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.
Much of Jones’s summary of Penner’s arguments is (I believe) accurate, but this part is not entirely, and therefore misleading.
[All bolding is mine.]
Apologetics Violence Part One
From page 148:
The first type of apologetic violence is a kind of rhetorical violence
that occurs whenever a witness is indifferent to others as persons and treats them “objectively,” as objects defined by their intellectual positions on Christian doctrine or as representatives of certain social subcategories. This does not rule out vigorous disagreement with (or rigorous critique of) someone’s beliefs or worldview or their reasons for belief; as I stated earlier, a prophetic witness is bound to clash with the world, and it takes a stand against untruth. Rather, I commit this first kind of apologetic violence when I treat those without my faith en masse under a universal category, such as “unbeliever,” so that their individual subjectivity is effectively erased or ignored. As we have seen, this happens in apologetic situations when the primary emphasis is on which propositions or beliefs a person is presently holding and what reasons (or epistemological justification) they have for those beliefs.
Penner is NOT saying that rational arguments are the problem but the way they are employed to reduce an individual to a category based on what beliefs they hold, rather than preserving their personhood.
Likewise, he is pointing to the “tyranny of the majority” in the second danger below. In reference to this section I wrote slide 665, and referenced Richard Twiss.
Apologetic Violence Part Two
From page 157:
This talk of “powers” leads us directly to the second danger for apologetics. Christian apologetics always has the potential to be captivated by the powers of the prevailing culture and to participate in or perpetrate what may be called systemic or ideological violence. This is perhaps an even more insidious form of apologetic violence because it is generally invisible. It permeates our everyday practices and beliefs, and lurks just below the surface. This violence, Kierkegaard warns, happens to individual persons in modern societies where genius is supreme and scientific reason is the highest standard. He calls it “the spirit of leveling.” As we saw earlier, modern society is populated by free, autonomous, rational individuals. And the place where the members of modern society “meet” to exercise their rational autonomy is the so-called public square, which is imagined to be free not only of political and religious powers but also of the violence associated with them. Yet what happens, Kierkegaard notes, is that this public square depends upon a “leveling” in which all differences are suppressed, ignored, and repressed, as individual persons are nihilistically absorbed into “the public.”
While there is much of value in Jones’s later “chapters” in his article, this not the strong point of them.
I think Jones (you are quoting him, right?) missed other components of this witness that Penner talks about.
Jones oversimplifies Penner’s arguments again, doing a no-no (creating a straw man).
I wish Penner had fleshed out more of the positive side of his thinking, because I believe it would help readers understand the subtleties of his arguments better, and see where he’s going. But I’ve already said that.
Jones does have some good suggestions about looking back for effective apologetic methods that I think Penner would/does endorse. I’ll try to get to those. But not now.
I hate debates but would pay good money to watch an exemplary civil discussion between a thoughtful agnostic like Iain McGilchrist and a non-fundamentalist Christian like several people here or Penner or…?
I should clarify that by “apologetics” I mean roughly the Enlightenment project of attempting to establish rational foundations for Christian belief.[17] I use this loose definition to cover a wide range of apologetic discourses that include both the project of defending the reasonableness of Christian orthodoxy and the broader theological project of articulating a rationally intelligible theology in “objective” and “neutral” terms that those outside the Christian community can accept. (pg. 6)
An additional objection/observation, if interesting… for what it’s worth, I’m extremely skeptical of the idea that “attempting to establish rational foundations for Christian belief” was something that began only in the enlightenment. I’d be hard pressed to find a significant difference between the styles and kinds of arguments used by many Patristic apologists and the modern/post-enlightenment methods that Dr. Penner seems to be critiquing… Even Eusebius uses an early form of the “either God or a bad man” apologetic argument that C. S. Lewis popularized…
Quadratus addressed Emperor Hadrian (AD125); fragment remaining mentions Jesus’ resurrection and appearance to many disciples, including some still alive.
Aristides , Apology addressed to Emperor Hadrian (AD125) examines humanity as barbarians, Greeks, Egyptians, Jews, and Christians. Christian lives outshine their opponents’.
Justin Martyr , Apology I (AD 150), addressed to Emperor Antoninus Pius, and Apology II (AD 155-160). Each addresses the civil loyalty of Christians who keep the peace and pray for the emperor. .Christianity is a philosophy that outstrips other philosophies. Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew is an imaginary dialogue between the narrator and a Jew named Trypho over various issues that divide Jews and Christians including the nature of scripture and Jesus.
Tatian : (post-AD 170) publishes a bitter attack on the pagan gods, while praising Christian food and modesty.
Athenagoras of Athens , Embassy for the Christians (ca. last half 2nd century), addressed to both Emperors Lucius Aurelius Commodus and Marcus Aurelius. Athenagoas asks them to show toleration for other religions than the state one, and he denies the charges of atheism often brought against Christians.
Third-Century Apologists
Marcus Minucius Felix , Octavius (ca. end of 2nd century) . Felix creates a dialogue between a pagan, a Christian, and the author in which he answers the charges that Christianity is a secret society, that it undercuts the imperial faith, and that it is morally degenerate.
Tertullian , Apology (ca. AD 197). Tertullian uses Roman juridical insights to defend Christianity against the typical charges of infanticide, promiscuity, and atheism. He attacks the worship of pagan gods as idolatrous and shows that Christian prayers for the emperor are good for the state as a whole.
Clement of Alexandria , Converter, Tutor, & Carpets , his three volume work that defends Christianity as true philosophy, Christ as a new Orpheus, and the faith as the fulfillment of longings in pagan teaching and myth. Christ the Incarnate Word is the answer to pagan wisdom.
Origen , Against Celsus (ca. AD 203-250) is Origen’s reply to Celsus’ AD 187 work, True Doctrine, written against Christianity. Origen defends the scriptures as full of great wisdom, presents Christ as the fulfiller of prophecies, and argues that the Old Testament is older than the Greek writings.
Cyprian of Carthage , On the Vanity of Idols (AD 247) argues that idols are not divine and that there is only one true God.
Fourth-Century Apologists
In the 4th century, with the conversion of Constantine and the eventual state-sponsorship of the faith, Christian apologetics took on a more assured tone–both in the sense that paganism was now waning in its power and force and in that the line of debate had changed. The Christian faith was now accused by the remaining pagans of causing the recent wars, famines, plagues, and general imperial weakening of power.
Arnobius of Sicca , The Case Against the Pagans (AD 297-303) argues against Plato’s doctrine of the eternal soul, insisting that eternal life is not a natural quality but one given by God. He also tries to show that the real concerns of paganism are answered in Christianity.
Lactantius , The Divine Institutes (AD 304-314) dedicated to Emperor Constantine. Lactantius argues from reason that God exists and that ethics are theological in nature.
Eusebius of Caesarea , better known for his ecclesial history, was first an apologist. The Preparation of the Gospel (AD 314) and The Proof of the Gospel (ca. AD 320) a two-part work that addressed well-known pagan objections in a thorough fashion, as well as set forth a systematic understanding of the Old and New Testaments.
Julius Firmicus Maternus , The Error of the Pagan Religions , addressed to the Emperors Constantius and Constans (AD 346-350). This work argues for why pagan idolatry should be legislated against.
John Chrysostom , Demonstration to Jews and Greeks That Christ Is God (ca. AD 381-387). He argued that Jesus had done what a human alone could not do and that this mission was that of Jesus fulfilling the Messianic prophecies.
Prudentius , Contra Symmachum (AD 401-403) a polemical poem against polytheism.
Cyril of Alexandria , For the Holy Religion of the Christians Against the Impious Julian (AD 435-440) seeks to answer Julian the Apostate’s claims but often distorts Julian in the process.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus , The Cure of Pagan Maladies refutes three important objections put forth by Hellenists of the day. he stresses that 1) the Christian faith employs reason as well as faith, not just the later; that 2) an elegant style does not always contain truth; even a simple style can speak great wisdom; and that 3) the relics of the martyrs are used by God to work
Here is a point from Jones’s articles that Terry shared that I think are accurate and of merit.
While Jones says Penner misses this idea, it is very like the “lived hermeneutic” that Penner talks about. Jones simply adds specifics. But they’re good ones and worth pulling out of the article:
For the Christians who articulated this apologetic, the life of the church was not merely a context for the practice of Christian faith but a primary evidence for the truth of Christian faith. To put it another way, their apologetic was, at least in part, an ecclesial apologetic—an argument that contended for the truth that the church confesses on the basis of the life that the church lives.
and
What I intend to show in this research is precisely how the church’s care for the parentless and the poor functioned as an ecclesial apologetic, testifying to the truthfulness and orthodoxy of the church’s confession on the basis of the church’s moral habits. After demonstrating how this premodern apologetic addresses the challenges raised in The End of Apologetics, I will then briefly consider the ways in which an ecclesial apologetic might function today as an encouragement to the church and as a witness to the world. [Jones p. 4]
On page 66 Penner begins a (admittedly circuitous) discussion of a lived hermeneutic, and says this:
Kierkegaard’s favorite response is to point out that being a Christian is far less a matter of knowing the truth than that of becoming the truth-that is, of being truly rather than thinking truly-so that the truth is expressed in a fully integrated life before God. Christianity, then, is much more a way or an invitation to live (walk, grow) in the truth than it is a doctrine or set of beliefs (a position) whose truth we can grasp and cognitively master, as the modern apologetic paradigm seems to imply. [Penner, pg. 66]
I see this as very much the type of apologetic that Jones is getting at regarding early Christians.
And this as well from page 75 of the same chapter:
If we are to follow through with this paradigm shift, we will need different metaphors to guide us as we think about the discourse of Christian faith. The goal, as I noted, is not to possess the truth for one self in a promethean act of self-possession, but to be in the truth-be possessed by it, not to possess it for ourselves. In his book Orthodoxy, Chesterton describes his reason for accepting Christian belief as related not to its truths per se–its ability to say objectively true things about the universe–but to his experience of the Christian faith as “a truth telling thing.” The truth in the surprising and seemingly unreasonable descriptions of reality that come from Christianity (“orthodoxy”) is in the quality of life they elicit. [Penner, pg 75; all bolding mine]
And on page 88 (among others) Penner describes the performative nature of Christian life as apologetic, which Jones must also have missed:
As I already suggested, what our age needs is not a scientific or theoretical answer to intellectual challenges of belief but a personal response to the spiritual problems of people who have been unable to receive and have faith. This response, of course, must be Christian lives shaped by biblical and theological categories, and articulated responsibly with intellectual acumen and philosophical sophistication. But we need to understand the beliefs that shape Christian lives and stories in terms of norms that govern our actions in the actual contexts in which we perform them. Ethics, in other words, is the category of edification, and an ethics of belief has the same concerns as prophetic speech-concrete particularity and personal transformation. (Penner, page 88)
Some of these that you list are much like NT descriptions of lived hermenutics: moral and generous living of the church, and some rely on eye-witness testimonies, which are things that Penner is promoting. Others are not so much an apologetic but a clarification of what Christianity IS in contrast to commonly held misconceptions.
This one sounds like it finds its strength in in the preference of “the crowd”. And that is exactly what Penner is arguing against.
There are others in your list that would fall in the same category.
I am still hoping to discuss, rather than historic and alternative forms of apologetics, how those that Penner promotes might be carried out, what they might look like in the lives of average, non-genius Christians right now.
(It’s late here now, and I still have much other work to do. So, I must go.)
Nice assembly of apologists through early Patristic history there - thanks.
And I believe it highlights another point worth clarifying that I don’t think Penner would disagree with. And that is that while we may, with hyperbole and over-simplification, speak of “the enlightenment” as if it was this neatly packaged thing that cleanly succeeded a “dark ages” period in some given year (or even some given century), real history is actually much more complicated than that. Just as we can find pre-Socratic Greek atomists, we nonetheless don’t speak of the atomic age as beginning until much more recent centuries - and rightly so - which does not imply that nobody had been having any such ideas about atoms way back before.
I don’t think anybody here would argue that Aquinas, for example, wasn’t himself the quintessential apologist in every rationalistic and modernist sense of that word, and yet he precedes (I think) that period we would generally identify as the dawn of modernism. And all the rest of your examples trailing even earlier simply showcase this even more. The fact that there were early precursors to rationalism and formal argumentation (who probably even could be credited with bringing that whole age into fruition when in fact it did come into its own) doesn’t mean that it was common currency with the “man on the street” of those earlier eras. The fact that we don’t find John or Paul or Jesus searching out the ivory towers or the Alexandrias to make their cases there and on those terms, but instead see them more “among the masses” as it were should tell us something. It doesn’t tell us that those ivory towered philosophers were insignificant (much less non-existent). But it does seem to tell us where the active advancing fronts of early church growth were - busy caring for their neighbors, spreading testimony, and often being martyred. Yes, they did look for their leaders to get doctrines worked out, and councils of empire really did happen. But I think one is hard pressed to make the case that Jesus sought / seeks to spread his kingdom by means of horses and chariots, rather than by actual followers getting their hands dirty in the streets attending to the least of these. There are some who do think primarily at the level of empire of course - especially in nations like ours here today; but they must set aside most of what Jesus and Paul taught in order to come out there.
Had my favorite Kierkegaard books at work - now that I can flip through them, a few thoughts that I think may well be relevant to the discussion:
“Just let this truth be said and heard: that ‘sensibleness’, whose opinion is tha the requireemnt must be modeled according to the people, and Christianity, whose position is that people must be remodeled according to the requireemnt, (or that in any case the unconditioned requirement must be unconditionally affirmed)… that these two, sensibleness and Christianity, cannot come to an understanding with each other.”
“Even if not one single person wants to accept it, Christianity remains unchanged; it does not yield a jot or tittle; if everyone were to accept it, not a jot or tittle may be changed.”
“What stands between Christianity and people in these sensible tims is that they have lost the conception of the unconditioned requirement, that they cannot get it into their heads why the requirement is the unconditioned… that the unconditioned has become for them the impractical, a foolishness, a ridiculousness, so that they, mutinously or conceitedly, reverse the relation, seek the fault in the requirement and themselves become the claimants who demand that the requirement be changed.”
“This is why we human beings, sly as always with regard to God and divine truth, have directed all our attention to understanding, to knowing. We make out as if the difficulty were there, and as if it would follow naturally that if we only understand the right it follows automatically that we do it. What a grievous misunderstanding or what a sly fabrication! … Also in our day there is talk about this, that Christianity is not to be expounded artificially, bombasticaly, but simply – and in the exchange of ideas they fight about it, they write books about it, it becomes a branch of scholarship all its own, and perhaps one even makes it into a livelihod and becomes a professor in the subject, omitting or forgetting that the real simplicity, the truly simple exposition of the esentially Christian is - to do it.”
"It is true that some people have doubted the Ascension. yes, but who has doubted? I wnder, have any of those doubted whose lives bore the marks of imitation? I wonder, have any of those doubted who had orsaken all to follow Christ/ I wonder, have any of those who doubted, were they marked by persecution (and when imitation is a given, this follows)? No, not one of them.
“My listener, along which way are you walking in this life? Remember something that I say to myself: It is not true of every narrow way that Christ is that way or that it leads to heaven.”
“If God’s Word for you is merely a doctrine, smething impersonal and objective, then it is no mirror. An objective doctrine cannot be called a mirror; it is just as impossible to look at yourself in an objective doctrine as to look at yourself in a wall.”
“Then when the parable ends and Christ says to the Pharisee, ‘Go and do likewise,’ you shall say to yourself, 'It is I to whom this is addressed–away at once!”
'i thereby also make sure that God’s Word cannot take hld of me because I do not place myself in any personal (subjective) relation to the Word, but on the contrary…change the Word into an impersonal something (the objective, an objective doctrine, etc.), to which I - both earnest and cultured! - relate myself objectively… No, no, no! When you read God’s Word, in everything you red, continually say to yourself: It is I to whom it is speaking, it is I about whom it is speaking—this is earnestness; precisely this is earnestness."
“To be alone with Holy Scripture! I dare not! If I open it–any passage–it traps me at once; it asks me (indeed, it is as if it were God himself who asked me): Have you done what you read there? And then, then–yes, then I am trapped. Then either straightway into action–or immediately a humbling admission.”
“One can defend oneself against God’s Word in a quite different way. Take Holy Scripture, lock your door–but then take ten dictionaries, twenty-five comentaries, then you can read it, just as calmly and coolly as you read newspaper advertising. If, a you sit there reading a passage, you happen, curiously enough, to get the idea: “Have I done this? Do I act according to this?”… then the danger is still not very great. “Look, perhaps there are several variations, and perhaps a new manuscript has just been found… and the prospect of new variations, and perhaps there are five interpreters with one opinion and seven with another and two wth a strange opinion and three who are wavering or have no opinion and I myself am not absolutely sure about the meaning of this passage…” Such a person does not get into the awkward position I am in: either to have to comply with the Word immediately or at least to be obliged to make a humbling confession. No, he is calm and says, ‘There is no problem as far as I am concerne; I certainly intend to comply–as soon as the discrepancies are ironed out and the interpreters agree fairly well.’ Aha! That certainly will not be for a long time yet. The man succeeded, however, in obscuring the fact that the error is in him, that it is he who has no desire to deny flesh and blood and to comply with God’s Word. What a tragic misuse of scholarship, that it is made so easy for people to deceive themselves!”
’ ‘But,’ you perhaps say, ‘there are so many obscure passages in the Bible, whole boks that are practically riddles.’ To that I would answer: 'Before I have anything to do with this objection, it must be made by someone whose life manifests tat he has scrupulously complied with all the passages that are easy to understand; is that the case with you? … God’s Word is given in order that you shall act according to it, not that you shall practice interpreting obscure passages. If you do not read God’s Word in such a way that you consider that the least little bit you do understand instantly binds you to do accordingly, then you are not reading God’s Word."
“There is always a secular mentality that no doubt wants to have the name of being Christian but wants to become Christian as cheaply as possible.”
“Christianity’s requirement is this: your life should express works as strenuously as possible; then one thng more is required–that you humble yourself and cnfess: But my being saved is nevertheless grace.”
“Christianity does indeed proclaim itself to be comfort, cure, and healing–that being so, people turn to it as they turn to a friend in need, thank it as they thank a helper, because by the help of it or by its help they believe they will be able to bear the suffering under which they sigh. And then–then the very opposite happens. they go to the Word to seek help-and then come to suffer on account of the word… Tribulation and persecution come upon one because he has turned to Christianity for help…So also with Christianity. Now the issue is, will you b ofended or will you believe. If you will believe, then you push through the possibility of offense and accept Chrstianty on any terms. So it goes; then forget the understanding; then you say: Whether it is a help or a torment, I want only one thing: I want to belong to Christ, I want to be a Christian.”
“Jesus Christ, the founder and perfecter of faith, who, pointing to the demonstrations [miracles], that certainly must have had the greatest effect at the time they occured, nevertheless adds, ‘Blessed is he who is not offended at me.’–that is, he refers to the demonstrations [miracles] in such a way that he denies that they are the way to him.”
“There [in Christendom] those enormous folios have been written that develop the demonstrations of the truth of Christianity. Behind these, the demonstrations and folios, we feel perfectly convinced ourselves and secure against all atack, because every demonstration and every folio end with"ergo, Christ was the one he claimed to be.” By means of the demonstrations it is just as certain as 2+2=4 and as easy as putting one’s foot in a sock. With this irrefutable ‘ergo’, which directly clarifies the matter, the assistant professor and preach bid defiance, and the missionary cnfidently goes forth to convert the heathen with the aid of this ‘ergo.’ But not Christ! He does not say, ‘Ergo, I am the expected one.’ He says, after having referred to the demnstrations, : “Blessed is he who is not offended at me.” That is, he himself makes it clear that in relation to him there can be no question of any demonstrating, that we do not come to him by means of demonstrations, that there is no direct transition to become Christian, that demonstrations can at best serve to make a person aware, so that made aware he can now come to the point: whether he will believe or he will be offended… Only in the choice is the heart disclosed (and this indeed, was why Chrit came into the world – to disclose the thoughs of te heart)… See, a theological professor who, with the help of everything that had been written earlir about it, has written a new bok on the demonstrations of the truth of Christianity, would feel insluted if someone would not admit that it was now demonstrated. Christ himself, however, says no more than that the demonstrations are able to lead somene–not to faith, far from it (for then it would be superfluous to add: 'blessed is he who is not offended), but to the point where faith can come into existence, are able to help someone to become aware and to that extent help him to come into the dialectical tension from which faith breaks forth. Will you believe or will you be offended?"
“This individual human being is making hiself more than human, is making himself something close to God: is this not offensive? You see something inexplicable, miraculous (but no more); he himself says that it is a miracle–and you see before your eyes an individual human being. The miracle can demonstrate nothing, for if you do not believe him to be who he says he is, then you deny the miracle. The miracle can make aware–now you are in the tension, and it depends upon wht you choose, offense or faith; it is your heart that must be disclosed.”
“The God-man is not the union of God and man–such terminology is a profound optical illusion. The God-man is the unity of God and an individual human being.” That the human race is or is supposed to be in kinship with God is ancient paganism; but that an individual human being is God is Christianity, and this particular human being is the God-man."