He lives up to the t-shirt. Caught about 90 seconds, which included at least 2 fast-talking mischaracterizations of “the other side.” Which I hate. And how does one work through the spew with the spewer?
Yes, he clearly has read (or at least taken content of some sort) a lot and knows a lot. But if the stuff one knows is off and relies on mischaracterizing “the other side,” isn’t it like having a PhD in alchemy or homeopathy?
Honestly, he should take the time away from body sculpting with bar bells, and use it for a thoughtful, deep reading of Penner’s book, and referred to texts. But you don’t get to be rowdy about these things.
I think in general, I have proven to be more edifying in my communications, when my mouth is shut. At least in writing, as you have mentioned elsewhen, there is time and space to think it through, test the tone out, read it over, and reconsider, before licking the envelope and placing the stamp, or pressing “send”. And still I fail all too often even with written media.
I’d have hated to have been asked to interpret for the Deaf.
Not important, but … I missed the “mischaracterizations”.
Van Til is tough stuff for some of us to wade through, but Durbin sums him up pretty quick with a quote:
Durbin’s “Read [Greg] Bahnsen!” sums up what Durbin has to say about Bahnsen. Caveat: Neither Bahnsen nor Durbin are for the timid.
Not quite, more like “a ‘Bad Boy’ goes straight” and “a two-pack-a-day Smoker quits smoking”…eventually. Not that anyone asked nor that I am “a fan of the man”; but don’t let anyone accuse me of not letting him speak for himself: Rooted Testimonies: Jeff Durbin’s Story.
[Note to “Fact checkers”: “Bad Boy” and “two-pack-a-day Smoker” are my choice of metaphors."]
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect;
Who added that "to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect" ?
Curious to see what a “tamer” Reformed Calvinist might have to say about Penner’s book, I looked around and came across pastor, professor, and author Timothy Paul Jones’ paper presented at the 2021 Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, in Fort Worth, Texas.
Title: The End of Apologetics?
“Something Divine Mingled Among Them”: Care for the Parentless and the Poor as Ecclesial Apologetic in the Second Century.
In a section headlined “The Exit Door You’re Looking For May Be Behind You”, Jones wrote:
In the second century in particular, a multiplicity of Christian writers—including Aristides of Athens, Athenagoras of Athens, Justin, and the author of Epistle to Diognetus, to name a few — grounded key portions of their arguments in the ethics of the Christian community. This pattern stood in clear continuity with the apologetic described in the first three chapters of 1 Peter, where the moral life of the church is the primary defense of the Christian faith (1 Peter 2:12–3:7, 16).
For these second-century apologists, the moral habits of the church provided a common ground on which to structure their arguments. This common ground was not “common” in the sense that Christians and non-Christians both practiced these ethics or even in the sense that both aspired to practice these ethics. Christian ethics provided a common ground in the sense that even non-Christians could not deny that this was how Christians lived. This argument did not require agreement on the terms of a rational common ground; it required the common recognition of a particular pattern of life.
For the Christians who articulated this apologetic, the life of the church was not merely a context for the practice of Christian faith but a primary evidence for the truth of Christian faith. To put it another way, their apologetic was, at least in part, an ecclesial apologetic —an argument that contended for the truth that the church confesses on the basis of the life that the church lives. The moral habits that sustained ecclesial apologetics in the ancient church encompassed a wide range of countercultural practices, including sexual continence, truthfulness, justice, contentment, kindness, humility, and honor for parents. The focus of this research, however, is on a single strand within these ethics that was particularly prominent among the church’s moral habits—sacrificial care for orphans and for the poor. A close examination of this moral habit in the second century reveals an ecclesial apologetic that was grounded in the Spirit-empowered work of the people of God on behalf of the vulnerable.
Terry, slowly the question I should have asked weeks ago is percolating to the surface of my mind. You seem to have a background with some aspects of the World of Apologetics, and you know what’s going on there, what the issues and schools of thought are, and I think there, behind those not-so-off-the-cuff posts (just look at the formatting alone!), there’s more than what shows up in the thread. So, what’s your background with apologetics? I know you’ve expressed exercising restraint regarding what and how and how much you post in this thread. But I”m asking: What are your thoughts regarding Penner’s criticisms of modern apologetics, his description of postmodern witness, and finally Penner’s recommendations for how Christians ought to live out their faith? Oh, yeah, and whatever you think I forgot to ask, please do that and answer, too.
Thanks!
Kendel
My problem with him is that his writings are almost impossible for me to read through. Greg Bahnsen made him “intelligible” and slightly more “readable”, along with short quotes from Van Til’s writings. Sampling: Cornelius Van Til Quotes
Warning: There’s no getting through either without a complete comfort with “Sola Scriptura”: Both have a “high view” of Scripture equal only to Islam’s view of the Qur’an or the Latter-Day-Saint’s view of “The Book of Mormon”.
Thanks. I had the impression he believed a bit in the necessity of belief to fully understand a faith.–presuppositional apologetics. I’ll look a bit through that
Don’t overestimate my background, thinking or thoughts.
My message formatting–as novel as anyone and everyone finds it–“really is and always has been”for me. I started out, around 2005, with the increase in lengthy digital communications, outlining stuff, and transitioned quickly to bulleting stuff.
Christian apologetics of any kind is relatively new stuff to me [circa. 2010+]; however, I have been woefully uninformed as to "the kinds or ‘schools’ of apologetics. The “taxonomy” that I sent to you previously was the “best” that I had ever seen. I found Penner’s reference to Steven B. Cowan’s book,“Introduction to Five Views on Apologetics”, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 7-20 [Penner, Footnote 35] useful, although I’d prefer to see it “bulleted” and formatted differently.
I’m not prepared to and won’t offer a Penner-ian view of that thoroughly atheistic position here.
However, I’m sure that the atheist that I once knew would not be swayed by anything, if anything, the Penner-ian had to say. Although my atheist acquaintance would have been capable and more than willing to discuss almost anything else the Penner-ian wanted to talk about.
There’s no doubt in my mind, though, that a Van Til-ian would reject the atheist position and any Penner-ian response short of “a call to repentance”.
I, on the other hand, am still searching–as I write this–for way to reconcile something from my atheist acquaintance’s position to the Van Til-ian “fundamentals” on paper, so to speak, since my atheist acquaintance has “crossed the river Jordan” and there’s no Van Til-ian I know that I could bear talking with about how to go about reconciling the atheist position with the Van Til-ian fundamentals.
Given my absent acquaintance’s belief in the importance of “propositions”, I doubt a Penner-ian would be able to help me reconcile both positions.
This is another “Round Up” post, rather than publishing a bunch separately.
Emailed Articles From the Author Himself:
Myron Penner emailed me two of his articles that comprise part of a dialogue between him and Brad Seeman regarding The End of Apologetics. Because Penner mentioned me sharing the articles with people, I believe that is tacit permission to share them. I have saved them to my Google Drive and would be glad to send the link to anyone who PMs me, asking for them. I don’t have Seeman’s articles, but they would something one could acquire through an interlibrary loan request. Penner mentions the citations in his articles.
Edification and Richard Twiss
Throughout this book, Penner mentions sources of edification broadly, and particularly in relation to the local church and the universal Church.
Because of this, Richard Twiss has been on my mind often. He was a Lakota follower of Jesus and talked without reservation about the problem of our enculturated views of Christianity. Here is a link to a video interview with him, where he talks about what it was like for him to be a new Christian and a Native American. His wisdom is profound and convicting. The link will start you where he talks about it. (another time stamp of note is 21:20, where he talks about Colonial Christianity):
Terry: Tamer Reformed Calvinists and the Atheist Tutor
@terry_sampson, I just want to make sure I understand the significance of the quotes you pulled from this article? It seems like you are pointing out the similarity between Penner’s call for a lived out faith, and the early church’s practice of living out their faith as well.
Do you see differences between the practices and/or the thought behind the practices? How do/would the ROWDY, hard-core calvinist types you mentioned earlier see this kind of practice, do you think? Lots of questions. Please tell more about your thoughts on the quotes from Timothy Paul Jones.
I’ll try to get to your many other shares soon, but time!I did glance over the piece on “knowledge.” [quote=“Terry_Sampson, post:751, topic:49565”]
At this time, I continue to appreciate my previous tutor’s introduction to secular (agnostic atheist) views regarding “knowledge”.
[/quote]
These last few sentences are eminently quotable:
Within the realm of attempts to describe the physical universe, not much attention has been applied to the issue of the difference between a statement and a proposition. A statement is just a grammatically well-formed formula that has no free variables. A proposition is a statement that has meaningful content. Unless one is merely playing some formalist game, it makes no sense to say of a statement that it is true or that it is false unless the statement of which one is thus speaking is a proposition. It is my opinion that twentieth century science consists almost entirely of word salads that could not possibly be true propositions because they are not propositions at all.
Looking into Chapter 5
I started my “preparatory reading” of Chapter 5 (abstract of the chapter from the book intro, and then conclusion of the chapter). He will be addressing this binary choice directly, in case you are interested in continuing with the book and dicussion.
Tangents: Library Research on Apologetics
Since starting this book, I have been interested in looking into longitudinal studies regarding the effects and/or effectiveness of the modern apologetics movement, if such data is even being collected, much less scrutinized. I reached out earlier this week to about 10 seminary libraries and so far have heard back from 6 with research suggestions, resources to hunt down and a few articles, and a 7th asking for clarification of my question. So far, no one has said, “here it is.” I now have many things to follow up on—after we are done with this book. It’s interesting that every answer I received was very different. I’ll be visiting a few campus libraries in the near future, I think. Research Road Trip!
Chapter 5
Starts Monday. It’s good to be through the really heavy theory. I think I will end this book with one of my enduring questions: How? But having the underpinnings for a different way to view What? and Why? is a good start.
Favorite quote from the video (a little after 18 min. in), when “Mr. Twiss” (I can’t reduplicate his Lakota name here) was speaking of having his seminary students participate in a sweat lodge ceremony:
“Apparently Jesus and the Holy Spirit don’t know where they’re not allowed to show up.”
Contrary to what the self appointed theological overlords believe when they cast a couple scripture in favor of their our own opinion, intended purpose makes all the difference according to Penner. Self righteousness violence on behalf of a deity that doesn’t roll that way can never be holy. And violence done to others leaves the deepest mark on the one who strikes the blow. Ironic.
Merv, thanks for watching. Excellent choice of quotes.
I read Twiss’s book “One Church Many Tribes about 20 years ago, and then he spoke at our church. This interview is a good synopsis, but the book goes into more detail, of course, particularly in regard to the insane level of interference “dominant christianity” has put in the way of those who would believe. I think about this in regard to other legitimate forms of Christian expression, like Black churches in the U.S., where the theology is treated as suspect or deficient by “us.” “Theological overlords” as @MarkD has called them.
The Church is rich and vibrant and there are parts with a wonderful witness of Jesus. How valuable it would be for us to learn from them, to be edified by them, and even see them as part of the same church universal.
Yep.
Those intended purposes are also tied up in how we understand that person in front of us, WHAT we understand that person to BE.
It’s not enough to tell ourselves we’re trying to save souls, if we really don’t even “see” the person. And disrespect and coersion are not effective evangelization tools, not edifying (up-building). At best, I think, they create resistance to anything of value in the message.
Here are the excerpts from a podcast called Econtalk whose transcript I read yesterday. The interviewer is economist Russ Roberts and his guest is Iain McGilchrist. Sorry it’s a bit long. I’ll go through and bolden the parts which I think reflect Penner.
1948, Paul Samuelson writes The Foundations of Economic Analysis, where he mathematizes and linearizes, more or less, economic life. And it starts, say, a trend, say, in seeing the economy as a system of equations. As something to be manipulated. As something we have mastered. As something that is precise. As something that is controllable. And so the change goes from a bottom-up perception, which tends–which is, almost by definition to be observed–to a top-down one, which is to be, then, controlled. And the economist then sees him- or herself as an engineer/priest–a priest/engineer that can manipulate the human beings. Ironically, Smith warned against this in 1776. Excuse me, in 1759, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. He talks about the man of system, who thinks he can move the pieces of humanity and society around like pieces on a chessboard, forgetting that they have emotions all their own. So, in economics, I see the metaphor you are using very powerfully. And, so many economists see the world in your left-side way–what you describe as the left side. Which is, ‘I know. I’ve got this. Let me do this. We know how to do this. We know what the minimum wage should be. We know what stimulus package we need to pass. It’s a little–it’s short by $234 billion dollars.’ And your point is that, that’s a deep misreading of what science should be, just as it is in many other applications. I would–you know, I harp on endlessly here on the program: epidemiology and other medicine–that the complexities are not controlled. We don’t understand them. And yet, people, you know, go around as if they have all the answers. And it’s very–I think your way of seeing it is very powerful. And I would just close with one thing on this; and then let you respond. But, of course, then I say to myself, ‘Am I just kind of smugly dismissing their smugness?’ You know: ‘I’m so smart; I know how smart I am. They’re so dumb they think they are really smart.’ And so, I start to think, ‘Maybe–I’m not so sure how to balance that out.’ But, anyway. React to that.
Iain McGilchrist: Heh, heh. Well, my reflection on that it is not what you think. It’s the how, of how you think it, that matters. As, it’s not what you do but the manner in which it is done and the reasons for which it is done and the mentality with which it’s done that changes it. So, you may be right that they’re missing something without necessarily being smug about it. I think the degree of humility is what’s missing from many of the crasser areas of physical science and social science.
Now, I know next to diddlysquat about economics and the world of finance. So, I was surprised by this. But of course having talked to them, I see exactly why they say that. And so I find myself being invited by people in the world of industry and economics to enter into a conversation. I think I could illuminate a little bit–you said–or perhaps you don’t want me to address the question: but you did rather provocatively say, ‘I’m not comfortable with this idea because a culture doesn’t have a brain.’
36:47 Russ Roberts: Yeah. Talk about–respond to that.
Iain McGilchrist: Yeah. I mean, the thing is, I think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here. I’m not saying that, as it were, 'Something has happened in the brain and it’s controlling you or controlling society.
And you see it happening in the history of culture. That’s really what I was aiming to show. I wasn’t suggesting that if you scanned people 500 years ago, you’d find different things lighting up in their brains, so to speak. That is not the point. My point is that we can get blinded to certain things by custom and by the way in which our culture talks. We can learn to ignore things that our brains are fully equipped to tell us but which our culture tells us we shouldn’t listen to. And so, we can develop what in my view is a very simplistic, impoverished idea of the world–simple, predictable, mechanical, controllable, even perhaps complex as it gets underway, but nonetheless by routes that are effectively predictable and controllable. Or, you understand, that we don’t know a tenth of what we are dealing with, and that these systems are intrinsically, not accidentally but intrinsically predictable. And that the fool is the person who thinks that they know it all and can control it all.
What is the status of Christian thought if the apologetic foundations of Christian discourse are abandoned? Or, to ask the question differently, what does faithful witness to Jesus Christ look like in a postmodern context? I cannot expect to address these questions exhaustively and in all their complexity.
Does he at least address them? it would be utterly disappointing to see apologetics bashed on for a few hundred pages with no alternative provided.
Postmodernity is a condition, or a set of attitudes, dispositions, and practices, that is aware of itself as modern and aware that modernity’s claims to rational superiority are deeply problematic.
What is it about modernity that is not rationally superior? We have science which means our understanding of physical reality is certainly on better footing than anyone else in history. He doesn’t seem interested in the question:
Rather than arguing for the superiority of postmodernism, I assume post- modernism as a starting point and try to make this standpoint intelligible . . .My goal is to reorient the discussion of Christian belief and change a well-entrenched vocabulary that simply does not work anymore, whatever its past uses might have been.
The end of chapter one I put on my website. I write for myself as much as others.
I am writing this book from the vantage point of a member of the Christian community—the church—and I write it for my own edification as well as that of the church catholic. This is therapy as well as theory. I trust it will be obvious that, while I am engaging in a polemic against a certain form of Christian apologetic discourse, my ultimate goal is to open a pathway for faithful witness, not to close down its possibility.
Chapter 1 was an interesting intro but fluffy, no meat yet.
The proper ground of our knowing Christianity to be true is the inner work of the Holy Spirit in our individual selves; and in showing Christianity to be true, it is his role to open the hearts of unbelievers to assent and respond to the reasons we present.5
I can empathize with Craig here but lately I think it underestimates God but also at the same time, shouldn’t our faith be rational, or consistent with what is known to be true about the world?
Penner: What also strikes me is that Craig’s apologetic paradigm conceives of truth, reason, and faith solely in terms of the modern epistemo- logical paradigm.
Is that a bad thing? If someone asks us how do we know the Bible is true? How do we know Christianity is true? How do we know Jesus rose from the dead? Are we supposed to chastise them and inform them they are mistakenly asking that question from the perspective of modernity. Tell them we don’t believe in silly notions like “facts,” history or science? Do we tell them “The truth of the gospel is [not] made evident by its conformity to modern standards of rationality.”
And this is due in no small part to his conviction that being a Christian amounts to giving intellectual assent to specific propositions?
This posture is both correct and false at the same time in my eyes.
Since modernity has rejected the premodern idea that the universe is structured by an inherently rational principle, there has to be some way of connecting the human rational mind to the brute universe. Premodern thought is more inclined to understand the human mind as encountering or participating in the world directly, without anything mediating it.'8 This is possible, as we just saw, because the mind and reality are similarly structured by 1pgos. But in modernity this tends to happen in the form of propositions that express “facts” of the universe, which are thought to be objective features of the universe.
Apparently I am not smart enough or too steeped in modernism to understand any of that. It is entirely unintelligible to me.
What Craig fails to see, however, is that his (conservative) agenda is defined just as much by modernity as the “theological rationalism” he opposes— and is every bit as complicit with its assumptions. Of course, there are substantial and important differences between conservative and liberal theologies, but their disagreements belie a common commitment to the modern paradigm.
This was very well said. But can’t the same be said of this book I am reading which I think at some poi tis going to reason and argue against apologetics?
Postmodernism, Moreland concludes, is “immoral and cowardly” and a form of intellectual “pacifism” that lacks the courage to fight for the truth." Instead of fighting the good apologetic fight for truth, knowledge, and the Christian way, it "recommends play- ing backgammon while the barbarians are at the gate."46 Moreland therefore deems postmodernism antithetical to the gospel and believes Christian apologists must do all they can to defend the faith against it.
Ouch! I honestly don’t know where I stand on this issue. I am strongly influenced by modernity and my studies of science and history lead me to the idea of objective reality and facts.
For all intents and purposes, then, the modern apologetic paradigm is deeply embedded in the epistemological paradigm of modernity—it shares its goals, its questions, its basic methods, and, even more im- portant, its practices. That is to say, the Christian apologetic paradigm shares the philosophical horizon of modernity and is thoroughly im- mersed in its ethos. This ethos of modernity is defined by secularity, in which the existence of God is not intuitively plausible and the reasons we have for believing in God—or anything else—must be objective, universal, and neutral. In fact, in the modern imagination, justifying our beliefs in this way is the fundamental philosophical concern. The driving need to prove the scientific viability of Christian beliefs, the rational superiority of the Christian worldview, or the so-called case for Christianity signals an underlying preoccupation with mastery and control through rational dominance and a conviction that modern systematic theology done well yields the most enlightened form of the Christian faith. Despite what Christian apologists may tell them- selves and others about how much they oppose modern philosophical assumptions or the dominant views of modernity, they nevertheless are in fundamental agreement with modern thinkers about which questions are the important ones, how those questions need to be answered, and why they need answering.
I sure hope he provides a “reasonable” alternative…or is that me being too modern?
Still no meat yet. Off to chapter 2.
