In areas other than apologetics debates we see Penner’s waxing and waning of geniuses: Einstein’s work (or so I’ve heard) has now been corrected and surpassed by the very crowd that learned from him. C.S. Lewis, dear in so many ways, wrote Mere Christianity at a time when there was wide cultural acceptance of his underlying assumptions. The last time I read it, my mind was nearly overwhelmed with reasons why his conscience-based arguments simply don’t work (any more). We have learned a lot, for example, about the malleability of our consciences, and that they are not a such ground for widely-agreed on morality. And all of their work will continue to be surpassed or made obsolete by future geniuses, whose work is vested with authority by the crowds to whom it appeals.
In the arts and sciences this progression is natural and expected, although jarring when we first recognize it. But in the type of apologetics we are used to now, the promise is rock-bottom rational proof of God and then of Jesus and then of Christianity. Penner argues that this is impossible, because the arguments on which the “proof” is based are based in current cultural assumptions that have been changing and will continue to change. So, what is now viewed as a reliable response to “the New Atheists”, will become obsolete as what speaks to the Crowd changes. Penner’s point is that if the basis on which the reasoning is built keeps changing, then there is no actual ground for the reasoning, no ground that can be permanently relied on for the basis of christian faith. The deeply disturbing thing Penner concludes from this is, if the ground is gone, the faith presented through careful reasoning has no foundation. While there may be belief, the belief itself is groundless, empty. It is nihilistic.
Obviously, as a Christian, who finds this and other similar postmodern arguments all too convincing, I’m holding on for something more hopeful. I think he indicates it to some degree here: (p. 57-58):
…[C]hristian thought has already given up far too much by merely acknowledging and responding to the modern challenges to Christian belief, as if these objections had some sort of claim on the legitimacy of faith.
This is a subtle point that we often miss in all sorts of rhetorical situations. Not everything can be answered or argued on the same grounds. Is it legitimate to recognize that not every question can be answered in the way the questioner demands? I think so. We do this all the time, even in discussions here in the Forum. Often people clarify the grounds of a discussion or the terms/definitions or (when options are given) our willingness to work within the constraints given by the O.P.er. Looking at Penner’s book as an additional example, it is legitimate for the reader to “provisionally believe” his premises for the sake of understanding his arguments, but also to demonstrate the wrongness of the premises in the end. (That’s why I wanted people around with at least some knowledge of Kierkegaard.)
I also find Penner’s concept of the Apostle both familiar and strange. My mind keeps wandering to my concept of Prophet, although apostles speak prophetically. Again, I choose to believe Penner provisionally here. Right now I have more questions about apostles and the kind of apostolic speech they generate, than Penner could answer in this chapter. I face chapter 3 (or another) with this partial list of questions, which are obviously largely informed by hideous abuses we’ve seen in churches today and an innate distrust of those who claim authority with absolutely no investiture:
- Is this new apostolic speech?
- How does the church identify a legitimate apostle today?
- How does the church identify legitimate apostolic speech?
- How does the church evaluate the validity of apostolic speech?
- How does the church handle a false apostle/prophet?
A less-paranoid question:
- Is this apostolic speech within a hermeneutical paradigm at risk of being completely self-referential/circular/meta-narrative upon meta-narrative (I think those are the concepts I want to reference here.)?
Obviously, I find Penner’s proposal here potentially very dangerous. I look forward to a fuller discussion from him on the topic.
The term Nihilistic Performance (p. 66) provides a powerful foil for Penne’s discussion of hermeneutics and has been helpful for me, as I try to keep in mind the differences between hermeneutics as the interpretation of (specifically) biblical texts and hermeneutics (if I understand him correctly) as something lived, communal, open to discussion, grounded in everyday practices, yet the examiner of those practices, insists on intelligibility and meaning and acknowleding the limitations of human reason. This sounds dangerous, compared to what I am used to, particularly, as one coming from the currently dominant form of Christianity in the world. It feels far more comfortable to say “I’m part of the group that has it right.” “Feel free to ask us for the right understanding of Jesus/the Bible/theology.” Involving “others” from the wider church feels risky. Not knowing what the source of Penner’s apostolic speech is or who is involved in this open discussion within the church of this apolostolic speech feels like riding a trapease with no net. For now, at least.
However, his description of Christian faith within this paradigm is something we really, really need:
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.
No matter what one’s view of contemporary apologetics is, we Christians need to take Penner’s hermeneutical approach seriously and do it. We need to seek, not only to understand, but to be rightly. If a lived life is an aspect of apologetics, then being rightly is essential. And I think it is. The world is watching the church in the west sometimes with horror, sometimes with satisfaction, sometimes with utter indifference. Why wouldn’t they? The Church needs an apologetic that is meaningful outside of our walls, which can be perceived outside our walls, and at least in part be understood for what it should be.