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

Yes. You are right. I see what you’re getting at.
I did always have an “unfinished” feel for Penner’s willingness to see truth as something dialogic, though. I am inclined to want to incorporate things I find to be true or truthful into my thinking, but there is some evaluation process I go through (which is largely very vague–maybe). I don’t remember that Penner really talks about evaluating the truth of a matter, except in light of church tradition (I think). Perhaps that’s really the dialogic process he has in mind. However, I think he is willing to also examine church tradition (to some degree) in light of things found to be true outside of church tradition.

It’s life. Not head-games or mental gymnastics. This is life, and we need the best tools we can find for figuring out how to do it the best we can.

“Unfinished” might be a good and (for our 'this-side-of-the-grave-purposes") permanent descriptor of our grasp of truth. I would love to see any more exploration you or others have to offer on the nature of truth as a person or as a dialogue - beyond just being a ‘mere’ proposition - as important as propositions are.

1 Like

I would, too. I think you and others probably have more to offer than I do, but I often find I think better with other sparks around.

What’s on your mind? What’s behind your question, Merv?

I hope to let this “perc” a bit more - and cannot give a long response now in any case. I’ve got a long day of work ahead myself and won’t be able to engage until later than usual tonight myself. But just a short answer for now - I really see echoes of the author George Macdonald in all of this. He was big on just being in the presence of Christ (and drawing others there). Once you’re at Christ’s feet, all the truth propositions we have right and wrong will all get sorted out in due time. Those are the minor concern - compared to just being in the presence of and listening to the Teacher. So having read much of his fiction, I feel like I was “prepped” to resonate with Penner’s “truth is a person” message.

1 Like

Splendid.
I had different prep. Look forward to another angle.
Mayve we can draw in another MacDonald reader or a few.

One of the challenges of discussing this, especially in this venue and with the educational backgrounds typically present here, is that we pride ourselves on communicational clarity, with whatever doses of precision, logic, and empirical support we can muster. We like everything well-defined. In short, even while we try to recognize our modernist status and its shortcomings, children of modernism we remain.

And yet there is something about all this that is hard to define, but easy to recognize. Sort of like pornography I guess … the saying is that it may be hard to define, but “we know it when we see it.” I feel like Truth in a person or more to the point: as a person may be something like that. Think of people that you enjoy being around - either you would “grab a coffee with them” or you gravitate toward working with them, etc. I realize - there is danger of confusing this with popularity - and I probably am confusing the two even in trying to write this. There may be people who are “fun to be around” in a more superficial sort of sense; but I’ll try to distinguish between that and, say, somebody that you don’t mind spending extended time with. As in, their presence is edifying in challenging ways (or challenging in edifying ways), and in so being, leave you a better person than they found you. It’s tempting to take things like “they make me laugh” and just put that in the superficial category, but maybe that’s no small thing? It could be - especially if it isn’t part of anything deeper or broader. But it could also be that they help you plug in to deeper spiritual engagement with the transcendant. Is your cup more full to “face the world” after spending any time in their presence?

For Macdonald, I always feel like I’ve had something of a “spiritual bath” after reading his fiction. [the exact opposite of what I experience if exposed to any Game of Thrones type stuff]. For Macdonald, any character that is plugged into Christ, and functions as a lifeline to Christ to all those around them - those characters can do no wrong (pretty much quite literally in Macdonald’s novels). And many will find that unrealistic to an extreme - so far from being a mirror to our fallenness (see the Game of Thrones thread) - it is not only stained glass instead, it is a mirror that instead of showing us ourselves, is deliberately angled to reflect our vision to Christ instead. And Macdonald finds total rest in that - rest from doctrinal argumentation (though he wouldn’t claim to not adhere to any doctrine), rest from legalistically prescribed practices and works (though he is all about obedience to the Master), rest from all the imperfections of ourselves, our world, and even our religion while being in the presence of the perfect - how can we fuss about all that stuff when the bridegroom is with us? In short - even though I don’t remember Penner ever mentioning an author like Macdonald (I think I would have eagerly noticed), nonetheless I feel like Macdonald anticipates all Penner’s concerns and had them already addressed. I don’t remember Macdonald, in his own turn, ever mentioning Kierkegaard though I’m sure he would have been aware of his work.

But in any case, while Truth as a person may be hard to define, I think many of us “know them when we’re around them.” And perhaps our reaction to such people is very revealing about ourselves. Because it probably isn’t a given that we enjoy being around them. A prophet likely is quite the opposite of a barrel of fun. So while Jesus did draw many to him, he also repulsed so many (maybe for the very same reasons). Truth is not always a pleasant thing for me to be around - depending on my own spiritual state which is the much more fluidly changeable thing.

4 Likes

Yes. I have a few of such wonderful people in my life. They are an enormous gift, and I covet more such people.

I also know people who want this type of position in the lives of others, and whom I do not trust. One particular such woman was widely respected, taught and even did counseling at our old church. In many ways I respected her, but I was not willing to be her student or confide in her. She had shown that party politics drove her hermeneutics of all. Any biblical counseling or teaching one received received from her was/is political couched in biblical language.

It’s very possible that my distrust prevents me from a better perspective that would really be edifying. But I have never been willing to pursue it. Not with her.

Then there’s my sister-in-law. She’s rough around the edges, absolutely loyal to family, thoughtful but not educated, learn’ed in the school of life. She’s incredible. Her dogma is: Do right by my family, my “little” brother, and I will have your back forever. I have; she does. Her husband’s the same. I learn from her a far more demonstrative family love, and when you need it; you need it.

Kim the hospital Tech at the PICU at the local hospital, where we spent a hellish 8 weeks, is that kind of person. Uneducated by most standards, and used to a very different style of life than mine, had gleaned the most incredible counseling and therapy skills needed in propping fraught parents up, and giving the humor or cup of coffee we needed to drag ourselves and our kid down the hall for the next PT/OT session. She knew when a discussion about the proper way to clean used bike helmets with the chemically dangerous hospital cleaning wipes was just the right medicine, while we sat with the kid in a wheelchair out in front, counting different color cars for something to do and practice talking again.

Not really sure how to define these qualities either, Merv. You know them, when they’re propping you up. They defy definition or categorization. And they often come from the most unexpected places.

3 Likes

I’m always curious in how lives of various authors continue to unfold, and it is easy to find recent talks with and interviews of Penner on-line. One particular interview, which I won’t even link here because I found it mediocre to wanting, was an interviewer asking Penner about morality in particular and what Penner’s take on it was. Actually the interviewer wasn’t so much listening to Penner’s thoughts as he was using the occasion to fairly confidently suggest that if he were in charge of a “perfect universe” he would have as his only rule that “nobody is ever compelled to do anything against thier own informed consent.” This, and this alone should be sufficient (he thinks) as an “only rule” to any perfectly morally ordered universe of an optimally desired state for someone. Penner pushed back gently on this with some challenges and problems, but in Pennerian apologetic fashion, he was more interested in being friendly with his interlocutor than in trying to argue with him - so it was an interesting to see Penner “in action” (or not - as some people might impatiently assess it) on this, given what we know about his methods. We’re used to arguing and fleshing things out around here, so I find it interesting to see what happens to arguments, when relationship priority rises. It was easy to see and poke holes in his interlocutor’s attempt at a “perfect moral universe”, but he was never in the course of the discussion able to sharpen himself or his own arguments much (or at all) because Penner just never pushed or challenged as hard as he could have. So I guess I can ask the question for myself, would I rather leave an interaction with somebody smiling, happy, and just as naive as I was before? Or miffed, and corrected, and now with more perspective to chew on? I know - this is just lapsing back into a modernist mindset of the whole picture again, after having just read a whole book about this. But we need to remember, objectivity is still there. Our modesty is merely in the realization that we will never (even at a corporate level, much less individually) have any complete or 100% accurate grasp of pure objectivity. - A realization that ironically would have done Penner’s interviewer much good if he could have been brought to even just realize that.

3 Likes

Some of you are…
And it can mean different things when different people engage in the arguing and hashing things over around here.
I’m pretty careful about whom I engage with, regarding what and in what manner. Or I’ve allowed myself to become exasperated, when I probably should have just closed the keyboard and locked the screen. I’ve regretted some of those engagements. No one was edified.

It depends.

Is it worth it to me to bother?

Can I trust this person to listen or attempt to understand what I’m getting at? Or will they twist my meaning for the sake of the point THEY want to make?

Can I trust my interlocutor to know what they’re talking about or to be truthful with me? If engagement simply means the beginning of another chapter of meaningless spew, or pompous pontification, then there’s no point.

People here that I spend much quantity of the limited currency of my time on have demonstrated their value to me as interlocutors. Some of you all, I’d call friends, even if we met in real life.

However, in some cases, I think the best I can expect from some exchanges, actually even beyond what I could expect, is some basic civility. In those cases, a generic smile is probably a triumph, rather than a resignation.

[Maybe that was the point of Penner’s reaction in the interview you mentione, Merv?]

I like the way you put this.

There are different things that different people actually know about. The honest ones recognize the limitations of their knowledge and are open about them. I really value people who are patient enough to share what they really do know with people who don’t and who are willing to ask way outside their areas of comfort. It can be information, knowledge, wisdom, opinions, POVs, etc. That’s ideal, I think.

However, combative arguing is not. I understand this is a completely subjective assessment. As is the assessment that, “This is just how people do this thing.” Yeah, no. It’s not how all people do this thing. If one is disinclined to a combative mode of engagement, then when combativeness is required, one just moves to the sidelines to wait for things to cool down, or just leaves unedified, feeling as if staying would have the same end with more stress.

2 Likes

Agreed. And if it is combative, then effective information exchange (or even just receipt if it’s a monologue happening) has probably pretty much ceased.

That said, for some people, even expressing disagreement automatically ranks as ‘combative’. (And it also probably depends on who it’s coming from, their tone of voice, and other things that have already been said, etc.) For those determined to never let a disagreement get in the way of a good relationship, I think there will always be a sacrificial cost of giving up on at least some potential intellectual growth. And maybe growth in that direction is not always needed or called for, to be sure. But it seems that the person who invites their interlocutor into the safest possible space (for them) to express themselves freely, has then earned access to maximal potential information from them. The person who will tolerate no challenge whatsoever from their conversation partner has forfeited their right (to the extent that such is granted at all) to know the truth about what the other thinks.

This is the willing ignorance that the aggressive apologist takes upon themselves regarding their audience. The aggressor has marooned themselves on an island of ignorance regarding their listener(s).

1 Like

We have to be willing to be challenged if we are to grow. Pride gets in the way if we let it. I see some quote the “iron sharpens iron” verse, without considering that it is an abrasive process, and you have to remove some material create a sharp edge.

4 Likes

Yeah. I’m working on both sides of this. I failed terribly tonight, offending my cousin, while trying to go gentle. I am often in the other side as well. Personality and training get in the way a lot.

1 Like

the art is to detach oneself from ones worldview as to engage in debating something to improve upon without getting into an existential crisis, as the latter is the case when not understanding ones worldview and how it works to assess reality.

I found this worldview video helpfull as to shift ones beliefs into an objective framework. Once you emphasise that the OT was written to give the illiterate and the intellectuals alike access to a worldview framework that had to be painted in pictures accessible to everyone it becomes clear that this beautiful strory is written in a poetic language to make a very complex situation comprehensible to everyone. Unfortunately this skilful poetry gets lost when materialists interpret language, together with the problem of translation of periods of time into days that could have meant millions of years. Imagine you talk to a child and you try to give them a concept of times and numbers they have not got, as they just can count to 10. Once you grasp that you can do apologetics in a more neutral context to try to help people to come to Christ and see how truth works in a logically coherent framework and where our limitations of truth perception are. and what impact our fundamental beliefs have in the context of a meaningfull interaction with reality

2 Likes
  • Ahhh, but, by God, I was justified. LOL!
    • Once I feel justified, it’s hard as heck to change my mind, and rarely am I able to reason my way through what happened on my own. Sadly, others in my real life, don’t want to hear the details: end result? the disagreement–short or lengthy–crystallizes and becomes hard as stone.

Hear! Hear!

  • I have settled pretty much on a simple rule of thumb.
    • Once is an incident, twice is a coincidence, three times is the beginning of a pattern.
    • A sez one thing, B sez “I disagree in part or whole” or “I agree in part or whole”.
    • Disagree with me once, and I’ll think the matter over. If I decide to agree, for whatever reason, I’ll agree. But if I disagree, I’ll disagree and say so. That’s once.
    • Me and the other can, but often don’t leave the disagreement there. If each restates their cases, which sometimes includes restating their positions, that’s twice.
    • But if either disputant restates his/her position again, with or without modification of their cases, that’s three times and, in my mind, there’s an irreconcilable difference, … and nothing more to be said … civilily anyway.
  • Similarly, a disagreement between two persons is once.
  • A disagreement between the same two persons over a different matter is twice.
  • Yet another disagreement between the same two persons over yet another matter is three times.
  • That’s regardless of the venue: this forum OR the more-real world.
  • In this forum, is it worth it to me to bother? very, very rarely.

“…the truth about what the other thinks” … about the matter. I think there’s a moral there: “Think twice before challenging someone.” An adequately stated challenge leaves little room for doubt about what the challenger thinks.

2 Likes

marvin, this is such a beautiful ideal. I love it. It’s a real challenge for me, and certainly was for the guest across my kitchen table the other evening.

From across the table I was given to understand that all church doctrines are merely human constructs that should be done away with, that theology and doctrine were completely different categories, that we should just read our Bibles for what they said, and that she was leading a Bible study she wrote in consultation of a Greek Bible lexicon.

When I asked her which doctrines she was willing to give up on for the sake of having no doctrines, she was baffled. When I asked if there were no connection between theology and doctrine, she didn’t like that at all. When I asked her, if as a 21st century woman she wasn’t bringing some things to the biblical texts that weren’t originally intended, or if a lexicon were an adequate tool to deal with all the cultural and intellectual differences there might be, I guess she was getting really angry. I thought I was being thoughtful and conversational.

I have since been given to understand that I was bullying and demeaning, and that she must set firm boundaries with me. We have a history. I understand now that she does not trust me. “Forgiveness” comes with a verbal thrust intended to inflict the same amount of pain that she perceived. Even the weather or the state of the roads may be too difficult to discuss, unless I always agree with her.

Deborah Tannen’s book from the early 1990s That’s Not What I Meant: How Conversation Style Makes or Breaks Relationships is helpful, and I recommend it, but its wisdom is not enough for every hurdle.

3 Likes

I’ve been knitting and doing housework today, listening to this:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/kierkegaard-a-very-short-introduction-9780192802569?cc=us&lang=en&

I added it to the resource slide as well.

2 Likes

And there’s the person who refuses to agree to disagree. :rofl:

1 Like

Just keep hammering away, you mean?

Yes, as in a thread which begins with a question, which has no final, satisfactory, mutually agreed upon answer:
A says the thread’s question remains unanswered.
B says the thread’s question has an answer if people took off their colored glasses.

1 Like

it is interesting to try to understand how our underlying assumptions work and how we assume doctrines. I am just reading of popes and unicorns about the rise of the conspiracy theory of science being incompatible with religion and how it has become doctrine.

2 Likes