From the same Wikipedia article:
Colloquial usage
Today the term “apologist” is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or “whitewashing” their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of “spokesperson” for “apologist” in conversation conveys much the same sense of “partisan presenter with a weighted agenda,” with less rhetorical freight.
Note that this is incorrectly called a “technique of classical rhetoric” but that is not true, it is a technique of sophism. I stole that from Alamo Girl (or maybe Betty Boop, both freepers extraordinaire) so I’m pinging them. We recently had a discussion on the word Apologist, which comes from the Greek “apo” (away from) + Logos (Word or speech), which was a formal way of presenting your case like in a court of law so that you could be heard “away from” your dissenters.
I have noticed that a lot of people try to lay claim to the title of christian because of the positive connotations of the word. But when the time comes that someone puts a sword to your throat and you die if you admit you’re a believer in Christ — that He was God Himself — that’s really when we’ll see the fake christians fall away. It has happened a few times in history and can happen here.