I think I understand your concern here and I think it’s a valid one. I don’t believe it’s necessarily a problem with Penner, but as we’ve established, there are still things that all of us who have stuck with the book would like more information about.
I’m curious about the distinction you make here between what is apologetic and what is evangelistic in light of how these concepts may have been understood differently in the first century. While I understand that we see Paul, for example, reasoning from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ, I see this act as describe in the NT as part and parcel with evangelism and tied to preaching as well. I don’t see the apostles of the NT doing anything like arguing through a series of “universal truths” about the logic of the existence of God, or something like that. Rather proclaiming that Jesus, whom many of them likely knew or knew of, is the Christ, and pointing, saying “here are the prophecies that you’ve already memorized that point to him.”
My feel is that the thing that is called “apologetics” today that Penner is countering is quite different from what was practiced in the 1st century.
But I am no apologist and likely am missing something.
This term, “traditional” is tricky here, and is in part, what I was getting at up a few lines. “Traditional” really means "they way it’s always been done (as far as anybody alive remembers).
Penner differentiates between premodern and modern, and I think appropriately so. What is “traditional” by our standards today, I believe, is nothing like what was considered “tradtional apologetics” in Paul’s day.
Again, I hope @Terry_Sampson will bring in some meaningful pithy quotes from the articles he has regarding “The Exit You Need May Be Behind You,” for example. There is something regarding apologetics in those articles that might satisfy your as well as me.
Although we have not yet seen eye to eye on many things so far in this thread, Daniel, I endorse this statement. I suspect @jpm does on face value as well. I haven’t noticed any “church growth movement” types lurking around this Forum. Whew! It’s hard to know how to “measure success” in this kingdom. But the actual meanings of most worldly measures pretty much dissolve, don’t they?
I do hope we can get to discuss this more, either in this thread or another. We’ve been sorely wanting someone with a background in K’s work.
I don’t think Penner would disagree. I suspect he has this underlined in 3 different highlighters in his copy. I don’t disagree, either. I just don’t think that account needs to be anything like
what is called apologetics today. (Which book is this from, btw?)
Went over this one in the thread pretty early on. I don’t think anyone here endorses t-shirt quality theology. If so, we sure worked hard for nothing, reading this book.
And finally (for now), I want to point to the title of the book and it’s formulation: The End of Apologetics, which is a nod to the Westminster Shorter Catechism as mentioned in the Resources Slide.
“What is the chief end of man?” End meaning “purpose”.
So, the title of the book is not only calling for a radical end of what we think of in this thread as “modern apologetics” but also a consideration of the ultimate purpose of apologetics.
We went to a good funeral for a good friend today. Terry was only 83 and was the kind of person I want to emulate, a Christian whose life beautifully reinforced the message of Jesus that he shared widely. Although he was a police officer in a number of small towns and then Sheriff over Clinton County for 8 years, he was a humble, kind, gentle man, who used his leadership and power to serve people. After he retired from law enforcement, he became the chaplain at the Ingham County jail and worked with a mission organization called Forgotten Man Ministries. For 20 years Terry worked closely with inmates as their chaplain, counselor, and also advocate. He made sure that the community knew about the general needs of the inmates, particularly for decent-fitting, warm underclothes for the winter. Not everyone had a support system “on the outside” who could see to such needs. So, Terry made that part of his work as well.
I met Terry through my work as a church librarian. Whenever I weeded the library, or received books we couldn’t use, Terry was excited to have new materials to take to the inmates, so they could have something worthwhile to do with their time. We talked about the kinds of stories that might be of interest, and I also made sure to include materials for women and for readers of many different levels. I’m sure Terry was thinking about which books would appeal to which inmates as he looked through the boxes I’d bring him.
His daughter gave the eulogy and focused on the kinds of christ-like qualities that Terry exhibited in his life (humility, patience, graciousness, love, wisdom, and more) that made him such a special person to everyone who knew him. She wasn’t trying to win brownie points with God for her dad. I had already seen those things in Terry. He lived in the truth. He had made it his own.
Nice to hear directly about a good man in that role. I’d say he made good use of his life. Of course being in the dominant group it isn’t unusual that I should have had all positive experiences with the law. I just wish there were more people from other groups not getting hurt or killed. I’m sure the vast majority of police are decent and law abiding but they really do need to call out bad apples more.
Penner’s book has had responses outside this forum, among which is pastor and professor Timothy P. Jones’ paper presented at the 2021 Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, in Fort Worth, Texas, titled: “The End of Apologetics?” Here is a link to said paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T4X83QoYQRDXMx5jDjVdVDFzpDKzX6oV/view?usp=sharing
The paper is divided into five parts and follows a 2-page into to Jones himself.
Terry, are there a few specific ideas you think are worth highlighting? Particularly in light of @Daniel_Fisher ’s concerns about apologetics? Or any other main points you though were especially valuable?
I have no recollection of this thread @Christy started not even a year ago, although I clearly read through it, because my “likes” are all over the place. Her OP is directly related to our discussion, and I see that most of us commented at least once.
In case any of us need MORE supplemental reading:
I like a big cup of strong coffee with lots of powdered Coffemate and lots of sugar. Not everyone does.
The paper as a whole “fell into” a series of events that, together with the David French and Curtis Chang podcast that @Mervin_Bitikofer brought to our attention in this thread, have helped significantly in resolving concerns that I have had regarding my un-churched status.
Rather than describing the dots in the events, the podcast, and the paper and the connections between the dots that I, personally, have seen, I’ll simply list the headings of the five parts of Jones’ paper here and let others make their own coffee.
“Something Divine Mingled Among Them”: Care for the Parentless and the Poor as Ecclesial Apologetic in the Second Century
Part I - The End of Apologetics?
Part II - Why the Church’s Care for the Vulnerable Requires the Reality of God’s Presence among His People
Part III - How the Church’s Care for the Vulnerable Reveals the Health of Its Theology
Part IV - How Generosity to the Poor Prepares God’s People for Martyrdom
Part V - How the Care We Give to the Vulnerable Provides Evidence for the Faith We Profess to the World
Thanks for this trip down memory lane! … (and your ‘likes’ called my attention to some of my own comments there, which I also had forgotten already - and I see now that we even anticipated Penner’s work which you would later bring to the forum!)
“Somehow” all of us who have stuck with this have been prepped for quite some time, I think. It’s been wonderful finally to have a place and and the “right” group to think through these things in ways I have needed to for a very long time. Ye are an absolute gift.
My response might be a bit convoluted, but here goes:
As much as I am a fan of Kierkegaard in many respects, I would humbly critique him as having a bit too much black and white (or dare, I say, “either/or” thinking?)
Now I’m hardly enough of a Kierkegaard expert to say for certain, but my impression is that he does this intentionally as he is trying to make the point, rather than he actually thinks there are no nuances or qualifications in his categories. Rather he is trying to draw the sharp contrasts for rhetorical purposes to clearly draw out the decision and sides of the fight, not because he himself in personal conversation wouldn’t acknowledge overlap, or “both/and” at times, etc. (not entirely unlike Jesus’s use of hyperbole).
All that said, I do resonate with the apostle/genius distinction. It is at least related to his famous analysis of Abraham, though I don’t think he uses those same terms in that context - but an ethical “genius” would go through all the rational and ethical reasons why killing Isaac is ethically invalid, but the 'apostle" who was called directly by revelation would obey whatever God said regardless of every rational impulse in him screaming the opposite.
The distinction Kierkegaard makes is ultimately about the apostle speaking with real and final authority, as well. Which kind of more makes a case for presuppostional apologetics in my mind rather than what appears to be Dr. Penner’s main thrust against all styles of apologetics, but I could be corrected there.
My own observation would be that there can be room for both - and again I say this as someone deeply sympathetic with Kierkegaard’s approach, but realizing that he often overstated the black & white or absolute distinctions between his two stated positions (e.g., ethical vs. religious)… in Kierkegaard’s own formulation I would argue that Paul utilized certain aspects of “genius” in his skill of writing, his illustrations, etc., even while the entire approach of Paul was on his apostleship, not on the fact that he had rested all the authority of his mission and purpose ultimately on revelation and God’s authority, not on his human ingenuity or human-derived philosophy. “An apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father”… “Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles… for the foolishness of God is wiser than men”
I think you’re still misunderstanding me here – I know i must sound like I’m beating a dead horse, but so long as the term “success” is tossed around as synonymous with “resulted in some significant or greater than average number of converts” we’re going to talk past each other. I’m not insisting that there “must have been” some large number of converts… im insisting that we not label an endeavor a “success” or “failure” based on the number of converts.
Again, unless you are prepared to label Christ’s ministry in Nazareth, Bethsaida, Caperneum, Korazin, etc., to have been been “unsuccessful” ministry endeavors on the part of Christ (and thereby evidence of faulty content or execution on his part), based on their lack of repentance at the preaching of Christ?
Again, this comes full circle to the basis of this discussion - do we develop our evangelistic/apologetic methods and our metrics for deciding if a method was “successful” based on the human standard of “how many converted”, or on God’s approval of faithful proclamation regardless of number of converts?
That said, I readily acknowledge that large numbers of sincere converts are indeed held by Luke as a sign of God’s Spirit and his blessing of the endeavor in Acts - but conversely, I do NOT recognize a lack of repentance on the part of an audience to be a sign of either lack of God’s blessing, “failure” of the Holy Spirit to work, proof that the method or delivery is inherently faulty, or that we should say the endeavor was “unsuccessful”, or the like - this is true whether we’re speaking of Paul in Athens, Jeremiah in Jerusalem, or Jesus in Nazareth and Korazin.
So I’m not insisting that there “must have been” some hidden or implicit numerical “success” in Paul’s ministry in Athens any more than I’d insist there “must have been” some hidden or implicit numerical success with Jesus’s ministry in Korazin… I’m suggesting that we dare not label either endeavor “unsuccessful” based solely on a lack of repentance on the part of either some, many, most, or even all the hearers.
To do so is to rely on a distinctly, ahem, modernist metric, after all…
I’m not. I do understand (and 100% agree with) your point there. So most of the rest of what you write there is indeed, thoroughly beating a horse that has been dead for some time.
My point was rather to follow Paul in his callings (as evidenced by the letters of his that we have) to observe his manner of interaction and with whom he interacts. Not that Paul need be considered as the model for all apostleships or callings for everybody thereafter. I do believe we each have a unique calling from God. But if we’re to hold up exemplars like Paul as at least positive examples of whom to take note, then we might as well do so as accurately as we can. And if I’m not mistaken, you agree that he deliberately adheres more to a calling of ‘apostleship’ as opposed to wisdom or intellectual prowess.
I’m afraid I’m baffled by the line of reasoning here… 100% of Paul’s extant letters are written to Christians - either to churches at large, or to individual church leaders (or, as is speculated, “circular” letters like Ephesians intended for multiple churches). OK, thus far we agree…
And yes, I agree… Funny thing, when I speak to churches, or to individual believers, I rarely find myself developing arguments to convince them of the deity of Christ or of his resurrection; I for some odd reason assume they already agree with me about that and so I don’t argue the case to them.
So, I’m curious, though - who, exactly, would Paul have written these hypothetical apologetic letters to… I can just imagine his opening salutations:
“to the Synagogue in Pisidia, whom I left in anger in preference for speaking to Pisidian Gentiles…”
"To the Synagogue in Thessalonica, who formed a mob to hunt me down…’
“To the Synagogue in Corinth, a short missive: Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles. Amen.”
Sorry, I just can’t even in my wildest speculation imagine Paul taking time to write to the unbelieving Synagogues that he knew in the same way he wrote to believing churches. And yes, even if just for the sake of a fun argument, if he hypothetically had done so, would you really think the hostile synagogues that tried to hunt him down would take special care to preserve, carefully copy, and distribute his letter such that they would be extant and available for us today?
The same would be true for Athens or anything similar. If he ever did write a (non-extant) letter to Athens, it would presumably have been to those that did convert… i.e., to the ‘church’ in Athens. And hence, it would have been a letter written to Christian Disciples that already shared his basic religious perspective and for whom there would be no need for apologetic style arguments.
Would he have ever written a letter such as, “Paul, defender of the resurrection, to the unbelieving philosophers of the Areopogus who already made it clear they didn’t want to hear anything more from me, Grace and Peace to you…” wherein he would have had a reason or context to lay out said apologetic-style arguments? I just cannot in my wildest imagination conceive of such a thing. But again, even if he did, would you really find it surprisng that this particular crowd didn’t care to carefully preserve, copy, and distribute such a hypotehtical letter?
The facts that we do have available to us are:
–100% of Paul’s letters are written to believers, in a manner expected when one writes to believers.
–If Paul did ever use more “disputational” tactics, he would have done so in contexts wherein his audience were not, or at least not predominately, believers.
–and we have the historical record in Acts that he did do just this in both Jewish and Gentile contexts:
–For Jewish disputants, he used Scripture as his starting point, as he could start with that.
–for the one significant case where he disputed with Gentiles, we also note he used what common ground he could find (i.e., their own basic belief in [poly]theism, their own claims about the divine from their own poets, etc.), and introduced the resurrection as support for part of his proclamation.
And, as noted above, I’m in deep agreement with @Terry_Sampson 's observation that Paul’s approach even in Athens wasn’t to develop some formal reasoned apologetic formal proof or the like, but he was rather dialoguing with them, beginning with what common ground he could find, moving to the points of dispute (spirit not stone, there is one supreme God over all, resurrection), and at most using elements or aspects of “apologetic” arguments (God gave “assurance” of this to all men by raising him from the dead). But as Terry mentioned, the entire presentation in toto is more of an evangelistic presentation inviting repentance than an apologetic argument inviting assent.
One other note I just thought of - even here in Athens, Paul is disputing with (at least “nominal”) theists… they had the statue to an unknown god, their own poets said we are god’s offspring. So if/when/as we find it appropriate to engage with atheists, I think it is safe to say that we are on our own to develop what unique approaches, what particular “common ground” we might start from, what specific points of dispute are the most important to discuss, since we simply (to my knowledge) don’t have much of a template or example at all in Scripture of that kind of interaction?
ABSOLUTELY. Here we agree of course, with one small qualification (that I alluded to above). Hence, one of my favorite references to explain to people my own “style” of apologetics/evangelism with those who dispute: “Jews seek signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles…”
My only humble qualificaiton here is that the two fields are not necessarily in absolute conflict, or mutually exclusive… though clearly the one must dominate, the other must be absolutely subservient. One can use the other as a means to its own end, but not the reverse.
I’m trying to write a much more detailed explanaton of this very thing that I’ll post at some point (my own proposal for “chapter 6”)… largely based around Kierkegaard’s treatment of Christ’s miracles… Put briefly, I find intellectual/apologetic observations largely analogous with miracles (they both “can” be used as “proofs,” but that should not be their intent)… Kierkegaard observed that 'a miracle demonstrates nothing, for if you don’t believe Christ to be who he says he is, you disbelieve the miracle." (my paraphrase and emphasis) Same for however tight our nice intelectual observations and arguments are.
But more signfiicantly, Jesus’s miracles were done (well, for many reasons, including raw compassion, but in addition…) to undergird the message, not the other way around. He didn’t preach to them so that they would come and get healed and fed, he healed and fed them so that people might be receptive to the message.
Any “apologetics” I use, especially when in a small group or in one-on-one conversations, I (hope) to do similarly… not as a proof or end in itself, but to “draw attention”. again, borrowing from SK, “the miracle can demonstrate nothing, you’ve seen a miracle but it came from what appears only a natural human being. The miracle proves nothing, it [only] draws attention; now you must decide: be offended, or have faith” (again my paraphrase).
So, similarly, if someone thinks that by winning an intelelctual argument, they have on that basis alone won a convert or done something, ahem, “successful” for the Kingdom of God, I would beg to differ. The purpose is to present the gospel. But I would still maintain that properly and careful use of what we have traditionally called certain “apologetic” arguments can and should be used in that larger endeavor, in largely the same manner of miracles - to draw attention to the real question - faith in Christ or offense and rejection of him.
And just two more significant observations as i move forward, then i’ve been far too verbose and i still owe some time to reading Kendal’s thoughts…
Firstly, just to touch on why i take Paul’s engagement in Athens as commendable and worthy of our emulation, as there seems to be significant diversity of thought here. Narratives can indeed be confusion as to whether they are presenting positive/commendable accounts, negative/warning/judgment accounts, simple history of what actually happened without significant commentary, or some mixture or something across the spectrum.
Judges, for instance, gives some horrific things that were done in Israel, especially in the last four chapters or so… but it is made abundantly clear that these are negative examples/warnings given the, “in those days israel had no king, everyone did what was right in their own eyes” refrain.
And granted of course, Luke in Acys records various “errors” on the part of his main protagonists… apostles continued confusion about Jesus establishing the kingdom immediately, Peter’s inclination against being unclean, disputing with the Lord in his dream and thus “learning” that God would include the so-called unclean gentiles, Apollos less than complete messaging, and (obviously) Paul’s preconversion behavior. But all of these errors are generally and pretty obviously shown to be erroneous by the “correction” coming right there in the context. Otherwise, Luke is recording the activities of his protagonists in a very consistently positive light.
Moreover, if we’re suggesting that Paul’s approach in Athens was erroneous, because of the reaction of his hearers, well, there are plenty of other problems we’d have to visit… nearly every synagogue wherein many didn’t repent,… “Jews [in Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so…” So, Paul had more “success” with the Jews in Berea than in Thessolanica. Is this because Paul did something wrong in Thessalonica? maybe he learned a lesson and modified his approach to the Bereans? not to mention, if Berea had been such a success, why don’t we hear any more about the church established there, why is there no letter to them?
But that said, it seems to me that to pass any judgment of “error” on any of Paul’s, or Peter’s, or any other disciple’s ministry as recorded, while i wouldn’t rule it out automatically, still seems extremely problematic, i would be extremely cautious about embracing such an interpretation without very good cause. Do we similarly condemn Stephen’s speech, since it only resulted in enraging his hearers rather than (apparently) bringing about a single convert? the way Luke records this account it sure doesn’t seem so, his face like an angel, him being full of faith and the holy spirit, seeing God’s glory and Jesus standing at the conclusion of his speech, Jesus standing to welcome his servant, and the like. So given the way Luke is pretty exclusively portraying the ministry of his protagonists in such positive light, except when he rather explicitly observes faults on their part requiring pretty explicit correction, i just don’t see much reason to see Luke as having suggested Paul’s approach in Athens as being problematic… especially going into such great detail, extensive quoting of both Paul’s own speech and his pagan references, and affirming some prominent converts by name.
If Luke was trying to cast this in a negative light, i’m just not seeing it.
if he didn’t mean for that to be held up as a positive example. it sure seems to me he wanted to record much of the details of his speech here for posterity, like he did with his speeches to authorities, or stephens speech, or peter’s sermon on pentecost, rather than making a passing reference to an engagement that didn’t go very well.
Secondly, i’m not convinced that even in his letters to churches, that there aren’t elements of apologetic/intellectual lines of reasoning that engage or otherwise use elements of “evidence” or “human” reasoning, when there is some reason to fear that his hearers are not convinced of a basic doctrine… In discussing the resurrection, Paul outlines the historic case for why it is trustworthy, including naming various witnesses. he doesn’t limit himself to telling them or proclaiming the truth, he references historic evidence, and then presents a “counterfactual” observation that is at least somewhat related to modern arguments others have used from morality/justice/consequences (if there’s no resurrection, than eat, drink, be merry, etc.).
Again, these are passing observations that serve his larger gospel purpose, he isn’t making a formal, exclusive, rational/reasoned structured argument, the end purpose being intellectual assent. But i just don’t see a hard wall of separation between the two… Paul proffering apostolic/revelation based gospel as opposed to using reason/ historic evidence. but as noted earlier, i think it obvious which is serving the other, and which is the main purpose.
(it isn’t unlike Peter’s epistle, where he observes his own eyewitness confirmation of Christ as "evidence"that this is true and not a “cleverly invented tale”, but then appeals to the even higher authority of Scripture?)
Much to agree on here. And just to lay some further things to rest that I doubt anybody here would dispute (please correct if not) - I doubt that Luke has any agenda of “critique” of his after conversion protagonists, whether Peter or Paul or anybody else. Yes - he does speak of contentious times (as in Acts 15) and even of struggles and disagreements (as in between Paul and Barnabas regarding Mark). But I’m pretty sure Luke isn’t trying to make anybody look bad or less than ideal beyond his obligatory “historian’s eye” view of just trying to be as complete as he can. So we need not fuss over Luke’s perspective of whether or not Paul was “in his prime” or following the Spirit in any of his discourses or letters whether in Athens or to various churches. Paul was being Paul - and Luke sees Paul being used of God wherever he goes.
Our trying to glean something of an apologetic style endorsement from Luke (or Paul in his letters for that matter) is definitely us “reading between the lines” of these authors and probably going beyond any agenda they would have had in mind. Their agenda was: “Hey! This Christ fellow that we all crucified and then wrote off as gone? … He’s back! And he’s God! So now we’d better reflect on and pay extra special attention to everything about him and his teachings!”
I think we also agree that we are in a different context now - and while the essential message above still remains, the way to spread this good (but no longer shocking or unheard of in much of the world by now) news is different than it was for the early apostles and disciples. Perhaps (contra Penner and possibly Kierkegaard), modernists have their place and bringing human rationality and argumentation to bear into the service of this message was “of God” as it were, and modernism takes its place as just yet another season of apologetics in its due time. Or (if Penner is correct), the enlightenment along with all its ostensibly good stuff, also brought in some humanistically intellectual themes that actually pollute or debase the gospel, robbing it of its most important power even while it poses as a defender of important propositional truths on a new front. It is true that Paul’s world did not face the avalanche of disenchantment skepticism that the enlightenment world faced. Or if it did - Paul just didn’t bother interacting much with those people. (Any record of Paul reaching out specifically to the Sadducees who tended not to believe in all the spiritual stuff?) Both he and even Jesus (aside from answering their question about marriage in the after-life) did not spend much (or any?) powder or shot on the very “unbelievers” of their time who might have most anticipated or been like modern skeptics.
Again - this is all reading “between the lines” to try to fish out what our exemplars might have done if faced with what we now face. That’s a legitimate, if risky endeavor. But it’s what we’re sussing out together here.
One clarification, then i’ll explain my understanding of evangelism vs apologetics…
In the first century, in all of our records of Jesus interactions and of Paul’s and other apostles, unless i’m very much mistaken, 100% of them without exception were interactions with theists, the majority of which adhered to the OT Scripture, making the fact of arguing from scripture entirely unsurprising. (and the one case we have of detailed engagement with strictly Gentile theists, Paul, unsurprisingly, does not argue from Scripture, but rather from insights in the pagans’ own philosophy/poetry). I submit that at least one major reason that we don’t find the apostles of the NT doing anything like arguing through a series of universal truths about the logic of the existence of God is because they were disputing with people that already believed in the existence of God. hence i’m not sure what weight that observation ultimately carries, that we don’t find them arguing for the existence of God to people that already believe in the existence of God.
(By comparison…In all my discussion and deep debate about evolution which i have oft done on these pages… i don’t think i have ever bothered delivering a carefully reasoned defense of the logic of heliocentrism to my disputants here… but that observation by itself would tell you nothing about whether or how i would or would not offer such a defense to an audience where that belief were actually in dispute.)
as for evangelism / apologetics…
Evangelistic I understand to be the entire package, focusing as it should on calling people to “repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand,”… ding with people to be reconciled to God through the death of his son: i would include in this our life, sacrifice, service, kindness, along with the gospel message, etc. i think a great explanation being: “we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Apologetics i understand is that small aspect of the above (or perhaps a separate albeit related practice/discipline?) focused on answering objections, in particular, answering those objections which people raise by which they claim justifies them refusing to consider the gospel message.
no matter how faithful our proclamation of the gospel, no matter how loving our lives, no matter how well we live out the gospel, a neighbor who firmly, entirely, and completely disbelieves in God, or who believes miracles or anything supernatural to be an absolute scientific impossibility, is likely not in a place to hear the gospel… the disbelief in the supernatural is an intellectual obstacle that must be changed if they are to embrace the gospel.
Now, living out a a christian life, showing love, proclaiming the faithful gospel may well incline a neighbor, may make him or her sympathetic or a ready hearer to the gospel, and i’d venture so far as to say the holy spirit may (and has) used this and this alone to work out a change of heart in a hearer… but i submit that so long as they intellectually disbelieve in God, they will not be in a place to take any of the claims of the gospel seriously. and if they do at some point take the gospel seriously (either with or without the aid of our apologetic arguments), i think it beyond dispute that at some point in the process, they made an intellectual change, that their “modernistic”, basic, beliefs (which do or do not correspond with reality) at some point made a shift, and they began to believe that the existence of God and the supernatural do “correspond” with reality, whereas previously they did not so hold these beliefs to correspond with reality.
embracing the gospel is far, far more than intellectual assent to certain propositions. but i maintain that there are indeed certain propositions that one must assent to for conversion to happen.
Apologetics i would understand, then, to be in short the practice of offering answers to those intellectual objections, and/or to the false beliefs that an interlocutor holds, that, unless abandoned, would prevent them from taking the claims of Jesus seriously. so for instance…
I submit that a person cannot/will not take the claims of Jesus seriously if they honestly and sincerely believe the man Jesus to have never existed.
I submit that a person cannot/will not take the claims of Jesus seriously if they disbelieve in the supernatural entirely, and thus believe Jesus to have been absolutely no different in any substantive way whatsoever from any other 1st century palestinian jew.
Now, i also submit that the apologetic endeavor fails from the outset if the practitioner thinks that it is their goal to convince, or prove in some kind of indisputable conclusion, to their hearer of the truth of these propositions. Rather, than a positive case to “prove” God’s existence or whatever other objection, I submit that the apologetic method can help a person see that their own disbelief is not quite so watertight as they think, that there are reasonable reasons a person may in fact hold an alternate view. once the door has been opened even that much, they are at least in a place where they might consider the claims of christ and the rest of the gospel.
here is where i especially am indebted to Kierkegaard… he observed that even Jesus’s direct performance of miracles (what better “proof” or “apologetic” defense of Jesus’s divinity could one ask for, after all) could hardly “prove” anything… if you disbelieve Jesus, you disbelieve the miracle. miracles, at best, can make someone aware that there is a choice to make, that Jesus is making a claim on them, and now they have a choice, whether to believe or be offended. but kierkegaard very rightly (and consistent with scripture, to be sure) observes that even miracles don’t even “prove” Jesus’s claims to doubters… if that is the case, how much less should we think our puny intellectual arguments would do so??
what both miracles and intellectual observations can do, however, is show that the case against Jesus’s divinity is not as obvious, axiomatic, self-evident, watertight, or ironclad as we might like to have supposed. therefore, we are in a place now where we may have to consider his claims.
But there is where i humbly suggest the apologetic endeavor should cease. when people demanded jesus show a miracle “so that we might believe”, he basically blew them off. Jews demand miraculous signs, but we preach Christ crucified. if people demand i “prove” God’s existence, i would likewise demur. besides the fact i don’t think that can be done. again, if jesus’s own miracles couldn’t do the trick…
i try to limit to offering many good intellectual reasons why God’s existence is indeed quite intellectually sound, in hopes that my neighbor might see that disbelief is not the self-evident watertight belief he may think it to be, and then return to the claims and demands of Christ to follow him and repent - as well as hopefully living the life of love that is convincing to the whole person. but whether though the inward work of the holy spirit, ormthrough my intellectual dialogue, or both, or something else, at some point! somehow the intellectual objects must be dealt with, or the person simply cannot embrace the good news about a God that they don’t believe in. this essentially how i understand scripture, as well as how i see kierkegaard’s own take on it, especially his dealings with Jesus’s performing miracles which could only raise awareness… but then the choice was back at the feet of the observer, who then must decide… offense, or faith.
Is there an existing study somewhere that goes through the New Testament completely and identifies each encounter of Jesus and others and, separately, each post-ascension encounter of an apostle with others?
I ask because, although I am fully aware that commentaries on each of the books of the New Testatmenet have been written, to my knowledge there is no comprehensive breakdown of the different kinds of encounters between Jesus and others and the apostles and others.
Like it or not–and I’m not thrilled by it–Penner has a focus. Here, I share Timothy P. Jones’ take on it [from his paper that I linked to above].
“As I read this work from philosopher and pastor Myron Bradley Penner, I was relieved to learn that it’s not the entirety of apologetics that is headed down the same driveway as the dodo and the diplodocus. It is only—in Penner’s words—“the Enlightenment project of attempting to establish a rational foundation for Christian belief” that is drawing its final breaths. Apparently the more appropriate title—The End of Establishing a Rational Foundation for Christianity after the Enlightenment—failed to warm the hearts of the publisher’s marketing team.”
"According to Penner, no rational common ground remains today on which the Christian and the non-Christian can meet. To seek any rational common ground is to grant that ground to secularity. As a result, apologetics that attempts to mount an argument from any shared rational foundation could be, according to this book, “the single biggest threat to genuine Christian faith that we face today.”
“The use of rational arguments is “a kind of violence,” Penner says, that rips a person’s cognitive commitments out of the larger context of his or her life. Christians cannot correct this crisis simply by using rational arguments within the larger context of a relationship with an unbeliever. The arguments themselves are the problem in a postmodern age because the very notion of a common rational foundation is no longer true and because such arguments reduce a person to his or her status of rational belief or unbelief. When an apologist attempts to use a rational argument to convince someone to become a follower of Jesus, the rational form of the apologetic contradicts the relational content of the message. The End of Apologetics sees rational apologetics as an approach which is not embodied in a community, which reduces listeners to their rational commitments, and which unnecessarily separates form and content.”
What apologetics should see as its purpose is, according to Penner’s proposal, to interpret society “back to itself theologically in such a way that both the difference between the way of the world and the Christian way of the cross is made clear.” The result would be a uniquely postmodern witness in which the content becomes indistinguishable from the form. A Christian who witnesses in this way declares to the world, “This is the truth I have encountered that has edified me. Take a look at my life, who I am and see if you think that it’s true. And I believe that if you consider your own life and appropriate this truth, you will find it edifying for you too.” Such a witness requires not only an individual but also a community “in which truthful speech is made evident by the quality and character of their practices and life together.” The church’s living testimony to the way of the cross reveals the deficiencies in the way of the world."
“What I wish to challenge in this context is not the critique of rational apologetics in The End of Apologetics but the post-epistemological solution that the book presents as the most effective form of witness in a secular age. The effectiveness of the dialogical relationship that Penner proposes as an apologetic could certainly constitute one aspect of an effective witness. Yet this approach is presented as the best possible apologetic in a postmodern age, to the exclusion of others. In this, The End of Apologetics seems to have traded one reductionism for another. In the same way that certain expressions of rational apologetics might reduce the human person to his or her rational commitments, the apologetics of edification that Penner proposes would seem to reduce the hearer to his or her relational perceptions and experiences, if this method were practiced exclusively.”
Furthermore, in Penner’s model of apologetics, the evidence that is recognizable and accessible to those outside of Christ in a secular context seems to be limited to the work of the Word in the lives and conversations of Christians. This evidence, while certainly not unimportant, leaves little place for history, reason, defenses of Holy Scripture, or arguments from the order of the cosmos—each one of which has, in different times and ways, characterized the church’s apologetics long before the Enlightenment was ever a gleam in any philosopher’s eye. In an attempt to reject the types of rational apologetics that succeeded the Enlightenment, The End of Apologetics ends up abandoning vast tracts of the Christian tradition that flourished prior to the Enlightenment."
Is there room for “Apologetics”, as an “industry” or an important skill and art?
I certainly hope so, in spite of any “Pennerian” disdain for it. But there is a time and place for it.
One place are the Youtube debates between ready and willing debaters who accept invitations for the specific purpose of debating some issue or another. Many, if not most of the debates, trump a Saturday-night wrestling match, hands down.
Another place for it, IMO, are rare moments when an apostle [Note the small “a”] is invited to address a crowd of non-Christians, like Nabil Qureshi did when invited to address Muslims in a one-to-many gathering.
By and large, those are the only exceptions that I can think of at this moment.