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

Mervin_Bitikofer · August 26, 2022, 11:57am

Thanks for those references, Kendel. I look forward to pursuing something there later.

Meanwhile I also want to continue processing something from Penner’s chapter 5 (and indeed his whole book) - and here would be my largest resistence yet to anything of his I’ve heard, most of which has seemed very Christ-centered, and therefore more biblicly aligned than anything his detractors can muster. And yet on this point, I find myself sympathetic with the detractors. And that is on the subjectivity/objectivity split.

Our world of modernism worships objectivity and demotes subjectivity as the inferior of the two, without a doubt. That science is a large part of that (or even the consequential outgrowth of that) is surely a large driving factor here. And I think Penner is right to turn that on its head - or he ‘almost’ turns it on its head. To be more accurate and fair to Penner - I don’t think he is trying to demote objectivity as an inferior thing - in a sort of tit-for-tat reversal. I think he is merely rescuing subjectivity from its demeaned and beggarly status outside the city gates. And to do so he does poke quite a bit at so-called ‘objectivity’ that he sees as a culprit for this arrangement. So here is what I hear Penner claiming - especially in chapter 5.

Our pretense to ‘objectivity’ causes us to objectify our targets of witness - to rob them of their individual identity and assign them a faceless position as “the unbeliever”, or a mere potential recipient of our load of propositional truths. Whereas with real Christian witness, we should be very “subject-centered”, I hear Penner claiming, that is, we are not talking with “an unbeliever” - we are talking to an individual person with dreams and miseries, with relationships and labors, and there will be no witness without real engagement with that person and their particular life. And even here we still haven’t fully escaped the danger of merely heightening the apologist’s game - “okay - so now I’ve got to pretend to be interested in the petty details of their life so that I can ‘win the right’ to engage in my real mission: to get them to believe in the same essential truths that I do.” And I agree with Penner even here yet with this criticism too. But here is where I think his hither-to well-warranted warnings might come up against a necessary caution.

Where should the focus of the devotional life be? On the self? or on Christ? Of course that isn’t really a question, but a rhetorical statement - the very way it’s asked shows an insistence toward the latter answer. But I’ve heard many an apostolic or prophetic voice insist that it is a good - no, - essential - task to raise our sight beyond ourselves to something transcending ourselves. If my only or even primary focus of concern is on the self, we’ve seen that this does not end well; at any level. We are taught by the masters to “find our true identity” in Christ - that is, to look to something larger than ourselves and not collapse down into our own little (inevitably hellish) nightmare of self-deification. Isn’t this antithetical to Penner’s thesis of “centering our witness on the subject” - making it about them? Perhaps I do Penner an injustice here and misunderstand him, but how should that be understood then?

I was reading a “generic” little devotional guide this morning, with all its “true enough” and “encouraging enough” thoughts backed up and polished by an appropriate and appealing scriptural reference. And with Penner’s criticism fresh on my mind, I found my reaction to the reading to now have a cynical taint: "okay - I am a faceless reader unknown to the author of these words. They may all be nice and propositionally true enough, maybe needed enough, but there is no relationship here. No relational knowledge between the speaker of those words and the receiver. So is it truth that I should own for myself? Well - yes! I should hope anyway, because this all would devolve into an attempt to encourage me to make the world about me, the subject. Maybe we do need that occassional encouraging lift or assurance that we individually are important to our Creator. But shouldn’t there eventually be a growth away from ‘milk’ toward the ‘meat’ of helping me raise my gaze to a world (all my neighbors) outside myself, and ultimately to the Creator of that world? Isn’t that a kind of objectivity that ought to be preserved?

MarkD · August 26, 2022, 11:59am

From the article provided on how to read Kierkegaard, still more support for my thinking there is something here important for nons as well as Christians:

… Christianity is weird and difficult to actually obtain and most people who say they have it are deluded to Kierkegaard. Christendom, the term Kierkegaard attributes to everyday self-proclaimed Christians, makes believing one is authentically Christian easy. You can drop the Christianity and maintain the overall critique of authenticity in it’s contemporary form. Important to this reading, though, is that Kierkegaard himself, as a Christian writer, isn’t a Christian . He doesn’t consider himself a believer, instead he is a poet of the religious. He didn’t obtain authenticity very self-consciously and so had to write in a matter that distanced himself from the things he could see but not fully understand. That’s why these pseudonyms matter.

Still working on how to hash out the importance of Penner and Kierkegaard to nons.

MarkD · August 26, 2022, 12:40pm

I think your attempt to view the passage from the POV of a faceless unbeliever fails because you in fact already share the author’s perspective. For you what he writes is already an echo of what you yourself believe. That you and the author do not know each other in your personal lives does not make you faceless strangers to each other. Your intellectual common ground with the author marks him as being like you. This is insider to insider communication where respect for the other’s autonomy is a given. So it can’t really mirror the situation in a standard modernist apologist’s regard for his audience where that audience does not begin with the same beliefs.

I think I have probably missed your main point though.

Kendel · August 26, 2022, 1:11pm

Been typing away in Notepad, and missed your additions @markd and @Mervin_Bitikofer. I’m looking forward to catching up on reading them.

A bit of a roundup for Friday; more questions than answers at the moment:

ONE

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. (pg. 147)

“Be nice” has nothing to do with any of this. The schmarmy manipulator I mentioned earlier was “being nice.” Unfortunately, it’s the strategy we still teach girls and expect of women, particularly in church. I’m well-trained in this. Interestingly, in academic and professional settings, it’s easier for me to disagree better. Probably because we’re talking about things like how to plan and carry out a project, or the ways in which a novel or essay demonstrate an author’s underlying assumptions. Plenty of distance.

However, particularly in relationship to things that are much more personal and foundational: How does one learn to disgree vigorously well?

TWO
This:

Paul’s preaching calls the people of the nations not to be conformed to the theological categories he inherited from Jewish orthodoxy (e.g., “circumcision”), but to faithful confession of Jesus as Lord within their cultural forms, whatever they may be. It is as if for Paul, as missiologist Andrew Walls observes, Christianity “has no fixed cultural element” and is therefore “infinitely transferable.” For not only can the Christian gospel be translated into new cultural and linguistic thought forms, but given the missionary imperative explicit in Paul’s letters (and the entire biblical narrative), there is a sense in which the truth of the gospel requires this kind of translation: “It is as though Christ himself actually grows through the work of mission.” (pp. 152-153; emphasis mine)

In contrast to this:

Foucault argues “truth is a thing of this world” and all our (so-called) truths are therefore constructed by social and political forces. As we saw earlier, our claims to truth have an ideological dimension, because if a statement is to count as a “truth,” we need first to have a procedure for making that determination and a final court of appeal to decide on it. Ultimately, every exercise of human reason is embedded in the social practices of a society. Once we establish or make “truths” this way, it quickly becomes “a regime of truth,” and as Walsh and Keesmaat explain, these “will determine what kind of discourse might function as true, how one will establish and sanction truth within such a discourse, which techniques will be authorized as legitimate paths to truth, and how the truth-tellers within the regime will be regarded.” (pg. 158; emphasis mine)

Ironically, Michele Foucault has something to say here that could make our understanding of the work of Christian witness more edifying. Considering the ways in which we depend on “a regime of truth,” or ideology as a substitute for truth, we may better be able to evaluate our attempts to control what counts for truth, particularly in relation to Christian witness.
I’ve been particularly impressed with Penner’s insistance on dialogue as part of witness. This idea is completely foreign to what is commonly understood as witness (monologue), as we’ve discussed and seen. A consistant reliance on monologue, that is the statement of ideology couched as infallible doctrine, however, reflects an attempt to control what may be considered as true or truthful. It stops all attempts to apply the gospel “within their cultural forms, whatever they may be,” for example.
Accomplishing this, allowing dialogues between Christianity and cultures, and even maintaining the differences that come out of those various dialogues means loosening the grasp on the power to control truth. It also means that we might change as well.
While I am fascinated by this, I am also concerned. How does one carry out such a dialogue without “giving up too much?” Yes, that’s a loaded question. But it’s the one in my mind. It reflects that fear of giving up control. But it does also reflect a desire to maintain “faithful confession of Jesus as Lord.” And maybe renew that in my own context.

THREE

By making Christianity “reasonable” they destroy the possibility of Christianity having any credible way to challenge the ideological violence of modern society or build up those who are disaffected by its leveling processes. The amnesia of the modern apologetic project described earlier functions often to blind Christians even to the possibility of this form of violence. Our way of thinking about and practicing Christianity is taken to be the most natural and obvious way of being Christian, and the idea that this might be destructive or unhelpful to others-particularly those in other cultures-may rarely even occur to us. We then overlook real people and proclaim to them the truths of the gospel packaged in “universal” concepts and categories (as well as practices) to which they cannot relate in any personal way and which have often played some role in their mistreatment or exploitation. (pg. 159; emphasis mind)

Can we confess and repent of this enough? Enough to bring about real change in ourselves and for our neighbors? When we allow Christian truth to be in dialogue with social norms, the faith changes. Period. It takes on values that have nothing to do with the faith. For example “The American way” and Capitalism reflect ideologies that are indepenent of Chrstianity and lead to great harm to people. The Gospel, unlike the economy and politics, is absolutely disinterested in ensuring “winners and losers.” It sees the best for “the neighbor”–sacrifically. That simply isn’t possible when we focus on maintaining power and control.

FOUR
Some off the cuff thoughts that keep coming up as I read:
Does an online environment like this one, foster “facelessness” and “objectification” of “the other”? EVEN, when we see each other in real reality?
With Facebook, I know personally nearly everyone that I’m connected with. Even with people I know and see in public, this online connection often seems quite disconnected from physical reality, when we see each other. It depends on the person. During high-stress times, the distance online seemed to allow people to feel free to say the most outrageous things, and then treat each other as “faceless” when together in public.

Fora such as this are even more distanced. This is the only such discussion board I’ve ever belonged to, while some of you have a long, and broad life in such places. It’s interesting to watch the various ways people interact publicly, but I know at least some of us have private discussions going on out of public view as well. But I think it’s rare that anyone actually meets in physical reality.

Does this social framework encourage objectification or a “faceless” view of each other? Sometimes there’s no question, when someone “appears” to set us all straight on what we ought to believe, having no understanding of the people “here” or what they think. Often, though, there is a great deal of very human individual support going on. Other times, it’s not so clear (to me). Interactions that I peceive as brawls in one thread are carried out by people who apparently like, or at least respect, each other in a different thread or just 3 slides down.

I wonder what your (ambiguous, undefined “you”) takes are?

MarkD · August 26, 2022, 2:05pm

Yep. If you want more you have to start off valuing it because nothing about the medium will lead anyone to acquire that valuing along the way. Just the opposite. Those who enjoy venting pique will find the absence of faces looking back conducive to that enjoyment. The rest of us it will find it unpleasant and look to some concept of netiquette to counteract the lack of faces.

Terry_Sampson · August 26, 2022, 2:40pm

My Source said these things:

“The conjecture that seems most reasonable to me is that nobody will ever be able to define either the concept ‘meaning’ or the concept ‘truth’ in a way that is satisfactory to any large group of other people who have a healthy amount of acuity but that, despite this fact, there do exist propositions that are meaningful and a proper subset of these that are true, both classes of propositions including some propositions about meaning and truth.”
- The author of those words was a self-admitted “agnostic atheist”.
- The words most significant to Terry Sampson are: 'there do exist propositions that are meaningful and a proper subset of these that are true".
My Source wrote: “Any body of knowledge that actually is a body of knowledge can be formulated as an axiomatic system. I can easily give you an example, though what I will actually do (to save us both some time) is merely to outline one.” And then he proceeded to give a brief example, only a portion of which is given here.
- Classical particle mechanics (in the formulation that I give here), has as undefined mechanical terms: ‘point’, ‘the distance between two points’, ‘meter’, ‘instant’, ‘the distance between two instants’, ‘second’, ‘mass’, ‘the difference between two masses’, ‘kilogram’, ‘particle’, ‘the position of a particle at an instant’, ‘the mass of a particle’ and ‘the influence on a particle by another particle’. It also freely employs concepts from mathematics. We can then define some more terms, such as
  Definition S1: Space is the set of all points.
  Definition S2: A Cartesian co-ordinate system for space that uses the meter as its unit of distance is a one-to-one function C from space onto the set of all ordered triples of real numbers having the property that, for any points P and Q and any real numbers x, y, z, u, v, w, if C(P) = (x, y, z) and C(Q) = (u, v, w) then the distance between P and Q is sqrt ((x - u)^2 + (y - z)^2 + (z - w)^2) meters.
  We need an axiom about points:
  Axiom S1: There exists a Cartesian co-ordinate system for space that uses the meter as its unit of distance.
  We do similar things for the other two metric concepts of time and mass. We could then also define the concept of a moving spatial reference frame and prove some theorems about them. We need to establish, with definitions and axioms, some combinations of numbers and units and some laws such as that m(k meters) = (mk) meters and that (m meters)/(s seconds) = (m/s)(meters/second). We could then also define other units of distance, as equal to k meters for some positive real number k, define the concept of a Cartesian co-ordinate system that uses any of those units as a unit of distance and prove as a theorem that, for each such unit of distance, there exists a Cartesian co-ordinate system for space that uses that unit of distance as its unit of distance. We could also prove theorems regarding the relationships of Cartesian co-ordinate systems to each other. Or we could take them as already known from pure mathematics.
  We need as axioms regarding particles:
  Axiom P1: For each instant of time and each particle there exists exactly one point such that the position of that particle at that instant is that point.
  Axiom P2: The position of a particle is twice differentiable as a function of time.
  We can now define
  Definition P1: The velocity of a particle is the time rate of change of its position.
  Definition P2: The speed of a particle is the magnitude of its velocity.
  Definition P3: A particle is at rest whenever its speed is zero and is otherwise moving.
  Definition P4: The direction of motion of a moving particle is the ratio of its velocity to its speed.
  Definition P5: The acceleration of a particle is the time rate of change of its velocity.
  We need another axiom to give us a theory of mechanics rather than just a theory of kinematics:
  Axiom P3: For each particle there is exactly one positive real number m such that mass of that particle is m kilograms.
  We can now define the rest of the terms of mechanics:
  Definition P6: The momentum of a particle is the product of its mass and its velocity.
  Definition P7: The force of a particle is the time rate of change of its momentum.
  Definition P8: The momentum of a particle is the product of its mass and its velocity.
  Definition P9: The displacement of a particle from a point (with respect to a certain co-ordinate system for space) is the difference obtained by subtracting the co-ordinates of the point from the position of the particle.
  Definition P10: The angular momentum of a particle about a point (with respect to a certain co-ordinate system for space) is the cross product of its displacement from that point and the momentum of the particle.
  Definition P11: The torque of a particle about a point (with respect to a certain co-ordinate system for space) is the time rate of change of its angular momentum about that point (with respect to the same co-ordinate system for space).
  Definition P12: The kinetic energy of a particle is half the product of its mass and the square of its speed.
  Definition P13: The power of a particle is the time rate of change of its kinetic energy.
  We can now prove some theorems, such as
  Theorem P1: The force of a particle is the product of its mass and its acceleration.
  Proof: f = dp/dt (Definition P7)
  = d(mv)dt (Definition P6)
  = m(dv/dt) (since, by Axiom P3, m is a constant)
  = ma (Definition P5).
  Theorem P2: The power of a particle is the dot product of its force and its velocity.
  Proof: P = dE/dt (Definition 13)
  = d(m(|v|^2)/2)/dt (Definition 12)
  = (m/2)[d(v^2)/dt] (since m and 2 are constants and u^2 = |u|^2 for any vector u)
  = (m/2)(2v . a) (vector analysis)
  = ma . v (a tiny bit of algebra)
  = f . v (Theorem P1).
  To complete the theory we need some axioms about how the particles interact with each other. For example:
  Axiom P4: For any two particles P and Q, the influence on particle P by particle Q is a force in the direction of the displacement of particle Q from the position of particle P the magnitude of which is G(m1)(m2)/r^2 where G = 6.67 x 10^(-11) (meter^3)/(kilogram)(second)^2, m1 is the mass of particle P, m2 is the mass of particle Q and r is the magnitude of the displacement of particle P from the position of particle Q.
  Axiom P5: The force of a particle is the sum of the influences on that particle due to the other particles.
  We can now prove some other theorems, such as that if there are only two particles and if [(m1)(r1) + (m2)(r2)]/(m1 + m2)] is a constant, m1 and m2 being the masses and r1 and r2 being the positions of the two particles, then their orbits are similar conic sections, with sizes inversely proportional to their masses, with a focus of each orbit lying at the barycenter mentioned above, with the major axes of both orbits (if they are neither straight lines nor circles) being collinear.
So, could any Christian present an axiomatic account “for the hope” that is in him or her? Would any non take notice of an axiomatic account? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect a *non’s first question would most often be: “What do you want?” And the second question would be: “Why should I care?”

jpm · August 26, 2022, 2:42pm

That is a big question within the church. We typically handle it by suppressing discussion, saying that we should not be divisive and singing Kumbaya. Our church Sunday school curriculum is going through the Bible starting this Sunday, and a email was sent our that is discussion arose on age the earth, to shift the conversation to those aspects of creation we can agree upon. Maybe that is the right thing to do, but certainly is not “disagree(ing) vigorously well.”

This topic has caught my attention also. While we tend to be modernists in most church groups, the main focal point of sharing the gospel remains the testimony of the believer. However, that testimony is totally subjective in most ways, and as noted by Kendel Is almost always presented as a monologue:

Perhaps that means we should redefine our “testimony” to be in loving dialogue with others, both verbally and relationally. That involves effort. And given the pervasiveness of online communication, we must ask how can we best do it in a virtual medium. I have been blessed to meet a good half dozen of the people here in person, but that is a small number compared to how many we interact with. Yet, there is a sense of community held together by our shared experiences. In some aspects, it may be more authentic than some face to face relationships, as the distance makes for more honest interaction in some respects, though not in others.

Terry_Sampson · August 26, 2022, 2:46pm

There are any???

Kendel · August 26, 2022, 3:44pm

No, Merv. It is not antithetical to his thesis. Looking to Christ is precisely what we should be doing – according to Penner.

Penner – borrowing from Kierkegaard – never allows us to focus on our selves.

If I start from the other’s appearance to me, Kierkegaard cautions, inevitably I am conscious of the other as existing for me, as part of my world, no matter how much the countenance of the other escapes my gaze. The neighbor becomes "the other I," or one just like me. Beginning with the voice of God, however, opens up the possibility that for me the neighbor is the other you-the “first you” who exists as a self before God just like me. We might say that for Kierkegaard it is the command of God, the voice of God, that addresses and calls the prophetic witness into being and that gives actual shape to the face of the other as the neighbor-the other “self,” who in his or her otherness is just like me. Ironically, then, it is only when I love the neighbor through God-his Word to us, his call-that others may be loved by me directly and their full personhood preserved. (pg. 154; emphasis mine)

I believe what K and P are getting at with this section is that by focusing my attention on God FIRST, before I allow myself to consider the other person, I must see my neighbor as well as myself as persons before God. Moreover my neighbor is the first you, the “you” of primary importance as we are together before God.

I find it very helpful, reading these sections to keep my mind focused on the grammatical terms in light of their grammatical functions. (I know that sounds silly to even mention). “I”, the FIRST person pronoun does stuff. The ultimate grammatical subject. And Penner addresses this:

If I start from the other’s appearance to me, Kierkegaard cautions, inevitably I am conscious of the other as existing for me, as part of my world, no matter how much the countenance of the other escapes my gaze. The neighbor becomes "the other I," or one just like me.

So, even being aware of the other person as an equal does NOT deal with the problem of that person existing for me.

Beginning with the voice of God, however, opens up the possibility that for me the neighbor is the other you-the “first you” who exists as a self before God just like me.

Now the self and the neighbor are “second persons” before God, no longer agents in their own rights, but both persons who are addressed by God and perhaps acted upon by God. In English it is not clear, whether these second persons are grammatical subjects or objects before/of God. It may be in Danish. It would be in German.
In other words, are they in a position where God would be saying something of them (ex. “You are my beloved children.”) or describing something being done to them (ex. “I am nourishing you.”). In any case, grammatically, the self and the neighbor are on equal footing next to each other, facing God. This is a vastly different position than facing each other as equals.

============================================

(Trimming is mine. I worked not to change your meaning.)

I think you are addressing two different things here.
One: The challenge of distanced, written communication

Do you ever marvel at the wonder of writing and what it has done for us? Communication, mnemonic help, organized records of thought, history (however tainted)! It’s absolutely astonishing. It really, truly makes my head swim! And then the possibility of dialogue among the living, but also a slaloming, dialogue along time as well. Some of the participants die off, which ends their addition to the conversation, but it goes on potentially over millennia.
To some degree, there MUST be distance between the writer and reader. Sometimes continents and centuries. It’s unavoidable. However, as a reader we have choices that may not so easily be available to a hearer. We can close the book and say, “This is hogwash.” The writer cannot defend herself from the charge. The argument is over, and the reader has won. She can even destroy the book if she feels like it. Or even worse, she can misrepresent the writer’s ideas. Once the work is published it’s out of the writer’s hands.

However, one of my favorite lit profs handed out a little writing guide he had written, when he gave us our first paper assignment. In it he advised, “The writer must care very much for the reader.” What brilliant and kind advice. Dr. Hafner was envisioning some reader, maybe a person he liked very much, when he wrote, and encouraged us to do that as well. Consider that someone will read this someday, take pains for their sake. So, while there’s distance, it needn’t be completely “faceless”.
There are writers like Audrey Lorde, Sonya Sanchez, Toni Morrison and Amiri Baraka who will rake their (white) readers over the coals. Actually, we aren’t their intended audience anyway. And (white) reader beware. You’re not going to like the experience of reading this novel or essay or poem or play. You might feel thrashed, when you’re done. At the same time, you’re going to come out with a changed perspective that could only have come through that hateful process. Honestly, I don’t think those book were objectifying. They actually didn’t even notice me. I wasn’t even a second person. But I received much needed edification…

Two: We need spiritual food, too.

Yep. We do. Take it in and enjoy it. Let the wonderful truths that edify you work down deep and fill you with joy. You are loved by God! You have salvation through his Son. He wants you to be with him where he is, and you are grafted into the vine of Christ.
You need to focus on your neighbor. But you need to grow in Christ, as well. These are not mutually exclusive.
Additionally, we are also neighbors to someone else. Let yourself be encouraged, brother.

jpm · August 26, 2022, 4:28pm

Which brings us to what it means to be looking to Christ, or in Christ. I am reminded of C.S. Lewis writing in Four Loves, when he looks at the positions of the participants in loving relationships, and describes the love of friendship as being as two standing shoulder to shoulder looking out and seeing the same scene with the same heart.(All paraphrased from memory from a long ago reading). I see that as what it means to be a friend of Jesus or “in Jesus.” That is, it is to see others as Jesus sees them, and as Penner said, to see them as Christ sees us.

Kendel · August 26, 2022, 4:28pm

Maybe time and place are important considerations, too, Phil.

4 years ago, maybe, our Sunday school class went through Genesis. Scott, my husband, just didn’t come for the first 6 weeks. Smart man. I braved it out and embarrassed myself heartily, when the “I don’t know how anybody can call themselves a christian and believe in evolution” opinion came from a very theologically-certain class member. I did not disagree well.

I felt bad for our wonderful teacher, who is a brilliant, very introverted younger man, 20 years younger than me. I’m sure he never imagined the problem coming up. Dear fellow.

I apologized to him and the theologically-certain class member for being so outspoken. The teacher understood and felt bad I had been provoked. The class member I guess thought I was just having a bad day.

Best to have such conversations in smaller settings or over long correspondences via air mail. People say the most horrible things, when they think they are arguing from certainty, even in large groups. It can be awful.

Kendel · August 26, 2022, 4:30pm

That’s just splendid, Phil! Thank you for writing that.

jpm · August 26, 2022, 4:39pm

Good advice. We will see if I do any better this Sunday. It is difficult when faced with what we see as erroneous to keep our mouths shut. Our Sunday School teacher recommended via email to the class to watch the “Is Genesis History” movie, and I replied to him alone (no reply all!) that while well done, has so problems and attached some of the critical reviews, including the Biologos one. Crickets so far, but will see if at least it tempers the lesson Sunday.
Sorry for the off topic interjection, but it has been on my mind this week, and relates to how we dialogue with others. At least I can rationalize it that way!

Kendel · August 26, 2022, 6:52pm

Phil, I don’t think this is off topic. I think it’s application. There is a awful lot from this book to figure out how to apply and what it looks like in practice, sometimes which we have never seen before. We need to talk about these things.

Kendel · August 27, 2022, 1:56am

[I had removed this temporarily, because of valid questions about the truth of the claim in the book I reference. There seems to be enough documentation to put this back.]

This second type of apologetic violence, then, occurs when our
Christian witness unwittingly participates in the kind of systemic or ideological violence that takes place in modern rational societies…This violence is almost completely objective in the sense that it is not attributable to any one person or group and their evil intentions. It is largely anonymous. No one (in particular) is doing it, but it is the underlying violence required to maintain the status quo in which we all participate indirectly. (pg. 159)

This concept apologetic violence weighs on me. I’ve not questioned the existence of systemic and ideological violence for a very long time. It horrifies me to think that I am also complicit in it. But I haven’t given my all, or even my “a lot” to subvert it, either. This leads me to an art installation I saw a few years ago called The Land Grant: Forest Law by Ursula Biemann and Paulo Tavares. (The book form of the installation is available here at Internet Archive.) The installation focused on the forests of western Amazonia, the indigenous nations that live there, the biodiversity and the problem created by the rich natural resources of oil, bas and minerals under the ground.

The installation included reports covering many aspects of Amazonia and interests there. I was horrified to notice one that covered Wycliffe Bible Translators and JAARS aviation. I knew missionaries, who worked for these agencies, who had devoted their lives to taking the Gospel to places that were dangerous and hard to reach. They really loved the indigenous people they worked with as brothers and sisters in Christ. They were also my friends. And then I read this:

One of the main facilitators of oil penetration in Amazonia, chiefly in Peru and Ecuador, was the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), the “anthropologic branch” of the Wycliffe Bible Translators, one of the largest American evangelistic missionary organizations. SIL emerged and expanded its operations during the Cold War, following the economic and security interests of the United States in the resource-rich, largely indigenous, and politically turbulent frontiers of the third world. Often directly funded by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), SIL’s operations played a central role in the campaigns of political containment deployed by the United Sates in various strategic zones, as in the forests of Vietnam and Guatemala, and at the same time served as one of the most efficient means through which these remote territories were integrated into circuits of global capital.
In Latin America, SIL became one of the closest allies of the United States-backed military regimes that ruled over practically the entire continent at that time. With its own air fleet–the JAARS (Jungle Aviation and Radio Service)–and the increasing support of local dictators, the agency’s network eventually became transcontinental, including operations in Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil.
…
From the perspective of the Ecuadorian state, which lacked financial means and technical conditions to consolidate its western frontier, SIL and its vast logistical infrastructure served as channels for state expansion, permitting national homogenization and integration while providing access to natural resources in Amazonia. For the oil corporations, SIL operated as the pacifying force that contain the resistance of indigenous groups trying to block the invasion of their ancestral territories.
pp. 25, 27, 29 & 31.)

This report leaves me with many questions, but I put it here as a known example of how close to home apologetic violence can come and how easy it is to participate in something you don’t even know exists. Is it possible to ever ask enough questions or think of enough angles?

At least, I can be aware of what my own mouth is doing, or is about to do, and check it. Maybe?

I’m beginning to understand why Kierkegaard named one of his books regarding Christian practice Fear and Trembling. It might take that much concern for me to learn to be in the truth and live that way.

Kendel · August 27, 2022, 1:59am

Not this one. Nor could I remember it, if it were once formulated.
But then, again, aren’t all of these axioms propositions in the end? Is faith something that works out as neatly as an axiomatic system?

Terry_Sampson · August 27, 2022, 3:00am

As I understand them, yes.

By no means, I agree.
But what is faith if not “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”?
So where does that faith come from? Romans 10:17 says: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word concerning Christ.”
- “How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent?”
Is violence done by the preaching? May it never be.
Here is where I believe 1 Peter 3:15 comes into play: “always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.”
Why would anyone ask me to give an account for the hope that is in me, if I myself have no hope?
Who cares about “propositions”? Only someone who is curious about why I’m such a hopeful person unless, of course, I ain’t. If I ain’t, I may need to revisit the propositions to remind myself what it was that I first heard about Christ.

Kendel · August 27, 2022, 11:06am

Is there a qualitative difference between the types of propositions of an axiom, and the truth statements that a pastor makes, when preaching? I think this is the difference Penner points out between “mere” propositions and prophetic utterances or witness. In other words, we understand the Gospel through the propositions of the Kerygma, but:

the propositions are not the entire content of the Kerygma; they point to a greater reality, which is apprehended by faith
the propositions of a axiomatic system such as you provided are based in testable observations and logic; the Kerygma is precisely not logical, at least by the same standards, and is certainly hard to test by the same standards.

Good preaching is challenging but not violent as Penner describes. It’s apolostolic speech, put forth by a pastor who has worked hard, with fear and trembling, to present the congregation the Word of the Lord.

I’ve heard some violent preaching in my life. “Old Time,” revivalistic, arminian to the core, graceless, loveless, legalistic. I never expect that that is the kind of preaching you mean or that should exist. Maybe it’s about died out. We could all do without it.

These are good questions. I would like to know more from Penner, and you or others, what the apolostolic witness looks like that he/you have in mind. I’ve never been good with the old model idea, not because of a lack of faith, but be cause of my understanding that it’s not defensible in the way of a mathematical proof. So, I am left with more questions than answers.
Will the rest of this thread go on for years, as we try to figure out what that witness really looks like?

However, I think your pointing to good preaching is an indication that we do have an idea of it. But what is that type of witness like at an individual level? And if one is willing to accept the idea of dialogic witness, what does THAT look like at all? Maybe the interview with Richard Twiss could help us with that.

What do you think, Terry?

[Looking back at your post I was replying to, maybe I’ve repeated myself and you as well. Sorry. It’s early . Interruptions already. More coffee needs to be ingested, I’m afraid.]

Terry_Sampson · August 27, 2022, 2:05pm

The preaching that Paul spoke of in Romans 10:14, in Greek, goes like this: “πῶς δὲ ἀκούσωσιν χωρὶς κηρύσσοντος ?” [How shall they hear without preaching?] The kerygma is what is preached. Anyone who proclaims the Gospel is preaching. One does not have to be a hireling to proclaim the Gospel. But anyone who proclaims the Gospel, darn well better believe what he or she is proclaiming, whether proclaiming from a pulpit or simply sharing it with another person nearby.

They aren’t? Maybe not.
- In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus began his public ministry in a synagogue on the sabbath withe these words from Isaiah: "“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”
- That was Jesus’ kerygma: a quotation from Isaiah, a list of propositions:
  - “I have been sent to preach the gospel to the poor,”
  - “I have been sent to proclaim release to the captives,”
  - “I have been sent to proclaim recovery of sight to the blind,”
  - “I have been sent to set free those who are oppressed,”
  - “I have been sent to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”
- Each proposition was either true or false.
  - What is illogical about any of them?
  - Is any of them testable? How would someone go about testing whether or not Jesus was sent to do any of those things? I have my ideas. [Note: we wouldn’t be talking about whether or not you or I have been sent to do any of those things, would we?]

I think most of us who have heard “violent preaching”–except those who enjoy a rousing altar call–recognize it when we hear it.

Terry_Sampson · August 27, 2022, 3:09pm

So if we’re not talking about any of us claiming to actually be Jesus, what is the kerygma, i.e. the proclamation, that we announce? IMO, it’s the Gospel that, like Paul, we have received: that Jesus of Nazareth was sent–as he claimed in each of the propositions that he quoted from Isaiah–and that he did what he was sent to do by a higher authority, God our Father.

“Good preaching” then, if I’m correct, is that Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed "the Good News; and that is our Good News which we are sent to proclaim. “Bad, deficient, or defective preaching” fails to make clear that Jesus was sent and that he did what he was sent to do. And woe to anyone who proclaims the Good News and does not believe what they are proclaiming.