Should Christians Abandon Apologetics?

[2PhiloVoid]

I've just finished reading Myron Bradley Penner's book, The End of Apologetics, and I've been thinking about the state of the negative and positive inter-personal and other social "flows" that so often manifest among many modern Christian Apologists and various skeptical inquirers...

Penner offers an alternative assessment on what Apologetics "is" or "should do" to that of someone like William Lane Craig, and in the following podcast (45 minutes), we find they've sat down together to discuss and mildly debate the nuances of their respective points of view on how they think Christian Apologetics should be done and what its purpose is. If you want to listen in, I've provided the podcast for your convenience:

[Side note: The discussion moderator in the podcast is Julie Roys, and a taste of her own evangelical thinking can be found here (Enjoy!!) ]

Also, a quick but all too brief summation by Julie Roys of the podcast above can be found [here].

********************************************************************************

In my hermeneutical (i.e. cultural, ideological, interpretive) reflection upon Penner's more Kierkegaardian-esque approach to Christian Apologetics and the Influence (or lack thereof) that Evangelical Apologetics has had, on the whole, in today's world, I thought about the following, "simple" question, one which all here can ponder over since everyone here, I'm assuming, has equal access to the Bible:

As a Christian who undertakes Apologetical tasks, is it my job to A) tell non-believers how they should think and/or believe and/or live, OR B) offer an account of why "I" personally believe?​

In other words: what do you think Christian Apologetics is supposed to do?

Or even, if you prefer: Should Christians today abandon the attempt to do 'apologetics'?

Of course, everyone is welcome to weigh-in here, both Christians and Skeptical Atheists alike.

 

[gaara4158]

Disclaimer: I haven’t sat down and listened to the podcast yet, but I’ll weigh in briefly based on the synopsis provided because I do have some thoughts on the topic.

I’m not a fan of the adversarial format to which option A lends itself. It’s not in people’s nature to acquiesce when told how to think or what to believe if it’s not compatible with what they already have in mind, so there’s a good chance that conversation will turn into a debate. l mean, it’s entertaining, and it can be educational for spectators, but it’s more a battle of wits than a search for truth.
I believe you’ll get more productive mileage out of option B. This kind of conversation can still fall into debate territory, but at least it’s not inherently designed that way. It’s more geared towards introspection and earnest discussion, which I think are better tools for creating a reasonable worldview.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Disclaimer: I haven’t sat down and listened to the podcast yet, but I’ll weigh in briefly based on the synopsis provided because I do have some thoughts on the topic.

That's fine, gaara, but if you get the chance, take some time to listen to the podcast because there are two or three other nuances involved in the dynamics of this comparative exercise as it moves between the respective praxes of Craig and Penner.

I’m not a fan of the adversarial format to which option A lends itself. It’s not in people’s nature to acquiesce when told how to think or what to believe if it’s not compatible with what they already have in mind, so there’s a good chance that conversation will turn into a debate. l mean, it’s entertaining, and it can be educational for spectators, but it’s more a battle of wits than a search for truth.

You're probably right about much of this, and although I'm sure I've demonstrated my share of bravado or that I've been more than willing to take a tough stance here or there, at heart I really don't prefer to take an adversarial approach to the 'defending' my faith. I suppose that that kind of thing can too easily come about when there are substantial politics involved hanging like a haze in the background, but on my part I have little intention to be 'political' in my apologetical activity, at least not overtly.

I believe you’ll get more productive mileage out of option B. This kind of conversation can still fall into debate territory, but at least it’s not inherently designed that way. It’s more geared towards introspection and earnest discussion, which I think are better tools for creating a reasonable worldview.

Option B does seem to be preferable, all things considered; a Christian could still be composed, polite and well-mannered AND be on the offensive in a conversation with a non-Christian. But, as I mentioned above, there are a few aspects of this that aren't so clear as William Lane Craig and Julie Roys move through their discussion with Myron Penner in the podcast. It gets interesting, or at least I found it interesting especially since I just finished reading all of Penner's book.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Disclaimer: I haven’t sat down and listened to the podcast yet, but I’ll weigh in briefly based on the synopsis provided because I do have some thoughts on the topic.

I’m not a fan of the adversarial format to which option A lends itself. It’s not in people’s nature to acquiesce when told how to think or what to believe if it’s not compatible with what they already have in mind, so there’s a good chance that conversation will turn into a debate. l mean, it’s entertaining, and it can be educational for spectators, but it’s more a battle of wits than a search for truth.
I believe you’ll get more productive mileage out of option B. This kind of conversation can still fall into debate territory, but at least it’s not inherently designed that way. It’s more geared towards introspection and earnest discussion, which I think are better tools for creating a reasonable worldview.

But additionally, what do you as a non-Christian perceive is the mandated 'form' of Christian interaction given for 'apologetics' in the New Testament documents?

 

[zippy2006]

Penner offers an alternative assessment on what Apologetics "is" or "should do" to that of someone like William Lane Craig, and in the following podcast (45 minutes), we find they've sat down together to discuss and mildly debate the nuances of their respective points of view on how they think Christian Apologetics should be done and what its purpose is. If you want to listen in, I've provided the podcast for your convenience:

I think Craig made great points all around. Penner seems to be arguing against negative distortions of apologetics. I also thought Julie Roys did a very nice job moderating, and her conclusion strongly favored Craig (and apologetics generally).

In other words: what do you think Christian Apologetics is supposed to do?

Craig gives a great case about what it is supposed to do at 39:00.

The difficulty with assessing apologetics generally is that a random sample is hard to obtain (churches, regions, religions, historical periods, etc.). At one point Penner basically admits that much of his data is anecdotal. I'd say it's a simple matter of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

It was interesting to listen to Craig on this topic. He understands the subject well.

Or even, if you prefer: Should Christians today abandon the attempt to do 'apologetics'?

My response to a Christian who wants Christianity to give up apologetics is more or less, "You do not know what you ask." Christianity is the preeminent rational religion. It is possible to argue against aberrations, but not against apologetics itself.

 

[Resha Caner]

I lean more toward B, but I'll offer 2 more facets I think are important in apologetics: B1) As a means to defend myself against those who would suppress my religious expression, B2) As a means to clear the roadblocks preventing people from hearing the Gospel.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think Craig made great points all around. Penner seems to be arguing against negative distortions of apologetics. I also thought Julie Roys did a very nice job moderating, and her conclusion strongly favored Craig (and apologetics generally).

Craig wasn't bad overall, but as I listened, it seemed to me that all three participants in the podcast had their strengths and weaknesses. I like the fact that all three say they value the importance of having sensitivity for the feelings and dignity of our interlocutors, but I think they all have something missing nevertheless.

Craig gives a great case about what it is supposed to do at 39:00.

I can appreciate his point that we need to speak up for our faith but I'm not sure how far I can go with his notion that one of the purposes of apologetics is to shape culture so that it "helps to create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as a living option." I'd have to find some additional literature of his or some other video material to see exactly what he means by this. From my angle of things, when I look at the book of Acts, I'm not seeing that we as Christians are 'meant' to do anything more than create pockets of sub-culture (churches) in which people can interact through us with God and with the Gospel of Christ.

Craig also referred to how he thinks things can 'descend' culturally; well, I think all of that is out of our hands, even if we were vastly more numerous and the BEST apologists the world has ever seen. Because of human sin, society would (and will) still go into the dumper, slowly but surely.

As for the rest of what he said after minute 39:00, I suppose I could hang with it for the most part in that I do think he's right that apologetics can aid us a moderate amount to maintain our faith and, occasionally, help in bringing others to Christ.

On the other hand overall, however frank it may sound, I think that what passes today for 'apologetics' does suffer somewhat from the epistemological imports of the Enlightenment that have been brought into it so that what we are doing today and calling apologetics is a shadow of what we find in the New Testament.

Presently, I think this is due to there being too much reliance by contemporary Christians upon a Modernistic framework (especially in the form of Foundationalism, although its not the only culprit). As for Craig, I think he waffles just a little bit when he says that he realizes that, like Penner, apologetics doesn't and shouldn't be seen to replace the work of the Holy Spirit, but then Craig sometimes kind of takes away in his overall praxis with his left hand what he's given with his right.

The difficulty with assessing apologetics generally is that a random sample is hard to obtain (churches, regions, religions, historical periods, etc.). At one point Penner basically admits that much of his data is anecdotal. I'd say it's a simple matter of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

... perhaps, on a similar count, can't we all offer up some relevant anecdotes we've collected in our memories made from our own personal experiences? I think we can, not only in recognizing the development of theological thoughts we've each had in our own minds but also from our hearing many individuals whom we've lived with or have met in our lives who have told us what they've thought and felt as they've wrestled with their own attempts to believe and have faith. So, I think Penner has a point with his "merely" anecdotal evidence, even if, as a Philosophical Hermeneuticists, I'm not willing to go whole-hog with his supposedly fully Postmodern position either.

It was interesting to listen to Craig on this topic. He understands the subject well.

I think he has a handle on some things philosophical in connection to our common faith, but he has some questionable conclusions tucked in here and there in his overall thought project. Of course, Roys and Penner, each in their own ways, do too, just as I'm sure all of us individually have some limits as well.

My response to a Christian who wants Christianity to give up apologetics is more or less, "You do not know what you ask." Christianity is the preeminent rational religion. It is possible to argue against aberrations, but not against apologetics itself.

Yeah, I think Penner goes just a little too far with his reification of the whole thing, but he does have some points he's taken from Kierkegaard which I think do have some teeth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I lean more toward B, but I'll offer 2 more facets I think are important in apologetics: B1) As a means to defend myself against those who would suppress my religious expression, B2) As a means to clear the roadblocks preventing people from hearing the Gospel.

I think that you, me, and @zippy2006, and some others here I can think of, lean more toward B.

I do like how you've parsed B out into two conceptual sections as well. Nice touch!

Now, if we can just hear from a few atheists/skeptics on this OP subject ...

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah, I think Penner goes just a little too far with his reification of the whole thing, but he does have some points he's taken from Kierkegaard that I think do have some teeth.

Is there a particular point that Penner made in the podcast that you would identify as strong? Or perhaps in his book? It did have a vague Kierkegaardian flavor, although historians of religion often say that Kierkegaard was defending Christianity against German rationalism (a defense which was a kind of apologetics in itself). It seemed like Penner's emphasis was more like, "Accompaniment, not argument," in the context of conversion. That is, making the potential convert's person and journey central rather than abstract arguments and oppositional dialectic.

(Sorry, I will try to respond to some of your other points when I have more time.)

 

[Resha Caner]

I can appreciate his point that we need to speak up for our faith but I'm not sure how far I can go with his notion that one of the purposes of apologetics is to shape culture so that it "helps to create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as a living option." I'd have to find some additional literature of his or some other video material to see exactly what he means by this. From my angle of things, when I look at the book of Acts, I'm not seeing that we as Christians are 'meant' to do anything more than create pockets of sub-culture (churches) in which people can interact through us with God and with the Gospel of Christ.

I'm not particularly fond of Craig. I think unbelievers have done an excellent job of poking holes in his arguments. So, at best, I've found him useful for examples of what doesn't work.

However, I really like the statement you quoted. That very principle has been a huge motivator for my academic and artistic endeavors for years. Why? Despite the claims of benevolence toward religion that most unbelievers express here, my experience with the real world is much more hostile. As a first example, someone in my family has recently entered the medical profession. My relative intentionally attended a Catholic school to obtain a license for the specific reason that the culture was supportive of having spiritual conversations with patients, of providing alternative options to abortion, of refusing certain types of reproductive, gender, etc. testing. If we don't support such schools in the "cultural milieu" we will find the Kingdom of the Left an increasing hostile place to operate.

With respect to my artistic interests with film, it has been studied and verified that the profession consists of above average concentrations of liberals, homosexuals, etc. My libertarian views mean I have no problem working with people of differing views, but that doesn't mean they're OK with me expressing my views. I am a minority of a minority of a minority. So what if a confessional Christian is interested in a career in the arts? If so, you've got to have steel for a gut. One of my aims is to relax that culture. I'm not trying to force Jesus movies down their throat. I want them to consider story worlds where spiritual events are a possibility. Currently writers use "science" as a thin veil for expressing their spiritual views. The Matrix is a perfect example of that.

My point is Craig's comment is an elegant expression of my intended meaning for B1.

 

[zippy2006]

I can appreciate his point that we need to speak up for our faith but I'm not sure how far I can go with his notion that one of the purposes of apologetics is to shape culture so that it "helps to create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as a living option." I'd have to find some additional literature of his or some other video material to see exactly what he means by this.

Following Resha, I did like that point. Craig said that Europe foreshadows America's religious future, and one of the speakers spoke of Charles Taylor's assessment of belief in the existence of God today as compared to 500 years ago. There are widespread cultural barriers to belief, and I think apologetics plays a role in shaping culture, even if it is a small role.

Craig also referred to how he thinks things can 'descend' culturally; well, I think all of that is out of our hands, even if we were vastly more numerous and the BEST apologists the world has ever seen. Because of human sin, society would (and will) still go into the dumper, slowly but surely.

You would say it's not worth trying?

On the other hand overall, however frank it may sound, I think that what passes today for 'apologetics' does suffer somewhat from the epistemological imports of the Enlightenment that have been brought into it so that what we are doing today and calling apologetics is a shadow of what we find in the New Testament.

Presently, I think this is due to there being too much reliance by contemporary Christians upon a Modernistic framework (especially in the form of Foundationalism, although its not the only culprit).

What would be your Biblical epistemological alternative to modern foundationalism? Is there another game in town other than coherentism?

As for Craig, I think he waffles just a little bit when he says that he realizes that, like Penner, apologetics doesn't and shouldn't be seen to replace the work of the Holy Spirit, but then Craig sometimes kind of takes away in his overall praxis with his left hand what he's given with his right.

I think Craig self-identifies as an apologist rather than a pastor. I think he would say, "I do my job, and it isn't meant to impart conviction through the Holy Spirit, but my job also doesn't replace the work that others are doing in that area."

... perhaps, on a similar count, can't we all offer up some relevant anecdotes we've collected in our memories made from our own personal experiences? I think we can, not only in recognizing the development of theological thoughts we've each had in our own minds but also from our hearing many individuals whom we've lived with or have met in our lives who have told us what they've thought and felt as they've wrestled with their own attempts to believe and have faith. So, I think Penner has a point with his "merely" anecdotal evidence, even if, as a Philosophical Hermeneuticists, I'm not willing to go whole-hog with his supposedly fully Postmodern position either.

I would say that there is a place for anecdotal evidence, but the positions that Penner founded on that evidence didn't seem to stand up very well. A common arc of the podcast had Penner objecting to some vein of apologetics, Roys asking if he objects to Craig in that vein, and Penner responding that he does not. Perhaps you could say that Penner was objecting to certain apologists rather than apologetics generally, and that Craig was not one of the apologists he objected to.

Of course Penner often alluded to the idea that apologetics is probabilistically oriented towards certain negative outcomes, but he never really put flesh on that idea. Perhaps he talks about it in more detail in his book.

One of Penner's more risky assertions was that for everyone who is helped by apologetics, many more are harmed. He said this in response to Craig's citation of the positive impact of apologetics (and it is interesting that both Penner and Roys converted in large part due to apologetics). But again, there wasn't too much elaboration on this claim, and I believe Craig responded by saying that apologetics is most effective for particular kinds of people (e.g. especially those in the fields of engineering, medicine, or law).

I think he has a handle on some things philosophical in connection to our common faith, but he has some questionable conclusions tucked in here and there in his overall thought project.

I agree that Craig has his flaws, but on this topic I found him to be very solid. Also, as a famous apologist he is an ideal candidate to defend apologetics.

I was also slightly wary due to the fact that Penner was resurrecting some fideistic canards, but Craig handled them well. A subtle "both-and" mentality must be brought to the question of faith and reason.

Yeah, I think Penner goes just a little too far with his reification of the whole thing, but he does have some points he's taken from Kierkegaard which I think do have some teeth.

Perhaps Penner wants to bring attention to the issue and nuance to the method, in which case he seems to be achieving his goal. As you said, no one disagreed with his critiques of irresponsible apologetics.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I disagree with both options A and B as framed in the OP (though, I have not listened to the podcast as of yet).

The task of Apologetics is neither to explain why I believe as some anecdotal case study of a specific framework of ideas; nor to try and replace the framework of the other.

The task of Apologetics is to engage in a sort-of Socratic dialogue. It is to critique the underlying assumptions of the non-Christian. You need to work down to common ground, and from there explain how to reach the one side or the other. It is to show that the assumptions or framework judged inimical to Christianity either isn't, or is less secure than the person judged it to be. Ideally, we must all realise we know nothing. From there, I feel a person can be brought to Faith, for at heart, Christian Faith is drawing a line in the sand as what really constitutes reality.

In the modern West, it mostly has to do with exposing the subtle slight of hand where Methodologic Naturalism is confused with the Ontologic variety; or the confused Relativism. Mrs Roys reports Penner saying Truth is arrived at subjectively, but that doesn't mean it is subjective itself - another confusion the modern world often commits.

CS Lewis covers it nicely in Pilgrim's Regress, where John and Vertue have to straddle the cold North of overly abstract and the warm South of mush. Both actually conceal false facades, but you can't escape uncertainty without Faith. Or think of Virgil in Dante, Reason leading man to Faith.

Lewis also has his idea of God placed in the dock, that we humans would dare sit in judgement on the reality of God: the old canard of "if God would only prove to me He exists". Penner is right that we elevate human Reason, but historically this wasn't a problem - Reason was seen as being a facet of the rational soul, so itself derived from God or at least the noumenous. This is itself an example of making an artificial division that may not exist, and needs itself to be justified.

I see the task of the Apologist as neither convincing nor supplying anecdote, but as a Teacher. It is to educate on other ways of looking at things. They can alter their understanding, or not, accordingly - you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. In any conversation, both sides should have some effect on each other - for the Apologist, hopefully to act as a crucible for Faith; for the interlocutor, to educate on the Nature of Christian Faith - and therefore if he would wish to pursue it, to facilitate it. You share the Gospel, you don't ram it down throats. If people don't listen, then wash the dust from your feet. If they do, it doesn't mean you are converting them - everyone stands by themselves before their God eventually. The premiere problem to the modern Apologist is ignorance, both of Christianity and the implications or underlying assumptions of most modern non-Christians.

 

[Tolworth John]

In other words: what do you think Christian Apologetics is supposed to do?

It depends on the situation.
A childs question is answered differently to an adults and an openly skeptic is answered differently to someone who has asked a question about what one believes.

Christians should ALL be studing apologetics, to be able to answer hard challenging questions from skeptics as well as telling an enquiry about ones faith.

It also follows that it is as important for us to live out our faith as well as to talk about it.

 

[Resha Caner]

The task of Apologetics is to engage in a sort-of Socratic dialogue. It is to critique the underlying assumptions of the non-Christian. You need to work down to common ground, and from there explain how to reach the one side or the other. It is to show that the assumptions or framework judged inimical to Christianity either isn't, or is less secure than the person judged it to be. Ideally, we must all realise we know nothing. From there, I feel a person can be brought to Faith, for at heart, Christian Faith is drawing a line in the sand as what really constitutes reality.

Interesting. I like it. But you must have had a tough time with multiple-choice exams in school.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I woke up this morning to find that I had received four responses to this thread, but all from fellow Christians and almost none yet (as it seems to go lately) from our skeptical friends [i.e. @Gaara] or "foes."

I also saw that each person who has responded thus far [i.e. @zippy2006, @Resha Caner, @Quid est Veritas?, @Tolworth John] has done so substantively and offered me something to make me pause a moment or two, take a step back or two, and think twice or thrice, all of which is something I very much appreciate. In some ways, I feel like I've just been given either a surprise birthday party or a collaborative 'intervention' to keep me from going further to pry things apart while standing here within the Christian Apologetics section, strictly epistemologically speaking, that is.

As much as I wish that either possibility above could be a reality, I'm rather under the conviction that the general endeavor I have in conducting this specific thread isn't about me but about all of us trying to do better to reach “the spiritually lost” and to collectively(?) maintain (build?) the Kingdom of Christ as we each live our lives and live our part from within and from out of our own daily dramas.

With that said, I see that each of you who has thus far come forward to offer me your own 'take' on the contention we see between Craig or Penner over the nature of Christian Apologetics has done so in somewhat diverse manners and each of you deserves a separate response. I'd love to respond to you all today, but my time is limited so I'll try to address each of you as my time allows over the next few days (sorry guys).

However fortunately, as fate would have it, I saw a random article linked within another article provided in a thoughtful post written by another CF member this morning, and I felt that the article I came across directly related to the overall philosophical issue(s) which we are involved in here. The article I came across also happens to be one that was published two days ago, and it seems to me to be one that can [and will] serve as a partial (but only a partial) stand-in to the questions that @zippy has asked me above in post #9.

So before I bring up what I think Penner's strong points were in his book (more or less), or before I attempt to take Craig down a peg or two, I'm throwing this article from Bill Leonard out for further consideration since it seems to straddle the epistemic and political lines that are inherent in the discussion/debate between Craig and Penner in my OP thread:

Telling the truth or creating our own realities? (And the wisdom to know the difference)

 

[Barney2.0]

Why should we abandon defending the true faith, on the contrary we should try harder and harder and upgrade our apologetics, my faith pretty much revolves around apologetics. In apologetics I’ve realized that we have to be absolutely merciless and emulate the Church Fathers in dealing with heretics. I have a saying that I always keep in mind, love the heretic your enemy, but to love the heretic you have to butcher his false doctrines first.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is there a particular point that Penner made in the podcast that you would identify as strong? Or perhaps in his book? It did have a vague Kierkegaardian flavor, although historians of religion often say that Kierkegaard was defending Christianity against German rationalism (a defense which was a kind of apologetics in itself). It seemed like Penner's emphasis was more like, "Accompaniment, not argument," in the context of conversion. That is, making the potential convert's person and journey central rather than abstract arguments and oppositional dialectic.

(Sorry, I will try to respond to some of your other points when I have more time.)

If you were to read Penner's book, I think you'd definitely notice his references to Kierkegaard, especially when Penner essentially devotes an entire chapter to drawing upon a singular motif which Kiekregaard was known for, that of describing the praxis of the local church (or "yesterday's," I guess) as one over-indulged with Hegelian-esque intellectualizing. Of course, for Kierkegaard, this was described in terms reflecting upon the Danish and German churches, whereas Penner applies Kierkegaard's motif to today's epistemolgical and social 'dysfunctions' in today's English speaking world.

Moreover, this Kierkegaardian motif, which Penner draws out and uses to focus upon what he thinks are the Modernistic assumptions and shortcomings of Christian Apologetics today, basically contrasts the ouevre of "A Genius" with that of the work of a Spirit moved, Scripturally informed "Apostle." From this Penner draws an inference, and in combining this contrast with Alisdair McIntyre's additional assertion that ideological changes have morphed the moral axioms in Western society, Penner then applies this same pattern, in a synthesis, upon today's Epistemological and Social program which is common among Christians as they push forward their Christian Apologetics endeavors (especially as is evident among many Evangelicals).

Penner then briefly says in his book that despite detestations to the contrary by Apologists like Craig, today's Apologetics--in their driving assumptions--produce a praxis that is not so much like the collaborative, logically synchronized team efforts aboard the Starship Enterpise in Star Trek, but rather like a trip with Alice through Wonderland (pp. 4-6).

However, while I will say that I think Penner has a point on the epistmological front, and while I think his reliance upon his postmodernized motif of Alice in Wonderland can be appropriately applied to the ravages of relativism that are being bandied about, I'd probably take a more middle-line in 'imaging' not only the rational quality of Christian defenses but also of how various Christians now in the 21st (and much of the past century) have worked together to 'defend' the Faith.

And while I'd say that our efforts are less logically coherent than a position on board the Starship Enteprise would be, they (with perhaps the injection of a little bit of Hermeneutics to the stew) could be seen to be more like the coming together of disparate figures, such as did the 9 companions in The Fellowship of the Ring ... (...and yes, I realize this motif/analogy seems a little male-dominated, [even a bit too 'white'!] but then again, it's just a motif given for illustrative purposes and besides, all these disparate 'types' that come together in a seeming post-modern hodge-podge still draw upon the common foundational inspiration of Wisdom offered by some significant "female persons," don't they? [Tolkien-esque hints of Proverbs maybe...?]) Perhaps Star Wars characters would be more fitting as a motif about epistemological and sociological diversity among Christians who try to do Christian Apologetics in a world that is now even more diverse ... ?

As far as the logical, epistemological and social effectiveness of modern Christian Apologetics is concerned, I'm less hopeful and less certain in this regard than is Craig, but just a hair more optimistic (and slightly less Postmodern) about the uses of Apologetics than is Penner. Obviously, I know that much of what I'm saying above isn't so clear, but I can work later to better clarify the concepts were trying to analyze here.

Penner goes on to say a few additional things in his book that don't come out so well in his discussion with Craig in the podcast. And perhaps I can bring those up later.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I've just finished reading Myron Bradley Penner's book, The End of Apologetics, and I've been thinking about the state of the negative and positive inter-personal and other social "flows" that so often manifest among many modern Christian Apologists and various skeptical inquirers...

Penner offers an alternative assessment on what Apologetics "is" or "should do" to that of someone like William Lane Craig, and in the following podcast (45 minutes), we find they've sat down together to discuss and mildly debate the nuances of their respective points of view on how they think Christian Apologetics should be done and what its purpose is. If you want to listen in, I've provided the podcast for your convenience:

[Side note: The discussion moderator in the podcast is Julie Roys, and a taste of her own evangelical thinking can be found here (Enjoy!!) ]

Also, a quick but all too brief summation by Julie Roys of the podcast above can be found [here].

********************************************************************************

In my hermeneutical (i.e. cultural, ideological, interpretive) reflection upon Penner's more Kierkegaardian-esque approach to Christian Apologetics and the Influence (or lack thereof) that Evangelical Apologetics has had, on the whole, in today's world, I thought about the following, "simple" question, one which all here can ponder over since everyone here, I'm assuming, has equal access to the Bible:

As a Christian who undertakes Apologetical tasks, is it my job to A) tell non-believers how they should think and/or believe and/or live, OR B) offer an account of why "I" personally believe?​

In other words: what do you think Christian Apologetics is supposed to do?

Or even, if you prefer: Should Christians today abandon the attempt to do 'apologetics'?

Of course, everyone is welcome to weigh-in here, both Christians and Skeptical Atheists alike.

I haven't watched the video yet. But in true 2PV style, I will answer your binary question with a third choice. Instead of (A) or (B), I choose (C). Apologetics must exhibit the values that it advocates, the most important of which is love. Apologetics is often delivered in disgust. I'm often hated for being an atheist. I'm assumed to be a liberal (which would presumably mean I'm the only pro-life, anti-Islam liberal in the whole world). Basically any kind of thing that can be deployed as an insult is not spared. Apologetics is simply spat out in spite, and for this reason, it is an abysmal failure. It is a bit like an essay advocating MLA format which is not written in MLA format.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I haven't watched the video yet. But in true 2PV style, I will answer your binary question with a third choice. Instead of (A) or (B), I choose (C). Apologetics must exhibit the values that it advocates, the most important of which is love. Apologetics is often delivered in disgust. I'm often hated for being an atheist. I'm assumed to be a liberal (which would presumably mean I'm the only pro-life, anti-Islam liberal in the whole world). Basically any kind of thing that can be deployed as an insult is not spared. Apologetics is simply spat out in spite, and for this reason, it is an abysmal failure. It is a bit like an essay advocating MLA format which is not written in MLA format.

Then, you agree with Penner, more or less.

Thank you for your comments! They are heard.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not particularly fond of Craig. I think unbelievers have done an excellent job of poking holes in his arguments. So, at best, I've found him useful for examples of what doesn't work.

That makes two of us! At the same time, while I can admit with you that Craig's form of apologetics doesn't quite cut it for me either, I do appreciate the spirit in which he at least attempts to affirm that Christians need to do a good job (a better job) of being mindful about the overall attitude they express when interacting with their skeptical interlocutors.

On this point, I'll be the first to admit that unlike Craig and Penner both, I'm personally very emotionally "challenged" in this area. Like, quite challenged! Of course, then again, I've never claimed to be a giant in the Faith. I know I'm not; but frankly, the World of people and their vying for manipulation of power, on the whole, rather irks me and has always irked me.

However, I really like the statement you quoted. That very principle has been a huge motivator for my academic and artistic endeavors for years. Why? Despite the claims of benevolence toward religion that most unbelievers express here, my experience with the real world is much more hostile.

I'd say this has been my general experience as well.

As a first example, someone in my family has recently entered the medical profession. My relative intentionally attended a Catholic school to obtain a license for the specific reason that the culture was supportive of having spiritual conversations with patients, of providing alternative options to abortion, of refusing certain types of reproductive, gender, etc. testing. If we don't support such schools in the "cultural milieu" we will find the Kingdom of the Left an increasing hostile place to operate.

You and Craig, each in your own ways and from your own angles, have a good point. It's just that I guess I'll have to admit that my angle is a little different and maybe due to my own hermeneutical and eschatological framework -- one that could be wrong -- moves me to see and feel less optimistic about our present Christian endeavors, such as they are now in the 21st Techno-Century. Sometimes, I really do hope that I'm wrong ...

With respect to my artistic interests with film, it has been studied and verified that the profession consists of above average concentrations of liberals, homosexuals, etc. My libertarian views mean I have no problem working with people of differing views, but that doesn't mean they're OK with me expressing my views. I am a minority of a minority of a minority.

Oh, I know, bro! Those of us who view the world and our Christian Faith through some form of more progressive and/or libertarian tinged "lens" will be in a minority, stuck somewhere between the rest of the polarized regimes on both sides.

So what if a confessional Christian is interested in a career in the arts? If so, you've got to have steel for a gut. One of my aims is to relax that culture. I'm not trying to force Jesus movies down their throat. I want them to consider story worlds where spiritual events are a possibility. Currently writers use "science" as a thin veil for expressing their spiritual views. The Matrix is a perfect example of that.

Truly, I hope you find some success in your endeavors.

My point is Craig's comment is an elegant expression of my intended meaning for B1.

Craig's comment is arguably a very constructive one, but then from my angle, a lot of the application of it will depend on what he means precisely by the term "milieu."