Might there be a difference to be made between “one man” - the special case Penner chose to highlight, and the “culture of apologetics at large” which may embody more of the sins of which Penner speaks? You have a point that if he tries to make Craig his “poster child” for what’s wrong, then one might presume Craig checks all the boxes. But I think we (and maybe even Penner himself) did concede that Craig does not necessarily check all Penner’s boxes. But that doesn’t mean that the apologetics culture at large (including Craig of course) doesn’t run afoul of these things, different people at different points.
Yes - but here I think you walk right into the very thing Penner speaks of - helping make his case for him. That apologetics can even be seen as a contest between a party who is right and the other party who is wrong simply just makes an adversarial mess about the whole thing - and in exactly the way Penner describes.
If I’m not mistaken, that the Redcoats were lawless bullies was a factor, and not merely taxation. (I think that may help explain how so many clergy could support the American Revolution.)
What I said has to do with the previous issue we were discussing. You seem to think Penner makes allowance for the testimony of the Spirit, and I don’t see it at all. That this forms such a significant part of Craig’s epistemology is jarring that Penner continues to write as if Craig never said it.
You mean "Other than my rejection of what I think Penner’s second claim says and does, where he states on Page 76:
‘… defending actual Christianity is, in a sense, impossible in modernity’?
No, no other thoughts at this time.
I reject his claim
Either because it seems to say, IMO, that a defense of Christianity is completely unnecessary today and calls for complete disarmament because there are no “enemies” of the Gospel,
Or because it glosses over and ignores the fact that there are bona fide enemies who are actively pursuing a replacement of the Gospel with some other worldview.
Either I don’t understand his “second claim” or I don’t agree with it, because, IMO, there are enemies.
And if, as I believe, there are enemies, I think some kind of defense is appropriate.
Based on your reasons for rejecting Penner’s claim, I believe you have misunderstood what his second claim on pg 76 is getting at. To understand this claim as Penner intends, it is essential to remember the terms, under which he claims that defending actual Christianity is impossible. That is: in modernity (or under the terms of modernity).
Why is it impossible in modernity?
The terms of mdernity require that Christianity be reframed into a collection of propositions that requre assent, rather than a lived out faith that happens in a community.
In order to defend Christianity under the terms of modernity, actual Christianity must become something different from itself.
Regarding your reasoning:
Penner is not claiming that some apologetic of Christianity is unnecessary, but that it cannot be achieved on the terms established by modernity.
Penner is also not claiming that there are no enemies who are pursuing a replacement of the Gospel . He has actually widened the group of “enemies” to include those apologists who unintentionally alter the content of actual Christianity by reframing it into something arguable on the terms of modernity.
Whether you agree with Penner’s assessment of the modern apologetics paradigm or not is a different matter.
It is possible to make a presuppositional argument and still not divorce it from life. Terry disagrees with my use of the the term apologetics in associating it with Paul’s life and proclamations, but we agree that logical defenses can be made. Labeling it ‘modernity’ is just semantics. Paul wasn’t a modern, was he?
We tear down arguments and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God… 2 Corinthians 10:5
That doesn’t happen with rhetorical gentleness. Why isn’t it legitimate to be offended by the remarks of the self-satisfied about a slumbering creator God and counter them with reality. God wasn’t slumbering in the lives of Maggie, Rich Stearns, George Müller, @Terry_Sampson or myself, to mention a very few.
ETA: That also says God is knowable, a fact that does not seem to be universally accepted by Christians here.
Logical defenses are not specific to modernity. Penner is not merely making employing semantics, but making important points about the differences between premodernity and modernity, which affect the basis of thought behind the logical arguments.
Whatever defense Paul gave of the Gospel, and whether one calls it apologetics or not, Paul defended the Gospel on different terms than modern apologists do. And while he used logic, the basic understanding of the world was different. Perhaps the most important difference is that there was a nearly universal foundational understanding that God or god/s existed and were active in some way in the universe. Paul never had to start his defense with establishing the very posibility of the existance of God.
Additionally, religions of all sorts were not viewed as something based in propositions. The propositions described the lived out, practiced religions. Or they were directly revealed from God. Penner argues that modern apologetics must actually change Christianity, a faith and practice that contains propositions given by God, to make it “apologable” in modernistic terms, which reduce Christianity to statements to assent to and believe logically.
Any disagreement with Penner’s conclusions will need to address the bases on which he builds his arguments.
Regarding “gentleness” or “violence”, I’ve noticed the word pop up now and again in the thread. Assuming my crtrl+f of the book worked well, Penner uses it, I think twice, in the book and later than chapter 3.
There seems to be a claim that Penner is committing rhetorical violence by disagreeing strongly with Craig and demonstrating step by step the problems that Craig’s apologetic paradigm has. This is not rhetorical violence, a fine explanation of which can be found here:
As far as the rest of your reply to me, Dale, much of it seems to be referencing something in maybe coded terms or “insider language.” I’m not grasping the references.
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
618
Verrrrrry clever You’re doing fine in mowing the hydra heads with Penner.
Well I’ve been detained from finishing the chapter in a timely manner. I find myself rereading passages probably because I put it down and come back to it too much later. So this should probably be my last post in the thread until I get there.
That last post of yours @Kendal really shows a clarity and command of his overall message that I’m not getting. Maybe I lack a sufficient armature on which to hang it? But I find myself mostly in agreement with the chunks that do stick. Later, I’ve got homework to do.
Any glimmer of clarity has come with a lot of work. I haven’t been kidding, when I talk about reading sections three or more times. I am not looking forward to the section in 3 on irony again. Dillon mentioned opacity. That section is the poster child.
I feel elated to be able to formulate, without handling the book or my notes, the raw basics of Penner’s argument in colloquial American English. That another human has understood what I wrote makes me nearly rapturous.
I feel I have maybe moved up one rung from the base of Bloom’s triangle.
I am rarely clever. And some forms of cleverness constitute a breach of trust I want no part of.
Hope to see you in chapter 3. If you haven’t read it yet, you’ll love the section on irony. I have a personal interest in getting as many serious readers involved with that particular section, so I can ask for help.
So, I may be as clever as an American high school freshman (9th grader, aprox. 14 years old.) asking my smarter classmates for help on the homework.
@Klax, Any cleverness related to the “this” (PSD, v2, 8/8/22 3:17 a.m. EST) is related to hearing respected, valued and challenging perspectives I need to think through and deal with personally. Not a cheap shot attempt to idiotically “draw a formidible opponent into the ring.”
I had my first reading of Chapter 3 yesterday, and enjoyed the ideas on irony, and how it is used to draw us into a space for thought. Looking forward to the discussion.
Around here I have never encountered a positive use of the phrase “ad hominem” … until now. On p. 85 Penner caught me by surprise by observing that the prophetic task is “most often markedly ad hominem.” Which of course perked my ears up as an unexpected claim from Penner. Until I realized that he means it in its positive sense! “To the man” - its literal meaning - has somehow become an always negative fallacy to be derided for - and to deride others for. Is that more modernist mischief, then? Because Penner uses it to say that the prophetic message is rarely (or never?) some universally abstract declaration of truth for all time and everyone. It is always to a specific person or people it is personalized - to the man - ‘ad hominem’, and that’s a good thing - as it ought to be, given that it is coming from God! It may be scathing or dire words, but if so, they are given because of love for a people and ultimately to edify them by getting them to leave their evil ways.
One other general observation that occured to me (not anchored to any particular chapter I suppose) is this: Paul’s warning that the we fight ‘not with weapons of flesh and blood’ (Ephesians 6), which I have always presumed to be saying that it isn’t swords - or in today’s terms ‘guns, tanks, and bombs’ that the Christian uses, because the fight is not against flesh and blood; but now I’m thinking that my definition of ‘weapons’ might have been too narrow. It’s been said that “the pen is mightier than the sword”, and now with Penner’s perspective in my head, it is seeming increasingly obvious to me that the pen also can be “a weapon of this world”. When it is used to attack in ways that fail to edify or that objectifies people, then I think it too qualifies as one of the weapons against which Paul warns us. Modernism could be one of those things that has appropriated the pen - turning it into a weapon of the mind - which I think qualifies as “flesh and blood”. This understanding dovetails well with Paul’s pleading with the Corinthians that he does not come with clever and persuasive arguments (which would be his own), but instead lets the power of God do all the heavy lifting. And this is seen not in coercive logic, but in the foolishness of the cross.
Upon reflection (and you or someone else mentioned this earlier, Kendel) I feel like I need to explain why I think Penner produces good criticisms of apologetics while at the same time bad criticisms of modernism generally.
First, while I appreciate the willingness of WLC and contemporary apologetics to attempt to conform to the requirements of reason, I think their project has failed. I’m simply not convinced by WLC’s best arguments. And the whole affair comes out being a charade:
p. 78
“Jokingly, they related how the apologist described himself as “the hired gun” who rode into town to shoot down the bad guys (atheists) and their arguments and make the streets safe again for Christians.”
I realize (like Penner) that the wild west imagery is meant to be tongue in cheek, but at the same time, aren’t apologists doing something of a John Wayne impression? To me, a genuine apologetic must be a self apologetic… and embrace the subjective realm, as Kierkegaard does. That’s why I think the postmodern approach fits as a criticism of apologetics.
As for my defense of modernism… I’ve said about half my arguments on the matter already. Philosophy has taken painstaking efforts to clarify things in both the premodern and modern eras. Plato worked hard to refute relativism, in addition to countless other thinkers. Relativism is a very old idea… not a modern innovation. My critique of relativism is lengthy, and doesn’t belong in this particular thread, but the fact is: I have one. And because Penner sort of assumes relativism from the outset, I have problems with him in that regard.
That’s not to say that Penner’s critique is incorrect. Much of what he says I agree with. It’s just that, to me, he makes some hasty generalizations.
Take for example: “The context in which we accept beliefs (or have faith) are varied, personal, and rarely fall under our direct, conscious, rational control.” (page 78-79). There is a ton of truth to this statement. But thinkers since Plato have known this. That’s why they started with items that DO fall under our rational control and worked carefully and meticulously outward from there.
Anyway, I’m not finished with chapter 3, so I’m going to catch up before I say any more. But hopefully I’ve explained myself as far as the apparent “double standard” I have in liking Penner’s criticism of apologetics while taking issue with his criticism of modernist philosophy.
I learned this way of understanding Christianity from Leo Tolstoy and (to a lesser extent) my Quaker friends. To me, if the “wisdom content” of the synoptic Gospels were all there were to Christianity (ie. the moral and spiritual teachings), I might consider myself a Christian. But I have great trouble accepting the miracles, prophecies, genealogies, and other stuff that are featured in the Gospels and throughout the Bible.
I don’t just think that Jesus’ teachings are “nice and all.” I find many of them to be incredibly powerful and incredibly true. I’d be interested in a project that wanted to “rescue” those powerful teachings and powerful truths from a dreary and problematic “historical” interpretation of the Gospels. That’s why the hermeneutic approach appeals to me.
I just finished my 3rd read of the first few sections of the chapter and am standing outside the Gate of Irony, taking a break. I’d forgotten how much encouragement I had found before in the first part of this chapter.
A few things I can’t resist mentioning now, that I will be chewing on this week:
P. 83 “But witness is inherently social. It involves listening to others, as well as speaking, and it involves being with others. It requires what Miroslav Volf calls a “catholic personality,” whose identity is always with others precisely because it is shaped by the gospel and engaged in the transformation of the world.”
This concept of “catholic personality” is something I’ve learned a little being involved with suffering (primarily others’). The value of being and listening are hardly comprehended in our culture, where we are so driven to fix things (correct, give advice, admonish), when only being there and listening, viewed as utterly passive (and therefore useless) activities, are appropriate. To be sure, there is a place for words, and mine are often out of place. Words are far more powerful when well-suited for the context and need of the person. The greatest wisdom I learned from Job was keeping my mouth shut, when it’s time to sit and listen. Practicing that gracefully will be a lifelong pursuit.
I really enjoyed the overall discussion of Ethics of Belief as well, and there is much there that I look forward to reviewing and discussing with ye.
Right now, and in relation to the catholic personality I want to point out the idea of Rational Credit, this life posture that says
“I belong to you” and I am at your disposal. To believe someone, then, is “to give, or better yet, open a credit account to someone,” so that belief changes how I am in the world and even who I am. And the credit I extend to someone is … myself. (pg. 89 bottom)
And a bit further
My beliefs, then, are connected not to an abstract, theoretical position I occupy cognitively but to who I am, how I comport myself in the world, and, even more, how I relate to other persons.
If Christianity is a way-of life, of being in the truth in this world – with practices that give shape to its beliefs and beliefs that give expression to its practices, it should come as no surprise that we cannot begin abstractly and objectively and still hope to capture the essence of Christianity. Christianity must be incarnated [emphasis mine]. … A rational and objective apologetic cannot show or demonstrate these subjective realities of Christian faith. What is needed in our witness, if those we engage are to be edified, is a poetics that performs the essentially Christian in which there is no gap between the form of witness and its content. (pg. 90)
This idea that “Christianity must be incarnated” is not so much foreign to me, but normally eclipsed by, or rejected in favor of, an emphasis on right belief in the church culture I know. Or the parts we don’t want to do are amputated. “We” (my tribe) worry too much about giving too much on someone else’s terms, “when helping hurts”. Or treating people humanly, who are or see the world vastly differently than “we” do.
This all relates to questions that have been becoming central to my thinking for a long time.
I also had that reaction. It does seem it is more often used in relation to making things personal or attacking an argument by criticizing the person who brings it.
Well I finally girded my loins and pushed through to the end of chapter three. What I’m realizing is that as much as I like the points he makes, I have no theology or apologetics practice to sharpen or to examine in light of what he says. Nonetheless there are points that I think stand on their own with or without a religious perspective. I especially resonated with this part from page 95.
Lewis is enough of an ironist to understand that we cannot equate our speech about God with the being of God. Instead, we appropriate the words and creeds we receive as true because they capture us, mold and shape us, and make us true. They prove in our lives to be a “truth-telling thing,” to borrow Chesterton’s idiom again. This Is connected to the life of faith as a kind of *second immediacy" or another naiveté,” for in the negative space of irony we create room (again) for the possibility of faith. In this context there is no ground for seeing faith as abstract or theoretical. To have faith is to express it in one’s life—the essence of Christianity. It is, in other words, to be Christian.
So what is true for faith is true for what I think is worthwhile in life generally. It isn’t a problem to be solved but an experience to refreshed often and affirmed. It is just about feeling, reflecting, contemplating … in short letting the world around us and social contexts be present for us. For some that might be a meditative practice but I lean toward nature, arts and literature to put me in touch beyond the level of conceptual sorting.
These practices require some faith that patience and receptivity will be warded with insight and inspiration pulling us back into the wonder of the world and life. I think In that passage Penner is saying that to have religious faith too requires continually setting aside past formulations regarding the source of revelation in order to attend again to whatever may be presented for you to know in the current context. It isn’t enough to be a curator of what had been given to be known in past contexts, faith requires an openness to what is presented now. In speaking what that may be you do not seek to manufacture anything of your own design but hopefully are passing on that which is given from the source itself. Objectivity in regard to past contents easily becomes idolatry and an impediment to immediacy. Leastwise that is what comes to mind reading those words.
Dillon,
Thank you for explaining a bit about what you see as Penner’s hasty generalizations. To be clear, I don’t believe you are applying a double standard. There is a lot to address in this book. Your critique is an example of why I hoped to have other readers, particularly those with backgrounds in philosophy, with whom to discuss this book. It seems my best option for “keeping Penner honest.” So, thank you very much for reading this book with us and taking the time to respond thoughtfully. This is a real time commitment.
I’ve read and heard enough (deliberate or not) misrepresentations of views to know that authors, even the ones I want very much to trust, can be inaccurate or untrustworthy. Doug Groothuis’s book Truth Decay is a good example; Penner references it. I read it probably 20 years ago, looking for answers to unsettling PoMo questions I left graduate school with. He said a lot of things I liked to hear, but was critiquing something different from the actual claims made by the postmodern writers I had been dealing with, and the literature I was reading with the theory. Penner’s critique of Groothuis is, I believe, accurate. We need this kind of accountability.
Thanks for talking a bit about the appeal of the hermeneutic approach. I think many/most people agree with your assessment. Of course, as a Christian living in my current context, I look at it differently; a lived out hermeneutic is something my branch of the church has neglected and even distrusted to our detriment. As things sit today, I don’t see the concept being widely accepted anytime soon among theologically conservative evangelicals as church interests and political power become more (or maybe simply more overtly) tightly and toxically intertwined.
Thanks for your generosity with your time and input.
You’re doing fine in mowing the hydra heads with Penner.