Should Christians Abandon Apologetics?

[muichimotsu]

Apologetics in the sense of your personal experience seems more like just witnessing in the general sense, while B borders more on polemics, trying to criticize the faulty nature of non believer's.

The 3rd option at least seems closer to what the essence is, though I'd say it's less a dialogue in the initial point as it is defending against criticisms in the first place, meaning that it isn't necessarily making the affirmation that their position is true, only that they have conviction and faith it is.

If you're trying to evangelize, that's a different line of thought than defending Christianity as rational and such, or possessing internal consistency even if it doesn't fit with logical analysis (Trinity as a divine mystery comes to mind, to say nothing of special revelation in the bible, etc).

But the bigger question becomes, "How effective has apologetics been in converting people versus witnessing and evangelizing as sort of the major alternative you'd hear about?"

Increasingly, I see people just having the idea that there isn't a need to prove Christianity true or even make logical arguments so much as just expecting "God" to change their hearts and minds in some fashion, planting proverbial seeds by a discussion of why they believe, which would lean towards the first methodology described contrasting with the second that, again, seems more antagonistic in saying why non-Christianity is wrong

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Apologetics in the sense of your personal experience seems more like just witnessing in the general sense, while B borders more on polemics, trying to criticize the faulty nature of non believer's.

The 3rd option at least seems closer to what the essence is, though I'd say it's less a dialogue in the initial point as it is defending against criticisms in the first place, meaning that it isn't necessarily making the affirmation that their position is true, only that they have conviction and faith it is.

If you're trying to evangelize, that's a different line of thought than defending Christianity as rational and such, or possessing internal consistency even if it doesn't fit with logical analysis (Trinity as a divine mystery comes to mind, to say nothing of special revelation in the bible, etc).

But the bigger question becomes, "How effective has apologetics been in converting people versus witnessing and evangelizing as sort of the major alternative you'd hear about?"

Increasingly, I see people just having the idea that there isn't a need to prove Christianity true or even make logical arguments so much as just expecting "God" to change their hearts and minds in some fashion, planting proverbial seeds by a discussion of why they believe, which would lean towards the first methodology described contrasting with the second that, again, seems more antagonistic in saying why non-Christianity is wrong

In a few ways, I agree with you, but in regard to the nature of "an" option B, mostly particularly as I've tried to frame it in my OP as opposed to alternative versions which my friends here have offered later in this thread, I see option B not as a form of polemics but simply as the offering of personal testimony by any Christian or groups of Christians to interested parties, such as may be done as a defendant under political or legal pressures in a court of law.'

As for Julie Roys's use of Paul's 'warfare analogy' in the OP podcast that could be made out by some Christians as a form of polemic against non-Christians, that is, the one he poses to the troubled Corinthian church in his 2nd letter, I've recently come to the conclusion that she is socially and apologetically misapplying what she thinks Paul has said to that congregation.

 

[muichimotsu]

In a few ways, I agree with you, but in regard to the nature of "an" option B, mostly particularly as I've tried to frame it in my OP as opposed to alternative versions which my friends here have offered later in this thread, I see option B not as a form of polemics but simply as the offering of personal testimony by any Christian or groups of Christians to interested parties, such as may be done as a defendant under political or legal pressures in a court of law.'

As for Julie Roys's use of Paul's 'warfare analogy' in the OP podcast that could be made out by some Christians as a form of polemic against non-Christians, that is, the one he poses to the troubled Corinthian church in his 2nd letter, I've recently come to the conclusion that she is socially and apologetically misapplying what she thinks Paul has said to that congregation.

But did you not describe it as telling non believers what to do? A normative aspect is there, even if it isn't strictly polemical, but it's not defensive, either, it's aggressive in the sense of proselytizing rather than witnessing in the general sense

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But did you not describe it as telling non believers what to do? A normative aspect is there, even if it isn't strictly polemical, but it's not defensive, either, it's aggressive in the sense of proselytizing rather than witnessing in the general sense

No, I did not describe it as telling non-believers what to do. In my OP, I merely posed a question, an either/or question in fact, which is not a description. A question is a different kind of Speech-Act, even if it has some descriptive elements within it.

However, this isn't to say that Christian Apologetics, even as it might have been conceived by Jesus or Paul, can't at times be a part of Christian Evangelism or other Prophetic speech-acts.

Regardless, though, in my OP, I was merely asking a question.

 

[zippy2006]

No, I did not describe it as telling non-believers what to do.

I believe he has simply mixed up the two options you gave, A, and B, even in his first post.

 

[muichimotsu]

No, I did not describe it as telling non-believers what to do. In my OP, I merely posed a question, an either/or question in fact, which is not a description. A question is a different kind of Speech-Act, even if it has some descriptive elements within it.

However, this isn't to say that Christian Apologetics, even as it might have been conceived by Jesus or Paul, can't at times be a part of Christian Evangelism or other Prophetic speech-acts.

Regardless, though, in my OP, I was merely asking a question.

A) tell non-believers how they should think and/or believe and/or live, OR B) offer an account of why "I" personally believe

Here are the 2 options you gave, the first being aggressive in nature, the other being witnessing in a general sense. And I'd argue my paraphrasing fits how you described it, because it's telling non believers how to think/believe/live, which falls under the general idea of doing.

While I'd still posit that my 3rd option of defending the reasonableness of Christianity is more accurately what apologetics is both etymologically and functionally, you're not wrong that there's going to be overlap in some respect.

But witnessing and proselytizing are not strictly synonymous, even if one can be used for the purposes of what the other is more explicitly trying in evangelizing versus just saying why you hold your beliefs. And if you want to show the reasonableness of Christianity, doing it in response to criticism is different than merely asserting that Christianity is reasonable and fitting that into what seems to be a internally consistent framework with specious assumptions that require more than just "making sense"

 

[FireDragon76]

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 will try to listen to that interview.

I do think Christians trying to win respectability in the ancient Greco-Roman world, viz a viz apologetics, was a disaster intellectually, as it wed Christianity to some perilous faults and distored the nature of the religion of Jesus of Nazareth.

My pastor and I touched on this briefly in a conversation. He really doesn't get why I have a problem with the entire "Nicene" approach to Christianity, and that's really it. It was born in triumphalism and didn't need to listen to marginalized voices anymore... any more than the Empire in Star Wars needs the Rebels. You can just build a Death Star and blow away anybody that stands in your way. But unlike in Star Wars, the first victim of this terror weapon is truth.

 

[FireDragon76]

Having listened to most of the dialogue... I think Penner has the upper hand in that debate. Craig is really an old time fundamentalist wedded to modernist assumptions about the nature of truth, and the Rev. Penner's view of truth is far more congruent with my own attitude, per Thich Nhat Hanh's precepts of Enganged Buddhism, that truth is encountered in life. Craig seems to think truth can be encapsulated in propositions.

 

[Radagast]

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

And what was your motivation for posting this?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I will try to listen to that interview.

I do think Christians trying to win respectability in the ancient Greco-Roman world, viz a viz apologetics, was a disaster intellectually, as it wed Christianity to some perilous faults and distored the nature of the religion of Jesus of Nazareth.

My pastor and I touched on this briefly in a conversation. He really doesn't get why I have a problem with the entire "Nicene" approach to Christianity, and that's really it. It was born in triumphalism and didn't need to listen to marginalized voices anymore... any more than the Empire in Star Wars needs the Rebels. You can just build a Death Star and blow away anybody that stands in your way. But unlike in Star Wars, the first victim of this terror weapon is truth.

Did you and your pastor touch on the nature of the interlocutions that possibly took place on Mars Hill in Athens between Paul and a few Greek ears?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And what was your motivation for posting this?

At first, it was to try to allow skeptics here to sound off on what they think the purpose of Christian Apologetics is supposed to be.

Secondarily, it was to get fellow Christians thinking about other aspects of what the Apologetics endeavor "is" or at least what it "has been of late" verses what it should be.

 

[Radagast]

At first, it was to try to allow skeptics here to sound off on what they think the purpose of Christian Apologetics is supposed to be.

Secondarily, it was to get fellow Christians thinking about other aspects of what the Apologetics endeavor "is" or at least what it "has been of late" verses what it should be.

Well, in my opinion, those two purposes interfere with each other.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, in my opinion, those two purposes interfere with each other.

Perhaps. But if Penner is correct, then both Modern Skeptics and many Modern Christian Apologists are being permeated by some of the same Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment assumptions and epistemic ideas and this fact can simply be presented so that everyone can think about and weigh-in on it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

At first, it was to try to allow skeptics here to sound off on what they think the purpose of Christian Apologetics is supposed to be.

For Christians to reassure themselves.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For Christians to reassure themselves.

Or it could just be that apologetics for Pascal or Kierkegaard (or Paul the Apostle, for that matter) isn't what it is for William Lane Craig.

 

[zippy2006]

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).

Ah yes, I do recall the genius/apostle contrast.

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).

I guess I would need more information about the rationale behind those images. Is he basically saying that modern apologetics is too abrupt and jarring?

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 ... ?

That images makes sense to me.

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.

A lot of this seems to come back to arguments over the role that reason plays in faith. For example, isn't Craig's example of St. Paul as both genius and apostle apt? If you like images, I would take the LotR image further: the Church includes hobbits in the shire, the rangers of the north, the long-dwelling citizens of Bree, Bombadil and Goldberry in their isolation, and of course the strongholds of Rivendell, Lothlorien, Rohan, and Gondor. Craig is a kind of ranger, living in isolation and doing his work in a quiet (and, at times, unintelligible?) way. Maybe he is also part of a dying clan. ..I don't quite think so, but you could make that argument. Nevertheless, "Whoever is not against us is for us."

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Or it could just be that apologetics for Pascal or Kierkegaard (or Paul the Apostle, for that matter) isn't what it is for William Lane Craig.

Does it matter? Your thread is called "Should Christians abandon apologetics?" Kierkegaard, Pascal and Paul aren't around any more, but there are plenty of Christians today busily apologising. Their arguments aren't very good, since they're all based on logical fallacies, but that's not really the problem, because they're not trying to convince unbelievers - they're trying to convince themselves. And because they already know that God exists, all they have to do is have some arguments they can point to - no matter how bad they are - just so they can reassure themselves that reason and faith go hand in hand.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Of course, as to the question of whether Christians should abandon apologetics - well, it depends on their character. If they care about integrity and intellectual honesty, then yes, they should abandon an argument when it is proved to be flawed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guess I would need more information about the rationale behind those images. Is he basically saying that modern apologetics is too abrupt and jarring?

Penner is basically saying that society has become fragmented but it unfortunately deludes itself into thinking that it is simply pluralistic, containing different groups who still share some common threads of both social and epistemological thought. He thinks that this was caused by the Modernist in bringing about a social and epistemic post-modernism. (pp. 5-6)

A lot of this seems to come back to arguments over the role that reason plays in faith. For example, isn't Craig's example of St. Paul as both genius and apostle apt?

In the OP podcast, I think that what Craig denotes about the qualitative nature of the term "genius" is a little different than what either Kierkegaard or Penner have in mind. It seems to me that Craig appreciates Paul because he was educated and was able to present rational discourse, even atop of Mars Hill in Athens. Penner on the other hand seems to be more focused on the Western idea of genius and its effects; so, he notices that when Paul tried to present the Gospel atop Mars Hill in Athens, hardly anyone listened and in that vain of meaning, he was fulfilling the role of the Apostle.

If you like images, I would take the LotR image further: the Church includes hobbits in the shire, the rangers of the north, the long-dwelling citizens of Bree, Bombadil and Goldberry in their isolation, and of course the strongholds of Rivendell, Lothlorien, Rohan, and Gondor. Craig is a kind of ranger, living in isolation and doing his work in a quiet (and, at times, unintelligible?) way. Maybe he is also part of a dying clan. ..I don't quite think so, but you could make that argument. Nevertheless, "Whoever is not against us is for us."

I want to make it clear here that I'm not against Craig at all, and I think he does some useful and helpful work. I just don't think he's always as effective as many of my fellow Christians like to make him out to be. He relies too much on Deductive categories of thought and even then, he's not always exactly correct, it's more like he's half correct, half incorrect. Just listen to the opening example in the OP podcast as an instance of this. Craig tries to take to task a skeptical questioner, but I think his point about us being able to prove a negative, while to some extent true, doesn't apply in an analogous way to inquiries involving God and His own nature.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does it matter? Your thread is called "Should Christians abandon apologetics?" Kierkegaard, Pascal and Paul aren't around any more, but there are plenty of Christians today busily apologising. Their arguments aren't very good, since they're all based on logical fallacies, but that's not really the problem, because they're not trying to convince unbelievers - they're trying to convince themselves. And because they already know that God exists, all they have to do is have some arguments they can point to - no matter how bad they are - just so they can reassure themselves that reason and faith go hand in hand.

The problem here is that there are variations in how the prepositional phrase " to know" is used; it's almost like no one really "knows" what it is "to know" a number of things in our universe. As for our attempts "to know" or "to know about" various things involving the God of the Bible or about Jesus Christ, we might as well realize that knowing the Biblical God is kind of like attempting "to know" the essence of a hurricane, or even a black hole, by giving these things "a hug."

Somewhere in all of this, though, it becomes quite evident that human language, and our use of it, breaks down as we try to describe and explain the nature of powerful phenomena on our world and in our universe, and especially when we attempt to explicate the existence and truth of a God who is apparently Invisible and Transcendent, yet Immanent.

So yeah, in this "sense," I can honestly say I don't "know" certain things about the God of the Bible: I don't know that He exists.