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

Not unlike Jesus’ – forward looking, future oriented.

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Hebrews 12:2

 
His motivation had nothing to do with “finding an authentic understanding of himself” or “getting a sense of wholeness to his life” – he already had those, it had to do with correctly perceiving the whole of reality and pursuing future grace, pleasing his Father and knowing the present and future realities, the now and not yet fullest joys of true family.

…doing everything I can to save some.
1 Corinthians 9:22

However, I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me – the task of testifying to the good news of God’s grace.
Acts 20:24
 

1 Like

Running behind and just finished chapter 2. One of the things that stood out was Penner’s statement:” To be sure, there is subterfuge, agents are deployed, battles are fought with real casualties, but it is not clear where the real threat is coming from. The apologetics industry can only exist in conditions of permanent threat and therefore has a vested interest in maintaining a permanent state of emergency.”

Certainly that is evident in American evangelical circles, where stories of persecution are common which on examination are trivial if anything, fake news reports of attacks on Christianity are common, and so forth. Apologetics seminars and talks are promoted with scare tactics, and conflict is promoted. Of course, we see it here in attacks from AIG and the Discovery Institute, as they promote their apologetic, and have to be on guard as it is tempting to respond with like methods.

3 Likes

Well I googled your question and this came up but it didn’t seem helpful and seems to require insider knowledge of the very question you are asking.

My own use of the words is likely idiosyncratic but I find it useful obviously. For me rationality is entirely neutral, objective, universal and even disembodied as well as extremely useful in the sciences. Reason for me is the attempt to be as neutral and objective as one fairly can be from an admittedly embodied perspective where universality can never be assumed.

1 Like

Before the clock runs out on chapter two I wonder what people thought of this passage from page 73:

The lesson I take from
Kierkegaard’s careful account of the difference between a genius and
an apostle is that when the modern epistemological paradigm treats
human reason as the source and ground for truth—as a replacement
for a premodern reliance on God and other sources of belief outside
oneself—then our most important values, such as God, truth, meaning,
and even reason itself, are undermined. Genius cannot authorize much
of anything, at the end of the day. Christianity has nothing to fear from
genius and the “tough questions” of faith, simply because faith is not
a matter of settling all the issues first, or rationally justifying all our
beliefs before we accept them.

Even from my godless perspective it seems to me phenomenologically obvious that there is in each of us a fount of insight and inspiration which is more productive than our greatest deliberative efforts for understanding social settings and our selves. This is what I refer to as being what supports God belief. If I had the theist inclination I’d call it what grounds God belief.

Whatever it’s source may be, I agree with Penner that no rational considerations are prior and therefore there is no logical basis for concluding that no non-rational experience can stand against rational conclusions. Is there any reason at all to suppose that rationality should inform what we take ourselves to be or what should matter to us most?

1 Like

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.

1 Like

Why would anyone intending to be taken seriously and honestly presume a priori that the supernatural can not exist. Screwtape would be proud should that occur.

1 Like

It depends on how one views the rational possibility of solipsism and the morality that follows that determination.

And it was here that Penner expressed heartfelt agreement with the approach I am taking with respect to classical apologetics.

Hold on! you put words in my message. What “apologetics” from Paul are you referring to?

I put my words in editorialized square brackets so as not to confuse, but it must not have worked. ; - )

Plantinga has a book that argued belief in God is like belief in other minds.

Screwtape would have revered the work of that hero who fooled Adam into believing he could be like God and not have to suffer being alone.

1 Like

(Except that God did not have to suffer being alone – he was/is joyous in his Trinitarian self and wants to share his joy.)

1 Like

The greatest most precious truth there is, and one that still may yet awaken this generation.

1 Like

Great explanation of what you did. Now where’s the answer to my question?

1 Like

@Dale and @heymike3, you both provide interesting (and perhaps problematic, in terms of this thread’s content) case-studies in apologetics. This thread is about apologetics, and what sorts of things do or don’t, should or shouldn’t happen in the process of contemporary apologetics practices. And you are both here on this thread, in apologetics mode! Yes - I realize that a good number of us here are believers - and live within that Great Commission - we don’t get to just “step outside” of it, even if we could. And the case can be made that we can’t. All that said, we can discuss apologetics practices and implications - not all of which are good, and in fact some are quite harmful, and perhaps legion is the fallout from what may well be centuries of apologetic abuse (to hear Penner tell it).

So I guess what I’m saying is - if you were taking a ‘religions-of-the-world’ course where the purpose of the meetings were to analyze or at least get acquainted with various religions, you probably wouldn’t appreciate a classmate in the course always actively trying to convert you to XYZ (something not your current faith tradition). It would be inappropriate in that context for them to be actively recruiting you into something that you merely were curious and wanted to learn about. Yes, we are a Christian web site, and you can feel free to start other threads if there are aspects of faith/belief/science where you want to push what you feel is a particular Christian perspective. But in this thread, we are trying (as best we can) to step outside of the actual practice of apologetics, in order to get a better look at it, and to figure out if and when it may have gone off the rails. And Penner has some pretty discussable ideas about that. If you think traditional apologetic methods are fine and necessary - then feel free to declare that you differ with Penner, and carry on as you may wish in other threads. But we who are fascinated with Penner and want to explore what he puts forward - we want to protect this space for those conversations about apologetics. Not conversations that are apologetics. (Which may be a challenging distinction to make, I know. But I think we can make a go of it.)

1 Like

Rat cheer: pretty much any and all of what Paul said, did and wrote or has been traditionally been accepted so.

So you think his speech to the Athenians was apologetics?

Why not? (And I love his reference to God’s providence in it. ; - )

Ehhh… comments with Screwtape should probably be avoided. Thanks for the considerate redirection.

2 Likes

A guy has a sign on his front lawn that says "God was here, and I tell him, “Hey, let me tell you about that God.”

You call that apologetics? Who’s attacking or questioning God or the Gospel? What’s Paul “defending” from attack or criticism? Do you know where the “in whom we live, move, and have our being” and “We are the children of that God” came from?

1 Like

I guess my take on the word is somewhat more expansive than yours? He was arguing for the existence of the one true God as opposed to and defending against the implicit argument of the Greeks, and for the reality of resurrection.