“The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context” by Myron B. Penner

[Kendel]

CHAPTER 1 : COMMUNITY SOURCED THOUGHT QUESTIONS
Check for additions. Last edited: 7/25/2022

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Here was my colleagues proposal as best I can reproduce it here. While Penner has modernism shaping and conditioning the apologist’s methods of apologetics - and doing so in problematic ways; my colleague was wondering if it is a mistake to ignore any/all responsibiity that the recipient might carry in that two-way communication process. Penner speaks of modernism causing an apologist to “objectify” any recipients of his argumentation - reducing them to hearers, analysts, and (the apologists hopes) eventually ratifiers of clever argumentation. It seems that all culpability and responsibility is laid on the side of any would-be apologist. And Penner may be right that then a lot is riding on the “recipient’s” ability to follow the argument (what if they aren’t smart enough)? And so forth. All this appears to be a good reason to share in Penner’s concern over trying to situate our ostensible conversions on the foundation of human intellect.

But aren’t there other reasons a listener could reject an apologist’s advances? Sure - perhaps the apologist is a jerk, doesn’t care about the person he speaks to, or is not “being truth” to his neighbor in the Christ like sense even while he may be uttering accurate propositions. Those concerns of Penner’s all are valid.

But isn’t it also possible that the listener in his own right has less-than-noble reasons for refusing to accept what is said? Are any of us going to deny that we haven’t sometimes refused to hear things we don’t want to hear? Might we have sinful or rebellious motivations causing us to “steer clear” or reject what is said?
(Slightly edited by Kendel)

@Kendel

One: Regarding Penner’s description of modern apologetics as secular I wonder:
if/how the form of Christianity to which the apolgetics refer is similar/different from our understanding of traditional Christianity and Christian experience.

Two: Penner says regarding the concept of the Public Sphere:

“Perhaps nothing has contributed more to this condition of secularity than the modern invention of the “public sphere” as one of the central feautres of modern society.” p.26

While he goes on to describe the concept of the public sphere quite a lot, I wonder, what about this feature is so secularizing and why that is a problem, as I think Penner indicates it is.

@MarkD

A question I have is how prevalent and strong is the impetus toward apologetics in Christian denominations? Do any eschew it all together?

@jpm

I identify strongly with modernism, and while thinking myself conservative, must agree that my beliefs fall into the liberal apologetic group, while at the same time finding his statements regarding apologetics in both conservative and liberal views ignoring the importance of the Christian life lived out and expressed is a major failing.

I suppose one question is whether you can accept science without being a liberal apologist?

@Mervin_Bitikofer

So here is yet another question for people to chew on - a specifically chapter 1 question (p. 22-23).

Which view do you most identify with and why?

1. Craig’s Christian college professor, who had declared that if truth and reason led away from Christianity, then his professor would abandon Christianity. (ultimate commitment to truth)
   …or…
2. Craig himself, who reactionarily informs his professor that even if Craig’s own faculties of reason tried to lead another way, Craig would let go of reason, and stick with Christ. (ultimate commitment to Christ.)
   …or…
3. The later Craig who saw himself as “rescued” from what he identifies as the Kierkegaardian ‘fideism’ of option #2 - thus ostensibly inaugurating the apologetic track his life takes. I.e. - we could call this the ‘there is a successfully Christian / theistic apologetic, and I have found it’ option. (ultimate commitment to the proposition that Christ is not separable from truth)
   …or…
4. Something akin to Penner’s reaction to all the above. (Ultimate commitment to living in discipleship to Christ by loving neighbor and enemy … propositional truth is in God’s hands and may or may not be accessible to you or neighbor to varying degrees for each of us.)
   …or…
5. Your own reaction to all of it as distinct from what you see as Penner’s or the others above.

@heymike3

In Penner’s view, did the ontological and cosmological arguments work in pre-modernity?

@Kendel

I wonder, what differences their are in our experience of enchantment as moderns from the experience of enchantment of premoderns?