Comments on: Valuing Apologetics in a Postmodern World

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:44:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:36:00 +0000

“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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:17:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:52:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:22:00 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:06:00 +0000

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.