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

I’m late to the party and 700 posts behind…

Tell me what you really think…

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.

Hey Vinnie!
Welcome. There is definitely plenty of reading to catch up on. I recommend digging into the book mainly, because that’s the meat. But other people have stuck to the discussion. The book is very time-consuming. I have found it a greatly rewarding use of my time, however. I hope you find your engagement with it of value.

You will not be disappointed.

He does address them, but not as exhaustively as I would wish. However, if he answered all of my questions the book would be unreadable. Much of his answer to your question is interspersed throughout the chapters, and the 5th chapter pulls a lot of it together in one place.

He will address your questions about the differences between modernity and post modernity. His arguments regarding these differences are very heavy on theory. There are quite a few links in the Resources Slide you may find helpful, depending on your familiarity with pre/-/post-modernism.

He is. He will address it probably differently than you might wish, but in a way that is meaningful and appropriate.

Just wait. Read on.

All I can say, is keep reading. Expect Penner to greatly challenge what you think, if you are a proponent of apologetics.

Keep looking for further points related to this, the nature of Christianity in relation to propositions, and Penner’s description of precisely the content and role of propositions in Christianity.

This is hard reading. I’ve read the first 3 chapters at least 3 times, and some sections more than that. The resource slide has a few things that go over the differences between modern and premodern thought. I also put together a table of points just lifted out of the book for my own notes, but shared it in Slide 61. It’s not elegant or polished, but it might help.

Just trying to help with the bit you quoted directly above:
This is a key point that will help you interpret the rest of the section.

Penner will continue to return to the differences between premodern and modern thinking. Looking over the resources I mentioned, though, will help you become more familiar with the ideas so that his points stand out more to you. There is also a good deal of discussion about this section earlier in the thread, usually including page numbers, which should help. So you can see how we all hashed it out weeks ago.

Yes, he will reason and argue against apologetics. That has been a major complaint about the book in articles as well as in this thread. I think there is an essential difference, however, between the things (Christian belief vs. theory of apologetics) being argued or defended.
As you know, apologetics is a defense of Christian belief, the ultimate goal of which is that the hearer is eventually lead into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Apologetics theory is the thought behind HOW apologetics should be carried out, the content, etc.

Penner argues against a particular theory of apologetics, which he attempts to show leads to something other than faith in the person of Jesus Christ and a personal relationship with him. He does NOT argue against seeking a way to promote faith in and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He is actually seeking to find a method of doing this that achieves that goal.

Keep reading. Penner works hard to make a case that matters of faith are simply a different kind of thing and are demonstrated effectively by completely different means. He eventually DOES come back to the use of reason, but differently than is used in the modern apologetics paradigm.

Get ready!

Vinnie, I’m glad you’re here and reading. I expect there are going to be parts of this book that you really hate. I hope, in spite of that, you stick with it and try to really get at what Penner means to say, rather than the superficial representation I read in some of the responses by apologists to the book. It is a really had read. It is worth it. And even if you don’t agree with his analysis in the end, he makes some important points that any apologist needs to take to heart, when thinking about what they are actually doing, when they are attempting to introduce another person to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ask away. Also read around.
If you have questions about where things are or how to find things, feel free to contact me.

If you’re looking for a good, rationally compelling argument about why you need to move away from modernism toward postmodernism, then that’s just modernism continuing to be your tour guide - and ready to appraise and value the next philosophical system that comes along (like ‘postmodernism’).

I think you’ll find that Penner does a pretty good job of trying to model his own stance - by not playing that game any more - which of course our inner, very rationality-minded tour guides find frustrating.

But it’s also important to note that Penner isn’t trying to leave rationality or argument - and certainly not science all behind. He isn’t saying those things have no place in Christian discipleship. He’s only claiming that they should not be the unquestioned juddges, arbitors, or gatekeepers if you will, for everything, including - and this is important - all the higher questions of life that typically have importance beyond what is scientific or empirical.

You are right that science has shown itself to be our best tool for our physical understandings of life and cosmos. But it (and the human rationality that supports it) are not our only - or even our best tools for answering questions of meaning, beauty, ethics, or love. Reasoning and argument of basic sort must be part of all this discussion, obviously, if we are to read or discuss anything at all; but Penner is aware of the irony of trying to go completely down that road yet again (which is just to continue blindly with modernist agendas and methodologies). It’s a challenging balance to achieve.

[Maybe another way of putting it is this way: Apostles are certainly free to make use of reason, as Paul indeed does, but his main appeal is not to be clever and so appeal to clever people. It’s to be an apostle that points people to Christ, rather than worldly cleverness. One can make limited use of rationalisty, and even strive to be rational without needing to make it king of everything.]

2 Likes

I think faith should also be consistent with what we know or can about ourselves. If we import external criteria and apply them pell mell to ourselves we will be objectifying our understanding of our subjective experience which is every bit as absurd as it would be to seek to understand the objective world by way of subjective standards. Distortion ensues in both directions.

1 Like

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION BEGINS TOMORROW
Last edited: 8/21/2022

I’m looking forward to the discussion.

There are many contexts in which this is true, aren’t there? It’s hard to “step outside ourselves” to get a different perspective and look for what we’re missing. It’s easy to be stuck in our thinking, because it’s what we have always done and it’s supported by everyone around us.

2 Likes

Before we leave Chapter 4, I wanted to revisit a few quotes:
One of the questions I have wondered about since Chapter 1 is what kind of “apologetic” is left, after Penner demonstrated the impossibility of the modern paradigm which seems to be so popular (here and now). I think he fleshes the answer out fairly well (at least at a theoretical level) end of this chapter:
The first part consists of the level of truth we can honestly attest to:

Whatever the case, if we really are not concerned about achieving the (absolute) Truth as God sees it, if we really do not believe that achieving the Truth is necessary to attaining normative Christian truths, and if we further configure our thinking about Christian truth around edification, then it seems to me that we will have the ability to attest to the contingent, fallible truths that edify us. In our Christian witness we always testify-as Luther does-from our conscience and not from an epistemically secure and objectively demonstrable position. The Christian wit­ness says: “Here I stand. I cannot do anything else. I cannot refuse to acknowledge this truth, because it is the one that is true for me and has shaped me into the self I am.” (pg. 126)

The second part is the absolute necessity of “a dramatic portrayal of how things may be when the rule and reign of Christ is expressed in and through our lives.”

Truth­ telling is a process of attesting to the truth of our convictions. It is not a snap shot of reality but more like a dramatic portrayal of how things may be when the rule and reign of Christ is expressed in and through our lives. Christian truth is an aleitheia-an uncovering, disclosing, or making visible the very presence of God among us. And this uncovering is concrete and actual, not abstract and intellec­tual. Christian truth-telling, therefore, is a field of performance and an acting or living out of the truth that is edifying and upbuilding. This is not merely an objective apprehension or formal acknowledg­ment-we must win these truths for ourselves and make them our own. It is not an instant calculation that is over and then done with, but the undertaking of a lifetime. (pg. 127)

In summary, Penner says:

The faithful expression of Christian witness comes in the form of both word and deed (and only in this bivalent form). We can never show the light of Christ and the truths that edify us except through our words and actions-and in an important sense these truths do not exist for us or those to whom we witness apart from our full testimony. We will not have the truths that edify us, nor will we be a witness to them, apart from our fully assuming them and living so that they shape our words and actions.

As demanding as modern apologetics engagement is, Penner’s proposal is much more so. Christians, all of us, as living interpreters of the texts and experiences we claim to find truthful and life-transforming, are demonstrating that hermeneutic every single day of our lives. Actually, we already are, always have been. And people are reading US as texts. We are not engaged in a scheduled, timed debate with a mic cut at the end, but the day to day performance of what we actually believe to be true about Jesus Christ. That is our testimony, or attestation.

Those stakes seem much, much higher to me.

2 Likes

Ain’t that the truth!

So when you quote Penner…

Not only does this not remove the wind from the sales of ambitious apologists … it adds more!

That is, if somebody was hoping to read Penner thinking to themselves - “Yeah - I like to hear confirmation we shouldn’t be verbally pushing our faith on other people because I think it’s better to show my faith by how I live” - Penner’s quoted response lays that conceit to rest. Our full testimony is to be found only in our bivalent actions and words!

1 Like

I find one of the opening quotes of ch. 5 intriguing, though I’m still holding it at arm’s length and trying to decide how to understand it.

The rejectability of the gospel is ironically what prevents it from becoming mere propaganda. Consequently, the Good News cannot be fully understood as good news unless the gospel is offered in noncoercive ways.
-Brad J. Kallenberg

The last sentence there … yeah. That makes sense. Can anybody else help illuminate that first sentence - about mere propaganda? So if in math class today students are taught to reject wrong sums - because there is a right answer they need to arrive at, it appears we have ‘non-rejectability’ in math class. So is math mere propaganda then?

This particular chapter is also a great segway from your Lakota video, @Kendel.

Another good quote; this one from Penner (p. 144).

When emphasis is on objectivity, I should not just attempt to lead a thirsty horse to water; I should drag it. And once I have done so, I should do all I can to make them drink–whether they think they want my water or not!

I think Penner said elsewhere (maybe in a prior chapter), that in a modernist world of alleged objectivity, we attempt to possess truths. In a subjective (and apostolic) world, the truth possesses us.

1 Like

What keeps coming to my mind in this context is also the importance of constantly evaluating our lived out hermeneutic both in our individual lives and in the life of the church. At the risk of sounding like I endorse t-shirt slogan quality theology or the “church growth movement,” I’ll say anyway, we have GOT to evaluate based on the views of those receiving our witness, what our witness actually seems to convey.
All too often, I hear christians excuse insensitive, loveless, damaging behavior as “being different from the world” or “being misunderstood by the world.” (That faceless unbeliever again) When what “the world” stands in horror, seeing ….well all the awful stuff we see in the news for example, that is coming out of churches. Or they’re seeing the hypocrisy of their christian neighbors, Or any other thing that just alienates, rather than the kind of witness that might lead them to say, “Yeah, they’ve got some odd believes. That’s true. But when my life was falling apart, they were there to help me get through it. And they really show that they care about me and my family. They’re actually really good friends.”

2 Likes

Don’t apologize for T-shirt or bumper sticker thoughts - they are to the “elevator pitch” what the “elevator pitch” is to the full text of an entire homily or book!

Or to add my own “T-shirt” phrase to chime in with your thought: Those who’ve decided they have “arrived” and therefore are fully commissioned as exclusively ‘sharers’ to the world have stopped up their ears and quit learning. Which seems to me to be a spiritually deteriorating, if not fatal position to be in.

(Okay - that’s not all gonna fit on a T-shirt. But oh well.)

2 Likes

I really liked this one!
Does this help? Particularly in light of the political (whose proper definition we also need to keep in mind) nature of witness discussed in this chapter?

Propaganda has been used for a myriad of reasons, like getting people to join in their country’s army, helping with a war effort on the home front, or in an election ad/campaign. The Soviet Union had a history of using propaganda to help convince their fellow countrymen, and the world, that they were the greatest nation in the world, that communism was the best form of government, that other nations and forms of government were weak, and that their leader was the most powerful and kindest, etc. Overall, the glorification of communism and the Soviet state, and the indoctrination of Marxist-Leninist ideology was the goal of their propaganda.
From: Joseph Stalin & the Soviet Propaganda | Overview, Method & Symbol - Lesson | Study.com
(bolding mine)

The Gospel is not some ideology we peddle. Well, it shouldn’t be, right? But if we mix it with colonial ideals, well, then it is an ideology as well as a tool for control.

Richard Twiss does give outstanding examples of what this introductory quote can mean in the video I linked in slide 510

It’s all over the book, Merv. He’s been drumming it in for chapters. : )

Maybe a tunic or a toga?

1 Like

I’m so glad you used that turn of phrase, because it reminded me of another reaction I had while reading chapter 5 (and prior chapters too). I wonder if Penner doesn’t illumine a now-more-experienced response to something than the Apostle Paul himself adopts (I think in one of his Corinthian letters). Paul says effectively: “Yes - there are some who peddle the word of God for profit, but never mind that - at least it’s spreading the word.” And maybe Paul’s attitude here can be defended in that it’s still ‘early days’ of Christianity and the fledging sect is still ramping up into “explosive growth mode” in a kind of “there is no such thing as bad publicity” sense. But now, I think Paul today would not be so cavalier about all this. Which is how I would answer those who would charge Penner with taking the opposite tack that Paul seemed to endorse. Penner effectively responds: “Are you kidding me?! It’s very much about how you deliver the message! Even to the point of you completely undoing your own propositional content if you are not yourself living that truth.” I think Paul would agree with him now - and the case could probably be made then already too from Paul’s letters of that time, the one side-remark about ill-reputed peddlers notwithstanding.

Okay - yeah. It’s probably just the book-long struggle I’ve been having of parsing out which parts of our enculturated convictions can be defended as “Oh - that’s part of reality or science or reason” vs. “this is just your modernist or colonial baggage here and can be jettisoned when you attempt to reach out to other cultures.”

2 Likes

I keep feeling I don’t have an equal stake in the outcome of this book or its discussion. My way of life isn’t wrapped up in the Christian project so I have no apprehension that Penner might any moment pull the rug out from under me if I allow myself to take seriously the ideas he puts together. So I think the discussion between you who do have more at stake is the more interesting one to attend to. But all along I keep thinking that everything he discussed has a correlate for any person with similar commitments even if not the same conceptualization of what it is that gives rise to God belief and makes it such a good fit.

At this point in the book I’m thinking about the abstract notion of “the powers that determine subject-hood”. For example, from page 156:

We are not in control of these powers* and in themselves they are neither wholly good nor wholly evil. They are what constitute us as subjects—as those who exist in relation to others, the principal relation being with God, but whose relations always exist against the backdrop of the powers and authorities that provide the context and trajectory for them.

And more so earlier on page155 where he says this in regard to being a prophetic witness but which surely is important to anyone regardless of religious standing:

to a significant degree I am shaped (including my consciousness, beliefs, values, and self-perceptions) by forces beyond my direct control. Iam not in full or direct possession of myself.

I think that is right. We are always already in possession of and possessed by points of views including convictions not all of which we can recall deciding upon. We have no neutral viewpoint from which we can rationally assess ourselves as a heap of beliefs and decide what to keep and what to chuck out. Being a subject and not a deterministic billiard ball is like this.

A side notion I keep returning to is the idea (which I reject) that rationality is an escape hatch by which we can leave the chaotic basis for our subject-hood, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and assume possession of ourselves. Obviously I have a lot buzzing around in my head right now so this has to be in-process patter.

2 Likes

From p. 143-144

Coercion is the form our interaction with others takes when our main concern is with the possession of objective truth—whether we have it, whether they have it, and so forth. I attempt to coerce someone in this sense whenever I use rational arguments (or just flat assertions of objective truth) in order to compel others (by rational force, intimidation, or authority) to accept my way of understanding and speaking about the world (or God, etc.), without regard to their personal desires or volition.

Okay - so …question here - accompanied from my own real-life experience. So I encountered a hymn, one that many traditionalists today would consider provocatively progressive in that it referred to God with feminine pronouns. Theologically, this doesn’t disturb me as I realize that the mental association of female biology of God could not be one whit any more heretical than assocation of male biology with God. If we were going to scripturally nitpick about such things, the scriptures frown on any “imaging” of God after our own human selves. And yet, our languages (and Jesus and the apostles themselves) have settled into doing this through nearly all of history favoring the patrairachal leanings through most of it. So obviously there is some incarnational leniency for “personalizing” God so long as we always keep close the knowledge that “this male image” or “that female image” is only my imagination and not really God - and in fact the scriptures call it blasphemous for me to confuse any of my inevitable mental images with our actual Creator God - the great I AM.

So - all that said; any twinge of discomfort or awkwardness I may feel with hymns or poetry using female imagry for God has everything to do with my own tradition and upbringing, and zero to do with any actual scriptural support or spiritual leading. And given that there will be a large and vehement swath of traditionalists who feel much more than any mere twinge of awkwardness with this, then should Penner’s exhortation forbid anybody from trying to coerce a different image of God (say … a more feminine one) on them against their own enculturated comfort? I can certainly see this being applied the other way (that the male imagry should not have been so coercively forced along with all the power dynamics that accompanied that - that seems an easy no-brainer to the progressive mind.) But what about applying Penner’s thought consistently to both sides of that? Is there ever any place at all for “pushing” - dare we say “coercing” somebody toward a change of their enculturated imagry for God? Traditional patriarchalists everywhere might be said to be waiting with baited breath for how that is answered.

After having used up his life on the Gospel, Paul would be horrified at the way it has been misused, as an ideological tool to achieve someone’s social/cultural/colonial goals, certainly not Jesus’s.

Dear Reader, I understand that what I’m writing will read to some as highly political speech (ideological/party-driven/social gospel), which is precisely NOT what I think or intend. However, in having culturally framed speech, such as mine AS political, we make analysis of it emotionally charged and unacceptable for “polite” discussions. It’s easy to dismiss as “liberal” questions about or criticism of activities carried out by churches. However many of these have lead to outright rejection of the Gospel and christianity by whole groups of people for reasons of self-preservation, rather than objections to the Gospel itself.

There is no escaping Penner’s Bivalent Form from Chapter 4 (p. 130) Our words must square with our deeds. And others are very good at seeing when the do not or have not. If we are using the gospel as a vehicle for carrying out some personal or cultural agenda, we are not talking about the Gospel any more.

It IS a struggle. It needs to be a struggle we in the church engage in constantly. Penner has talked frequently in the book about dialogue, and he usually refers to it within the church. This kind of dialogue within the church, where we can be edified by people with different perspectives like Richard Twiss, or most any Black American Christian, etc, etc. can help all of us witness more faithfully. This suggestion isn’t about changing doctrine per se, but making sure we are living up to that doctrine.

Part of the struggle you and I, Merv, have both felt with this book might be that Penner’s suggestions feel “liberal” at times, like he’s proposing giving up everything by leaning on subjectivity and encouraging not only dialogue but dialectic. It’s easy to miss that his conclusions simply refuse to fit neatly into those political/ideological categories. Praise God.

Instead of struggling, we have centuries of church history we can interrogate. And some of that interrogation doesn’t take that much work. SOME people have already done the work we just need to listen and evaluate.

(Maybe, by the end of this thread, there will a community sourced bibliography of works that cover the misuses of the gospel for social control.)

1 Like

This is a great example, Merv.
Penner’s book has been revolutionary for a few of us. Maybe 3? 5? Maybe a few more. It feels like the world has completely changed, doesn’t it? For that few of us, maybe. And we recognize that this will be a project to carry out for the rest of our lives.

My feel from my foxhole is that traditionalists will continue on in their same way. Powerful voices in evangelicalism will not notice Penner’s book from 2013, at least in any productive way. I see it as utterly providential that we noticed it. However we might come across other’s who might ask us, “What took you so long?”
All the while, we can be practicing dialogue within the church (I’m terrible at this). But I think we’d better ask our questions strategically (I’m terrible at this as well). Because dialogue leading to change is not a regular part of church, at least as I know it. “That’s for the liberal churches.”

We will plod on, praying to stay in this change, praying we can get better at it ourselves, praying Jesus uses us in this.

2 Likes

That reminds me of a a point that has come to mind often, to the story early in the book where the one receiving the apologetic message replied when asked why he still rejected Christ despite the overwhelming logic of the argument, “Because I do not want to be like you.” Ouch. The irony of that!

6 Likes

This is hard, isn’t it, @jpm? Just like anything new we learn.
It’s hard not to be “that guy”, not to be “that gal.”

“Oooh. I got this new thing. Everybody needs it, too. I have to go out and change the world.”

But no one knows what you’re talking about, because they didn’t read/study/hear/experience the same thing. They’re doing the best they can, just like most everybody else. Just like the rest of us have been, will keep doing.

And after Chapter 5, if there was any question about how to approach any of this change, it’s clear: WITH HUMILITY. And that will likely mean: SLOWLY.

But it also gives us time to breathe and study and think and talk with people. Eat pizza together. (Or better, pie!) Actually, I think genuine hospitality would go beautifully with Penner’s ideas.

Part of what I have loved in this book is that the stakes are lowered. We don’t have to feel responsible to go out and win over the world in one debate. We can operate at a deeply human and humane pace that actually allows people to smile at each other and enjoy each other.

I think about the people I work with. These are people I really love. And I’m going to be back volunteering at a local rural elementary school soon with little kids and teachers. I am not going to be in a position to engage in some kind of aggressive apologetic model (which I could never do anyway). And NO ONE in those situations would be receptive to even the gentlest form of a modern model. With the public school kids I will be talking and working on the alphabet, arithmetic, reading, fractions and eating lunch like dignified humans. These are the biggest groups of unbelievers in my life. Let my witness be edifying, even if it can only be small.

In church fellowship, I need to be far more graceful about dialogue. I am rarely edifying when I disagree. I offend (both meanings) way too easily.

How much better for me to learn to say, “Now that’s a great question! I need to give that some thought. Can we talk about this again sometime soon?” And then return to the matter again gracefully.

Because I sure don’t want to be the apologist from the story you referenced Phil. None of us does.

1 Like