Debating Emergent Apologetics

July 17, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009). Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)

Christopher MacDonald contacted me in response to my post
on Tony Myles’ Emergent Apologetics article. I’ve decided to post it below,
along with my responses. My original post is in bold, his responses are
italicized, and my responses are blue. This is quite long and will require
hitting the “read more” link to read the entire exchange.

“ Apparently I simply have to accept
the fact that debating is a lost cause; I’m not even allowed to think
otherwise. Mr. Myles assumes his conclusion to make his point. Strike one.”

No, it’s a double or a strike out depending on who the audience is. Half
the audience out there no longer views debate as tenable,  the older half, still does. There is no need
to give up traditional apologetics. In fact I often use some very basic pieces
myself, like the authenticity of the scripture (it has not been changed as is
often asserted). Having been a modernist apologist I understand how threatening
a postmodern context can be. It’s okay. There is room for both. 

As far as logic goes, his conclusion may be correct, but
the manner in which he proposes it is logically invalid. As I said, he assumes
his conclusion to make his point. As far as whether or not debate is a lost
cause (and perhaps we need to define debate), I’m not at all convinced it is.
People debate about things they care about. We’re debating emergent apologetics
because we care about it. Not all people care about Christ, and so those people
aren't interested in debating Him. The problem isn’t debate, it’s that people
don’t care.

“ He may be able to point to one or
two “modern apologists” who are belittling (like Robert Morey), but for the
most part we aren’t. In fact, most are warm and charitable people of God (has
he met Josh McDowell, Nancy Pearcey, Greg Koukl”

This is a very good point. The best modernist apologists are very
compassionate, good-humored and even humble. But there are abusers who simply
LOVE the arguing and burying an “opponent” who they really need to love. They
often resort to “shaming” rather than giving a respectful answer.

Agreed, but my experience is that those “abusers” are few and far
between. Most apologists aren’t like that.

Mr. Myles says there’s a new “paradigm of apologetics on the horizon”
that respects people and this involves redefining apologetics. For the
postmodern emerging church, he sees this worked out in at least four ways:

He’s right. It’s coming whether you like it or not because the culture
at large has changed from 25 years ago and they do not care to listen to
rationalistic apologetics, or engage in debate. New times demand new ways of
approach.

To the degree that “modern apologetics” (which no one’s yet defined) is
purely rational, I agree. But that’s not because the culture’s changing, but
because apologetics was never meant to be purely rational. Not all “modern
apologetics” has been purely rational though, so I think this could go either
way.

“I have no idea what this has to do with apologetics; this is really a
point about homiletics. However, when did the Bible become un-interesting? Yes,
people remember stories, but if you give them the Bible they’ll remember that
too.”

Preaching (homiletics) is clearly a standard part of the Church.
Apologetics is an extrapolation from basically one text in Peter that we have
made a cottage industry (I know, I was Co-founder and Director of the Apologetics Resource Center for many
years. I did everything you usually do, debating Profs, writing research
papers, confronting guys who claimed to be God etc.).

 In Paul’s list of offices does
he list Apologists?

No, it is a need that arises from time to time (one thinks of
Athanasius, Irenaeus in the old world), and then under the Modernist/Rational
world view we needed folk like Walter Martin, Josh McDowell and even today need
folk like you and Hank H., and the others…but only for those still caught in
the web of Enlightenment Rationalism. You speak to THEM…but not the audience
this young man is talking about.

Sorry. It is what it is.

I’ve done, and do both. So I can speak to both sides. I respect what you
do. It’s important. But as you point out, the Gospel is trans-historical and
trans-cultural yet still Itself. So Mr. Myles is just gearing up for what is
next historically and culturally. Do not assume he does not care about biblical
truth. That’s unfair. He is not your opponent, he is your brother and he cares.
I sure he finds the Bible quite interesting.

No, Apologist isn’t a church office; it’s one function of every
Christian. Paul said that we are all Christ’s ambassadors representing God to
the world (2 Cor. 5:20). In representing him we fulfill a number of functions,
one of which is defense (the cottage industry text- 1 Peter 3:15-16). This talk
about myself and other “modern apologists” not speaking to people today I find
rather insulting. As if we don’t live and interact in the same postmodern
culture, or we’re too ignorant to see the differences. Yes, the culture is
mostly postmodern, but the people I have conversations with are both rational
and relational. They want spirituality, but they also want answers to the
questions and doubts. I don’t see very many people who are one or the other.

“The (re)emergence of originality. No longer can the same sermon be preached without care to
the specific people in our context.” Once again a point
about homiletics, maybe he’ll get to apologetics later. When was this ever not
true? But the more important question is, why is it true? It’s true because
sermons today contain personal stories of experiences that may or may not be
relevant to other groups of people. The Bible, however, is relevant to every
group of people regardless of culture, nationality, or personality. If sermons
were comprised of Biblical teaching, this would not be an issue. But since
preachers insist on adding personal narrative to the Bible, they must be
mindful of the context in which they’re preaching. The better solution would be
to simply teach the Bible. Strike four.

This is a huge point and I could not agree more. We have largely LOST
the Bible in favor of just what you described. But his suggestion to get back
to the narratives is important. Remember, contextually, when Paul wrote Timothy
about the inspiration and profitable nature of scripture he was referring to
the canon that existed at that time…the Old Testament, which is primarily
narrative. Yahweh is a God of history and story unlike Gnosticism or the empty
philosophies that Paul and others railed against.

The God of “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and on and on it goes.

I do not have a problem personally with roping in the New Testament
documents that were unanimously accepted three centuries later as scripture
under the same banner. But we both know that when Paul penned that, he was
looking at the essential narrative and prophetic nature of the Old Testament
books. Right?

So on this point you two are not at all far off. You would like to
reduce the preachers personal narrative and have more Bible. So does this guy!
Good for you both. You both believe that if you back to the naked texts and let
them speak it will be efficacious.

I
don’t think Paul had in mind narrative so much as he had in mind divine
authority. He never said, “Remember those really good stories God left for us.”
Scripture is more than a story, or more than a composite of stories. The way
some people speak about narratives Scripture becomes a nice bedtime story, or
something to think about, but the divine authority of it is lost. Mr. Myles
does appear to assume personal narrative in preaching, which is the point I am
concerned about. I’m sure he cares about the Bible, but I’m concerned about the
precise role the Bible plays in this article.

“The (re)emergence of practical
hope… we must help them to see the
“real side” of life through the biblical lens of Jesus. This requires
us to extend ourselves in fresh ways through our preaching so that we move past
the “same old, same old” and truly bear witness to the hope of Christ.” He’s still talking homiletics.

What is wrong with that? Just because we make an artificial distinction between Homiletics and
Apologetics (which Paul, Peter, and John do not do… they do both at once) does
not mean it is not worthwhile. In a Modernist context, debate can be very
helpful in education and also dismantling weird ideas that are obstacles to
faith. That sense it is very “face to face”. 
In a Postmodern context the issues become more experiential, and it is
more a “coming alongside”.  

The
title of the article is Emergent Apologetics,
and Mr. Myles’ introduction is entirely about apologetics in what appears to be
personal conversation. I think apologetics should be favored more in preaching,
but I was merely pointing out that the apparent intent of the article was
conversational apologetics and that is hardly addressed at all.

 I’m not sure what this even
means. What is the “same old, same old” we’re suppose to move beyond? Wouldn’t
it be helpful to tell me if you want me to move beyond it?

By “same old, same old” I think he means the old arguments, and then the
cultural accommodations of modern Christendom (which happens in every age). He wants
to get back to simple hope in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) 

You may be
right (which I’m still not sure how that relates to preaching), but I think
that’s a question Mr. Myles’ should answer- otherwise we’re just guessing what
he meant by it.

Hasn’t the Gospel always been the best practical hope? So wouldn’t
preaching it be the best solution? (Mark Oestreicher said questions are better
than answers, so how do you like all my questions?) I can’t even give Mr. Myles
a strike here since he didn’t really say anything substantive.

They are good questions, though I think you are being sarcastic and
taking a bit of a cheap shot. It’s hard for modernist apologists not to. Know
why? Cuz you guys are use to playing a different game which is pretty rough.
Your opponents in a modernist debate are usually pretty savage and often
extremely unfair. Rough stuff. Believe me, I know.

The reference to Oestreicher was sarcastic, none of the other questions
were.

What Mr. Myles is dealing with is a very different paradigm. It’s not
rough that way at all. It is not adversarial.

You both know the Gospel is the practical hope. If you will excuse a
metaphor (it will not be perfect). You are use to football. It’s rough and
takes split-second timing and intense training. Mark is in a totally different
sport though he brings the same concern. His audience (and mine now) do not
wanna put on pads and bang into each other until one “gives” or “wins”.

Once again, I think this is a false dichotomy. I really don’t think
we’re playing two different games.

Does not mean that your game is not valid. It just isn’t the only one in
town anymore. Maybe we are playing baseball (go Sox by the way).

Thanks,
hopefully I’ll have this posted before they play the Yankees so I won’t be
distracted from the game.

We are dealing mostly with people who are in touch with a loss of
spiritual center and a desire for God. They could not care less about debating.
They want to be loved. They want to be listened to and have us come alongside.
They all find faith sooner or later.

“The (re)emergence of
biblically-based teaching… more and more people (especially
students) seem to be giving greater respect to Scripture, theology, and the
life of Jesus. Perhaps this admiration is why they are less interested in pop
psychology and more concerned about finding an anchor of truth. The more our
teaching can contain such a foundation, the more value others will ascribe to
it.” Wow. This is the first time, that I can recall,
reading someone in the emerging church movement admit that people are concerned
about truth, Scripture, and theology. I think this is true, and so obviously
true that I don’t consider it profound; but it is profound within emergent.
People are actually more interested in truth than whimsical stories. I hope Mr.
Myles takes this point into consideration when thinking about the others. He
gets a base hit for this one.

I agree. And I applaud your taking note of it. Contrary to popular
opinion, most in the “Emergent” movement care a great deal about Truth. We are
not tired of Truth, we are tired of consumerism, the loss of Jesus as Center,
the rise of Mega-Church Christendom (in the Kierkegaardian sense) and the
profound narcissism and lack of love that the Church-at-large presents to the
world. 

“The opportunities to be the listening learner are earning us
credibility we lost during our modern debates. Then again, is there really
anything new under the sun? Perhaps we heard this once before in the ancient
letters of a former debater…[quote of 1 Peter 3:15-16]” I didn’t know Peter
was a “former debater.” Maybe I’m missing that page in the Bible. I don’t
recall any one of the apostles praised for being a great “listener learner.”

He is rightly reading the whole passage and it’s tone. “Apologia” does
mean to “give a defense” but look at the qualifiers! “yet with gentleness and
reverence”.

Well how does that bode for our modern attack-oriented apologetics? A defense or an offense? With
gentleness and reverence? Reverence for who? How does that play out?

Here I think we have another false dichotomy- “modern apologetics” is
cold, irreverent, and un-loving, while emergent apologetics is gentle and
friendly. I’ve meant emergent people who were cold, irreverent, and un-loving,
and I’ve met “modern apologists” who are gentle and friendly. Apologists who
don’t practice gentleness and respect are not good apologists, modern or
postmodern.

I once did an “Ask Mac” thing with Campus Crusade and Inter-Varsity at
Sac-State where a large crowd fired questions at me about Christianity for
three hours three days in a row.

One young Muslim was quite angry given his interactions with Christians.
He had some very good and pointed criticisms. To his surprise I listened to him
and agreed with much of what he said (not theologically, but historically).

The crowd was shocked but everyone seemed to open up after that and we
had a lot of fun and everyone left with Gospel on their mind…like “maybe it’s
not what I thought it was”.

The young man came up to me afterward. He had been so angry before. But
now he was gentle. He took my hand in his and said. “Thank you for listening to
me. We may not agree, but I will think about what you have said.”

“And I will think about what you have said,” I said, and I did.

Remember the premium that Paul places on humility, and then remember
Philippians 2 as our example…Kenosis. 

I agree about the importance of humility and respect, and I do think
those virtues (especially humility) are often lost in “modern apologists.” As I
told Dan Kimball a few days ago, I don’t think “modern apologetics” has been
perfect. This is one of the areas it often, but not always, falls short.

Acts is our model for evangelism; where are the “listener learners?” I
wonder, if we’re doing all of this listening and learning, when are we
proclaiming the simple, practical, and necessary Truths of the Gospel?

Just off hand Philip in the desert comes to mind (not even cracking my
Bible) with the Ethiopian Eunuch who has come all the way from Africa on
spiritual pilgrimage and is still lost. Philip climbs up into his carriage,
listens and when asked begins to explain to the man the Good News.

The passage, Acts 8:26-40, actually works against the “listener
learner” model. The only thing Philip listened to was the Ethiopian’s reading
of Isaiah. Then he began to answer he questions by telling him about “the good
news about Jesus.”

The Ethiopian Eunuch is the modern day Postmodern (er, with some
restrictions) because he is a seeker. All the way from Ethiopia trying to find
God…but still confused on his way home.

Other examples upon request from Acts dear brother. Acts is a gold mine
for Postmodern exploration. I mean no disrespect, but read it again with new
eyes. Peter on the rooftop…Paul at Mars Hill where he uses their own icon to
“the unknown God” as a starting point and elsewhere quotes their
poets…geez.    

I think we may
be talking past each other here. Out of humility and respect for others I
listen to them, but the “listener learner” model I here about, and what I’m
critiquing, is much more than simply listening. I learn about Mormonism, for
instance, because I want to understand Mormons in order to reach them, like
Paul quoting the Greeks. But I don’t learn from Mormonism. The postmodern
“listening learner” model seeks to learn in order to make personal application.
That goes far beyond anything in Acts, which is a gold mine for exploration for
every person regardless of culture.

One last point to this long post- Mr. Myles’ proposals are all
pragmatically motivated. Apparently grounding our apologetics or homiletics in
the Bible is not the way to go- we need to work out the “postmodern
sensibilities” to make sure we’re not coming off as mean or belittling. Instead
of modeling ourselves after the fallen culture, my prayer is that we model our
evangelism and apologetics after the inspired Word of God. “For we never came
with words of flattery, as you know, nor with pretext or greed—God is witness.
Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we
could have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you,
like a nursing mother taking care of her children. So, being affectionately
desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but
also our own selves, because you had become dear to us.” (Paul in 1
Thessalonians 2:5-8 ESV)

You make Mr. Myles point for him. And again, I do not
wish to embarrass you and if you are a man of courage (and I think you are) you
will just publish this and let people have at it.

Mr. Myles is not coming with flattery, but empathy. The Incarnation is
the ultimate empathy, no?

I see no pretext, or greed, nor want of glory (neither do I see any of
that in you by the way). 

What does it mean to be “gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking
care of her children?”

That is not adversarial. It’s loving and intimate. It is incarnational
which is miles away from modeling ourselves after the “fallen culture”. 

I
really have no idea how I made Mr. Myles’ point for him. I’m not saying that
Mr. Myles’ is seeking glory or what not. However, Paul’s describing giving
himself to the people of Thessalonica because of the Gospel, not because of
what the people’s interests or desires.

One of the great things about Postmodernism is that they know the world
is fallen. That is new. When I were younger we use to have to argue if sin and
falleness even existed. No one debates this now.

They just want faith, hope and love. In short, they just want Jesus.

The
problem, according to the Bible, is that they don’t want Jesus. They know that
world’s fallen, but they don’t think they are. We are by nature sinful, and we
love our sin. We don’t want Jesus to come save us from out sinfulness. If they
already want Jesus, then out job of evangelism’s done. But since they don’t, we
must proclaim it ever more boldly- with gentleness and respect.

Related posts:

1. Emergent Apologetics?
2. Are You Wary of Apologetics?
3. “Is the Emergent Church a Threat to the Gospel?” or “Why I’m Concerned”
4. ETS 2007: The Practice of Balanced Apologetics in Paul's Address in Acts 17 by H. Wayne House
5. Where is Emergent Going?
6. Valuing Apologetics in a Postmodern World

Posted in Apologetics, Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts