Apologetics has largely lost its place in mainline seminary curricula. But the task of apologetics””making Christian belief intelligible””remains inescapable. If it isn’t done well, it will be done badly.
The postmodern claim that all truth is relative to a context or tradition has created a new situation for apologetics. All that postmodern apologists need to do is show that their opponents also stand in a particular tradition that has its own unverifiable presuppositions. Science, for example, rests on presuppositions like this one: “The world is governed by natural forces and everything can be explained if we understand these natural forces.” This is a philosophical presupposition that is not falsifiable and therefore not subject to scientific inquiry.
Postmodern apologists can be divided into two schools, the humble and the bold. The humble apologists simply want to argue that the Christian way of life is the most desirable way of life, on the basis of the kinds of people that the belief system fosters. If a belief system creates a cantankerous neighbor or a militaristic extremist, then few people would want to embrace that individual’s belief system. As Origen argued in an earlier age, Christianity must be true because it creates the best people. Justin Martyr pointed out that Christians promoted peace in the empire and paid their taxes, didn’t commit adultery or kill or abandon their children. Humble apologetics is often an argument about ethics, with lots of examples.
One has to believe that the Christian manifesto: Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life to do apologetics. Absent that it matters not if one is evidentialist, liberal, or postmodern. This is why it seems to have fallen out of mainline seminaries and churches. To complain of its absence because of the church falling completely into the secular culture would be more accurate.
apologetics should be the orienting task of all the theological and biblical studies. One should be able to unpack the phrase, “I am the way, and the truth and the life” to someone who has never heard of Jesus, God, or the church or the bible. They should be able to explain why, and how, such a statement is true, without referring back to Christianese.
The “humble†approach runs the danger of focusing on man, rather than God. And I’m not so sure Christians as a whole are significantly more virtuous than non-Christians. I believe that I am better than I would be if left to my own devices, but does it follow that I am better than my agnostic neighbor? My own experience says no. There are some who frequent this board, who believe in a Christianity comprised almost solely of the Summary of the Law, without reference to redemption by the shed blood of Christ, who I am quite convinced would outscore me in a contest of virtue. Although I am improved over my own natural state, I would hate to hang my argument for Christ as God on such difficult to support issues.
Secondly, even if the virtue argument worked (and I know it has scriptural support “…see how they love one another…â€) I think that it is largely irrelevant. It may be an initial attractant, (it was, for me) but the crux of the matter is “is it true.â€
I wouldn’t care two cents for a doctrine, philosophy or world-view that, in spite of its great utility in making a better world, was demonstrably false. An unpleasant truth is better than a useful lie. I couldn’t be bothered with a system that would set all my life to right, if only I acted contrary to the truth.
Thus, I think a true apologetic must be based on “Are these (attractive) things true?â€
And John, for at least the 2nd time this year, I find myself in complete agreement with you (!)
I have found that if I can’t say what I mean by these fundamental things without self-referrential jargon, it is often because I don’t realy believe them, I’m just mouthing the words.
Matter of fact, I would suggest that at least part of the root of our present distress is that the Episcopal Church as a whole has laid so small emphasis on the laity wrestling with these basic ideas, and now we find that the same words mean so many very differrent things to different people.
I Peter 3:15 enjoins Christians “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” The early Christian Apologists, including the Book of Acts, and St. Paul on many occasions, were willing to go to great lengths to explain why they had come to follow and put their trust in Jesus the Christ. As the Gentile mission spread and encountered myriad cultural conditions and adherents, the apologetic task became more diverse and more difficult, but the early missionaries gave it their all. In all the ensuing centuries, this task has become more complex and requires not only a thorough grounding in the basics of the Christian faith (certainly a great deal more than more than the claim of John 14:6), but also a competent knowledge of the ideas and forces that have shaped the thinking of your interlocutors – those to whom you would witness effectively. Sadly, the reductionisms of the ideologically narrow and the intellectual lethargy of too many would-be witnesses, have reduced the apologetic task force to a greatly reduced number of practitioners.
I cannot speak to Barth’s expressed attitude toward apologetics; if his famous commentary on The Epistle to the Romans and many of his other intellectual undertakings, such as the Church Dogmatics, are not an exercise in apologetics, then I am at a loss to explain their almost endless discursiveness and great persuasiveness.
Phillip
Read the church fathers, most of them were experts in this area.
What we need is a modern day C. S. Lewis. Both articulate in speaking to his audience and having the means to communicate. He had his radio shows and numerous sermons that were published, as well as his books.