.

While today the Eucharist is administered only to those who have received the sacrament of Baptism, in the days of the early church, non-Baptised persons were not permitted to even participate in the liturgy surrounding the Eucharist. This seeming secrecy surrounding the sacraments helped contribute to some of the rumours being spread about Christians. Accusations of cannibalism were not uncommon due to rumours surrounding the Eucharist. St Justin addresses these issues head on by describing the liturgy that takes place when Christians gathered:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptised person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

This description of the liturgy itself should be extremely familiar to all Anglicans, but in that day would have been a revelation to pagans who would never have had an opportunity to read about it or witness it. He then goes on to conclude this section by discussing the Eucharist specifically with a passage that highlights a number of features of modern apologetics, including the use of Scripture to help explain Christian belief:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

St Justin Martyr lived as someone who sought the truth, and when he found it in Christianity, he sought to share that truth with others, and to help explain it to them in a rational way that a reasoned mind could not reject. The great modern apologists—Chesterton and Lewis—owe much to St Justin, who proved his adherence to the truth he wrote when he professed Christ unto martyrdom.