Was’t it nice when we could only imagine that things can only get better over time? Guess we have to put that relic of childhood away with the rest. But people should not give up on the sacred. Of course that’s easy for me to say given how little I expect from it. Still my appreciation is genuine.
2 Likes
It’s the perrennial wish for a more accurate crystal ball. I think one of the things I do see at least beginning to unfold (though not quickly enough) is the intrusion of at least some reality into political partisanship as liberals are forced to realize that most conservatives are not fascists or conspiracy hacks or flat earthers - and actually are smart and have a lot of good reasons for holding to some of the convictions they do. And then also conservatives are forced to realize how much they’ve been lied to by their own pundits, and that most liberals aren’t the flaming Marxists or “anti-marriage” or “anti-traditional family” that some of the conservative pundits continually make them out to be. One longs for the day when smart people on both sides get tired of being lied to and just recognize that their respective rabble rousing is sourced from below rather than above.
4 Likes
Yes …and sometimes it’s our own self directed lies that the other guys are the bad ones. It seems to stem in part from my own insecurity that I label the other as selfish, hide bound, angry,…forgetting I am showing the same ignorance accidentally. It seems that in this case having a perspective of a forgiving God helps as a model. I have met the enemy, and I am he.
I used to have difficulty with my dad’s response to many questions I had about righteousness and justice as child…“We all need forgiveness.” I was a bit of a perfectionist, and thought that was giving up too easily, I believe. However, in retrospect, I see that he was wiser than I had at first thought. Now if I can just learn not to be a perfectionist at forgiveness…
2 Likes
Actually, Merv, I had liberal and conservative theology in mind. I understand there tends to be a overlap with politics as well, but they are different.
I am always hoping that we are able to losen ip on dichotomies and allow more flex officially and church culturally.
1 Like
I wonder if communities following “The Benedict Option” will become more common. https://thebenedictoption.com/ While I think the idea there was not to withdraw from society, the reality is that many people see that as attractive. Not to be confused with “The Egg Benedict Option” which I am confused as to whether is serious or satire.
Phil, thank you. I can’t wait to read these. Both. Again, I see there are Christians taking Critical Theory seriously and not as an enemy! And I love and need satire. Thank you.
I’m not sure that first link is to someone taking critical theory as a Christian option, as they are pretty opposed, but at least it gives you an idea as to the position they are coming from. They seem to have a real problem with it, from first glance.
1 Like
I’m a bit late to the party, but given my deep love of apologetics, hoped i might jump in and add a few thoughts. the discussion piqued my curiosity so i grabbed a copy of the book and gave it a quick read through.
On the positive side, i have to say i agreed quite sincerely with many of his critiques of the (mis)use of traditional apologetics, and i resonate deeply with his (Kirkegaardian) critique of the idea of raw, objective, autonomous reason able to accomplish an intellectual defense of rational faith. (I’m myself a huge fan of Kierkegaard, and not a huge fan of Bill Craig, for what it is worth).
On the other hand, I can by analogy describe my feeling walking away from the book like this: I imagine a trained medical doctor, who reads a book outlining the dangers, abuses, false diagnoses, & poor treatment regimens prevalent in most large hospitals and treatment centers… most of which he has personally seen and he deeply concurs with the critique… but then, rather than discussing how to fix said system, the author advocates abandoning all traditional surgical and medical techniques entirely, in favor of herbal treatments and healing crystals, without even presenting any evidence that the latter has shown any effectiveness!
I agree and would echo most of Mr. Penner’s critiques and concerns, yet his proposed “solution” doesn’t seem a solution to me at all, especially when there are plenty of avenues available to fix the established system.
3 Likes
A few specific critiques:
-He quotes Kierkegaard far, far more often than he quotes Scripture. He may well be Kierkegaardian (as i claim to be myself), but he doesn’t sound especially, well, “Pauline” (as i also claim to be). And as deeply as I myself resonate with (and as oft as I quote) the Melancholy Dane, My first loyalty is to Scripture… I’m not particularly convinced the same is true for Mr. Penner.
-I’m a bit concerned with Mr. Penner’s language about truth needing to be “edifying”…
e.g., "By my account, truth (as subjectivity) is the sort of thing people need and desire because it is edifying. That is, what matters about truth is that it builds me up, is true for me, and is the kind of thing that connects to my deepest concerns as a self.
I’m willing to be corrected if i misunderstood Mr. Penner here, but his choice of words (“connects to my deepest concerns as a self”) seem at odds with Kierkegaard here. Kierkegaard himself emphasized the importance of submitting to the truth of Christ whether or not it was edifying or crushing, whether connected or entirely disconnected to my own deepest concerns or not:
If you will believe, then you push through the possibility of offense and accept Christianity 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.
-I was dumbfounded by his all-too-selective quoting, and thus what seems to me a rather significant misuse, of both Paul and Luther. Regarding Luther at the diet of Worms:
Here the paradigm of truthful speech might well be… Martin Luther’s famous (if somewhat historically dubious) declaration before the Diet of Worms: “Here I stand. I can do no other.” In the elegant formula “Here I stand” we see that the private individual, Martin Luther, displays a passion to see truth made public. He desires for everyone to be edified by the truth that is true for him. Luther does not pretend to offer the absolute Truth; he confesses a truth that is thoroughly conditioned by his perspective and context. He stands here, right now, attesting to this truth, and he can do no other because his conscience forbids it. But his stand signifies his conviction and commitment that the truth by which he is edified is true for everyone.
He left out the other famous words immediately before the famous “Here I Stand” statement… “unless i am convinced by scripture and plain reason”… Luther obviously held his line firmly because he was convinced that his position was in fact the absolute objective truth, discoverable (in part) by reason. It was an absolute truth that was surely dear and personal (subjective?) to him, about which he was indeed passionate, but Luther clearly held said convictions because he was simultaneously convinced - by using his reason - that his stance indeed corresponded with absolute, objective truth.
-I’m generally suspicious of any formulation or proposal wherein i find myself thinking, “Gee, if only Paul had read this book before he began his missionary journeys!” I regularly found myself at odds between his approach and that of Paul. For instance…
Will someone who believes they have heard God speak bother to make clever arguments, brilliantly piecing together the evidence, so that the rational inescapability of the message is shown to be universally, objectively, and neutrally justified? Will this individual even feel the need to show Christianity is true in an objective, rational way?
Um, yes?
But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.
And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
Not only this, but when Mr. Penner did reference Paul, he referenced the way Paul interacted with fellow believers (i.e., how he interacted in his letter to “the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”) and tried to claim this is representative of Paul’s “apologetic” approach toward unbelievers??
I don’t mean to be rude, but this kind of selective reading, if not intentionally obtuse, betrays a terrible unfamiliarity with Scripture, which to me seriously undermines his entire approach.
My bottom line critique… I agree deeply with Mr. Penner that the bath water of modern apologetics is terribly dirty… but I find not only that he wants to throw out the baby, but he also looks to be actively filling the bathtub with mud.
2 Likes
I’m glad you’re joining in here - even if late, Daniel. You’re perspective is illuminating as always.
Actually (and I say this as a bigger fan of Penner’s overall thesis than you are), I think it’s even worse than you state here. I wasn’t aware that Penner was offering up any “solution” at all. I’m probably wrong here - and would hasten to read what it was that you took to be his solution. My impression is that he doesn’t think any of this is anything that we will be solving, but that we need to wait on the Spirit.
And so … what then, when the Spirit speaks to us we all may be asking? Well, that’s where we testify (attest) to what has been given us. Perhaps it was given us through thought and study. I didn’t see Penner trying to put reason out the door. I just saw him objecting to us keeping our human reason (whether collectively or individually) on the throne.
3 Likes
Interesting observations, and I think you have some valid criticisms. I am not sure that Paul would totally agree that your quotes apply to apologetics in the same sense spoken of by Penner, as he appears to be arguing from scripture, rather than from reason outside of religious belief. When he did try arguing from outside the religious bubble at Athens, it did not go very well. I think as his theology matured, his arguments became more akin to 1-3 John, where the Christian life lived became the primary witness. That is my knee-jerk impression, but am open to correction.
1 Like
Thanks for sharing these, Phil. It was an interesting perspective to read. I find myself in line with the idea of Christians functioning as a healthy sub culture that engages with all of society, while maintaining a robust spiritual life and community. And I strongly agree with the idea of refusing to participate in the frantic and consumeristic aspects of our culture. I was disappointed at the focus on maintaining and protecting rights, while I didn’t see mention of the Gospel or loving service to our wider communities. I was also frustrated at the characterization of the Culture War as something we Christians have “lost” rather than something we never should have allowed ourselves to be involved in and destracted by in the first place.
Some good stuff to keep in mind, though.
1 Like
Daniel, it’s great to “see” you here. I won’t be caught up reading your posts until later, but I’m glad you were able to finally join in. I noticed you are versed in K, and am looking forward to your thoughts. I am also encious that anyone could quickly read Penner’s book.
1 Like
Actually, I quite agree with you. I tend to be rather verbose so I was trying to be brief, but the “mud“ I was talking about was exactly that: the lack of anything useful or any other alternatives.
For instance, he gave the example of the overly antagonistic apologists that engaged his atheist Roman Catholic friend, but I recall him providing no alternate suggestions or pathway on how one would engage according to his style….
He did speak in what seemed to me very vague, general terms about “witness”, suggested the manner of conversation of Amos and Paul (but again, he used the examples wherein they were speaking to other believers)…. Bit that was exactly the problem… he did seem to suggest we should be engaging (hence his few biblical examples)…. But they were just, vacuous? so yes, his actual proposal for what to do seemed as clear as “mud” to me… hence my final metaphor…
Appreciated and largely concur, But that said, there is a whole stream and approach to apologetics (presuppositional apologetics, of which I am a fan of course), whose entire premise is avoiding the idea that autonomous human reason should be the standard, etc… Hence again my critique of him tossing the entire baby in preference for… well, I’m not sure what, exactly. There already exists an entire approach to apologetics that essentially does this very thing.
Interesting that you start with a favorable regard for Kierkegaard. Wish you’d been here earlier also but glad to get your reaction after the fact.
I gather that Penner doesn’t endorse any efficient programmatic approach to herding up the lost and slapping the brand on them quick before they wonder off again. I think edge endorses a long game of actually embodying Christian values and letting that sell who it may. By way of interaction I hear him recommending simply doing good unto others, the kind of good that comes from interaction entails a relationship which seeks to edify people where they are and not categorizing them in terms of what they aren’t(ie, Christian). If there is nothing in who they are that you can relate to in a positive way, maybe that one isn’t for you. For that matter maybe there shouldn’t be conversion specialists who are trained in even subtle forms of coercion.
For what it’s worth, and I know from my online experience that I’m not a typical non, any overt attempt at conversion is not welcome. On the other hand I enjoy discussion of the sacred and our humanity … just not the weird, twisted arguments that William Craig employs. Any discussion that can’t begin from humility and genuine attempt to understand the other person as they understand themselves isn’t a conversation worth having.
thanks! i gave it a cursory reading, so there are plenty of things i may have missed, of course, but idid try to work through the full course of his observations and arguments, so i’m completely open to being corrected as needed. just that i’m pretty tight on time presently and didn’t have time to give it the thorough reading i would normally have done.
1 Like
Well, i must beg to differ…, When Paul was engaging with theists who already believed in both God and in God’s inspiration of the (OT) scripture and held it as their authority, then yes, he used scripture. This doesn’t seem especially surprising or in any way controversial. But for those who didn’t have that same common ground, as you observe, he used what other common ground in nature or reason he could find…
I’m very curious the basis for your claim of this not going very well…
Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
So he presented these things “from outside the religious bubble”, and the result was that while some were offended by his talk of Jesus’s resurrection (as hardly seems surprising), others wanted to continue the discussion, and some indeed joined and believed. This is “not going very well”??? what result would you need to have seen happen to conclude that it did indeed go well?
For that matter, Jesus raised people from the dead and it failed to convince those very witnesses of said event, or many of the Jewish leaders. i guess that also did not go very well? Or perhaps his teaching about being the bread of life, which resulted in “many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” Should we similarly say that Jesus’s teaching about being the bread of life did not go very well?
Fair enough, and while i agree with embodying and living out the Christian life as a whole lifestyle of apologetics and evangelism, i still find there to be a place for answering the intellectual obstacles that many have. if someone simply does not believe in God or anything supernatural whatsoever, and are utterly unwavering on that point, then all the lifestyle in the world won’t win them to the Christian faith.
What Penner seems to be missing in this regard (from my own humble perspective, of course), are the countless, countless people who credit some kind of intellectual “answer” or new rational understanding an absolute key to their conversion… i would nuance and qualify it of course, but there are the likes of Lewis that, while the personal influence of many other believing friends was hugely influential, nevertheless converted to theism through being faced with the undeniable intellectual/rational realities that he could no longer ignore. There’s the example of someone like Frank Morison who was an atheist until he personally confronted the rational/intellectual/historical realities about the resurrection of Jesus. There’s plenty of personal examples i could enumerate; In my own experience i could echo the sentiment of C. S. Lewis that “Nearly everyone I know who has embraced Christianity in adult life has been influenced by what seemed to him to be at least probable arguments for Theism.”
But that said, i concur there is a huge gap between engaging with people as people, even while presenting rational arguments with them, and arguing simply in order to “win” an argument. and agreed that coercion has no place in evangelism or apologetics.
Only a couple of converts, Paul left for Corinth rather abruptly and changed his approach. No church established. Not so much what Luke said, but what didn’t happen. It is held up by many as Paul sticking it to the Athenians, but ultimately hardly caused a ripple there.