Valuing Apologetics in a Postmodern World
June 8, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
I've returned from my incredible trip to
Apologetics is inextricably tied to a love for the lost and a desire to bring them into relationship with God. God, Himself, was the first apologist. He understood that we can't fully place our trust in something we don't believe is true. This is why He consistently did things “so that we would know He is God.” He acted in history (e.g., the Exodus) and then constantly pointed back to what the Israelites had seen with their own eyes whenever He called on them to trust Him. He created a world so that we could understand “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature” from what we see in that world. Throughout the Bible, the pattern is that God gives evidence which leads to knowledge of Him (how many times does he say, “I'm doing this so you may know…”) which leads to faith and trust. You can't truly love and trust God if you don't believe He is actually real. Faith (trust) always entails a belief that something is true (see Hebrews 11:6). If God thinks these things are important, shouldn't we? Dwelling on the evidences for the truthfulness of God and His actions in history (something that He often commands people to do in the Bible–the yearly reminder of the Passover Seder is a perfect example of this) is extremely faith promoting. This is because intellectual assent is the starting point of faith–and I would even say that our faith can only be as strong as our intellectual assent.
Apologetics is a tool; and like any tool, one can use it skillfully or clumsily. It doesn't have to be an intellectual battle of wits (although that has its place in the academic world). Using apologetics involves the art of reading people, of engaging in conversation–drawing out their objections and then addressing them in a way they can clearly understand. It requires good diplomacy, kindness, and clear thinking–not to mention an understanding of the answers to their objections (this definitely takes work).
I have to say that the use of apologetics is not a turnoff to people. I had Mormon missionaries visit my apartment weekly for a year and a half. I spoke the truth plainly, and I did challenge them. I was clear that I thought what they believed was wrong, but they actually liked coming, saying that it was great to be able to discuss these things openly (even though they were sometimes shaken). They even remarked on the love they saw I had for God and for them. At work, I've had a couple of people ask to meet with me so they could ask more questions. Another woman is now doing a Bible study with me every week. She has objections to the Bible, and she wants to know if there are answers. I've had deep conversations with many others at work about everything from the existence of a moral law to scientific reasons to believe in the existence of God. In fact, I call the chair in my office “the philosophy chair” because when people come in and sit down, the conversation inevitably turns to a discussion of these things with me. I've even had a telemarketer end up talking to me for half an hour about Christianity, at the end of which he said he never understood what Jesus was about before, but now it made sense to him. God consistently puts to use everything I learn. Who would ever think philosophy of math would be useful, but believe it or not, it has come up in conversation! I say none of this to bring glory to myself, but only to show how God will use the apologetic knowledge we are faithful to learn for His glory.
The challenge has been made that relativist postmoderns (the average people in our culture) do not respond to–and are even offended by–truth claims, and we should not approach them with evidence for a spiritual reality. But all people–even the “postmodern generation”–know deep down that reality exists. They understand that if you step into the street in front of a truck, you're going to bump into reality and be hurt. Once you explain to them that just as we have to adjust the everyday things we do (like crossing the street) to the physical reality of the world around us or suffer the consequences, so we must adjust our thinking about the spiritual aspects of this world to reality or suffer the consequences, then they start asking questions about the true spiritual reality. This takes less work than you might think. And from my experience, we're more afraid of offending people than we need to be. As long as we don't get agitated, neither do they–even if we say we think they're wrong. This doesn't mean that nobody will ever get mad at us; but since people hated Jesus (even though he did everything right), this has more to do with their hearts than with our actions.
He who comes to God must believe that He is. Apologetics is the spiritual warfare of 2 Corinthians 10:5–”We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.” People can't just ignore their intellectual objections to God. These obstacles have to be removed so that people can fully trust Him. This is what apologetics is about. Usually it takes place at the beginning of a person's journey toward accepting the truth about Christ, but the stones must be removed from the field before anything can have a chance to grow. This task is as valuable now as it has been in any other time in history.
For any of you wishing to look into apologetics for both a clear knowledge and a diplomatic approach for reaching out to others, I suggest beginning with Stand to Reason–an organization I fully support.
Related posts:
- Loneliness and the Postmodern View of Language
- Are You Wary of Apologetics?
- The Supremacy of Christ in the Postmodern World
- Beautiful, Alive, True Christianity
- ETS 2007: The Practice of Balanced Apologetics in Paul's Address in Acts 17 by H. Wayne House
- How Then Should We Do Apologetics?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page
content rss
June 9th, 2005 at 6:06 am
Wonderful commentary, Face. I just wanted to clarify something you said:
“This is because intellectual assent is the starting point of faith…”
I'm of the reverse thought: Faith (trust) is the starting point of intellectual assent. Without any faith/trust in the intellectual proposition being presented, assent cannot follow. Of course, this leads to the whole “Does faith originate from us or from God?” which is a whole other issue.
June 9th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
I liked this statement:
“Using apologetics involves the art of reading people, of engaging in conversation–drawing out their objections and then addressing them in a way they can clearly understand. It requires good diplomacy, kindness, and clear thinking–not to mention an understanding of the answers to their objections (this definitely takes work).”
What I read here is that apologetics is not a monolithic discipline that employs only a certain type of argument, but the defense of the Christian faith to various objections — no matter whether those objections are ethical, philosophical, experiential, etc. I think that many Christians raised in the conservative Protestant branch of the faith equate apologetics almost entirely with the scientific arguments against evolution and the Big Bang.
My own limited study of church history has shown that apologetics has undergone significant changes to meet the specific objections arising in various contexts. The earliest apologists simply wanted to show that they worshipped a legitimate God so that the Roman Empire would stop the persecutions. In the Medieval period, apologetics employed arguments based more in Aristotelean thought. With the rise of Enlightenment ideals that demanded empircal evidence, it became important for Christianity to address these claims in terms that Modernists would understand.
I would say that now the question in North American culture to Christianity isn't so much, “Is there a god?” but rather, “Why is your God the God?” (That's a little reductive since there are a slew of questions in any time period.) I remember in college addressing people with the more empirical apologetics in which I had been trained and they would give me blank stares. They already believed in some sort of spiritual reality or deity — that they didn't need to be convinced of. Their questions/objections were more about why was I claiming Jesus to be unique and what affect does following Jesus have on peoples' lives?
June 9th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Victor, thanks for the comment. I may need some more clarification of what you're saying here, so feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you.
Here's what I think: whether or not God initiates faith (and I think that He does), I can't imagine how that faith would entail a trust in God before a belief that “He is.” What, in that case, would the person be trusting in? I just don't see how a person could have faith/trust in something he doesn't believe is true.
Someone could believe that God is real and that Jesus died for our sins and not place his trust in Jesus (i.e., you could believe God is real and not have faith in Him). But I know of no situation where a person has had true faith in God while at the same time not believing He is real.
So here's the order I'm suggesting: God moves, we believe, we place our trust (faith) in God, we act on our faith. God is the true starting point of faith, but that is something we can't see. Writing from our human perspective, the first thing we experience is belief in the truthfulness of who God is and what He has done.
June 9th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Tyler, this is an excellent comment–thanks! I think you've definitely got what I'm trying to say here. This is a great quote, “apologetics is not a monolithic discipline that employs only a certain type of argument, but the defense of the Christian faith to various objections — no matter whether those objections are ethical, philosophical, experiential, etc.”
I think that many of those in the Emergent Church see apologetics as outdated because they don't realize that those involved in apologetics (like Stand to Reason) are always working to respond to the current questions of the culture in a culturally appropriate way. You're right when you say that apologetics is about defending the faith–a discipline that will always be needed, though it may look different at different times.
At the very root of our defense, though, we must understand the truthfulness of what we believe. We must understand the nuts and bolts of the reasons why we believe what we believe. We must also understand clearly what it is we believe. Only then can we find the best way to communicate that truth when the situation calls for it. Depending on the kind of people you interact with, you'll have to learn different things in order to make an effective defense. Some people do still ask if there is a God. Some have empirical questions, some have philosophical questions, some have emotional questions. We just have to be ready for anything.
June 9th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
“Some people do still ask if there is a God. Some have empirical questions, some have philosophical questions, some have emotional questions. We just have to be ready for anything.”
How true. I think this reality speaks to the fact that our society is in the midst of a significant shift. That is, we have not completely transitioned out of modernity. I would imagine that it is something akin to when Enlightenment thinking was just emerging in Europe. Apologists had to respond to this new way of reasoning and argumentation as well as to be prepared to continue in their more Medieval defenses of the faith. This may be a difficult time for those specifically called to apologetics as they will have to be Jacks of all trades.
June 9th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Hmmmm….I like everything you have said, but I think it's more than what I was trying to say.
Faith, whether it just stops at knowing that “He is” or moves onto actually trusting in Him, must be placed in something. No matter how true the object or proposition, if the person doesn't have faith/trust in what is being presented, that person will not intellectually ascend and hold it to be true.
For example, for the sake of argument, if Darwinian evolution was true, yet I had no faith in it, I will not ascend intellectually to reach the conclusion that it is true.
Of course, this can be broken down further and further as we get down into the evidences. If I don't have faith in the evidences, I will not ascend intellectually to reach the conclusion that those evidences are true.
This is very Van Tillian, I know. “There are no brute facts.” The facts do not speak for themselves, but are always interpreted in light of ones worldview. Their faith interprets what is true and what isn't.
Of course, because everyone is made in the image of God, they cannot escape from borrowing from the Christian worldview, but this is now getting into another topic (something I've discussed with Roger at AFC).
Anyway, I hope I'm a little more clear on what I was saying earlier and yes, I definitely agree with everything you said in your reply.