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

Faith & Science Conversation
930

Well, i don’t want to go too far down a rabbit trail… but I generally endeavor to avoid doing theology or developing a positive case based on what the Bible doesn’t say. But i can say with certainty that I myself will find any case so developed unconvincing in the extreme.

“Changing his approach?” What Luke does actually say is that it was the talk specifically about bodily resurrection that caused his audience to scoff… are we actually suggesting that Paul somehow began at this point to refrain from speaking about the resurrection? Or that we should do likewise?

Finally, to bring this back to the point of this thread… i would humbly caution that the approach you’re using about this passage seems to me to be exactly what i fear about modern theology, apologetics, and the like in general… i.e., using human standards and measures about “effectiveness” to determine the merit of an approach, rather than Christ’s own standard.

By the standard you’re suggesting (relatively few converts, no established church), what would we say about many events or activities in Christ’s own ministry?

Jesus’s teaching in his own hometown? Did not go very well, they continued in their unbelief such that Jesus marveled at it, he couldn’t even perform many miracles there.

Jesus preaching about himself being bread of life? Did not go very well, many disciples gave up and no longer followed him.

Jesus interacting with the rich young ruler? Did not go very well, this man didn’t convert and walked away.

Jesus preaching in parables? Did not go very well, even by his own admission he did this so that they would not “turn and be forgiven”.

Jesus healing the demoniac? that did not go very well, the entire city asked Jesus to leave, the only person apparently converted was only the (former) demoniac himself.

Sorry to get on a soap box, but this is one topic i’m (obviously) particularly passionate about. We evangelize/apologize in a way that honors our king and is measured by his pleasure in our proclamation, not on human/worldly standards of “success”… I hope it should be clear as crystal that when many people did not respond to Jesus own preaching and miracles, but persisted in unbelief, we probably should not attribute this to Jesus failing to do evangelism the “proper” way". Perhaps we could give the same courtesy to Paul?

2 Likes
931

Daniel, I’m finally getting around to reading your posts from yesterday. Glad you made it over here eventually. You might be the one who helps give us the energy to write Chapter 6. We haven’t gotten very far, except to establish that we agree, and it seems you do, too, that the book needs another chapter that helps lay a bit more structured ground work than the very broad aspirations Penner gives us up to there.
That being said, I do think this is a bit over-the-top:

However, I noticed you discussed this a bit more with Merv in following posts.
I was actually surprised at Penner’s numerous references to Scripture and tradition (good Anglican) as grounding for edification. In spite of his preference for dialogue, he is not promoting a radical overthrow of Christian belief and practice, but rather an overthrow of how it is sometimes defended. He does explicitly say (please don’t ask me for references this morning, but I can find stuff later, if there’s time) that there is an actual message, but remains vague on what that is or how to present it, except in the idea of a living hermeneutic (I think was the term. How can the book be slipping from memory so quickly after SO MUCH WORK to “get” it?!). Hermeneutics has been on my mind in a different direction for over a year now. So, this caught my attention. Intentionally or not, we really do live “hermenutically,” I think. People know better what we believe and in what/whom we put our faith by how we live than what we say. A life that is lived as an outward interpretation of the statement of the Gospel, a living hermeneutic of the Gospel, that demonstrates precisely and well how the person understands the Gospel, now that is a powerful apologetic.
I was also impressed that he placed this within the context of the church community, where I think he really focuses the dialogue. As Christians expressing an interpretation of the Gospel with our lives, we will need support of a community. This is not a simple thing. And we will need to be in dialogue as apprentices to the truth within our community (which Penner refers to, if I‘m right , as the catholic/universal church) to help us continue to be edified in the truth as well as live it. None of us gets to be our own master interpreter.

So, Penner is not leaving us entirely empty handed with a pile of deconstructed splinters of apologetics at our feet. We do have some broad principles to work with, but the consensus in this thread, if I read the rest of us right, is that we would like more to work with.

Paging @Terry_Sampson , Terry_Sampson to aisle 9 for discussion of possibly valid alternate forms of apologetics.
Terry has mentioned in a few place a very good set of articles he has related to apologetics that he finds useful as well, in spite of Penner’s premise. I actually thougth there were some very good points in those articles and am going to ask Terry to join us in this part of the discussion, which I am completely unqualified to say anything about. Let’s see if we can get Terry back to the thread. I hope so.

Daniel, where have you been?! Am I going to have to go back and rethink half of the book or more, as I did promise at the outset that I was only “provisionally believing” Penner. Oooh. And I so want to be able to truly believe him. But no one is perfect, alas.

I think Penner demonstrates as a pastor that he agrees with you, Merv. I’ve watched a few of his sermons, and before he begins the sermon, the congregation is asked to share a word that stood out to any of them as they read the text that week in preparation for the sermon. The people who speak up, only say the word that stood out; they don’t elaborated. But the practice certainly allows the congregation to influence to some degree how the sermon will be heard. I have never seen any similar practice, but my experience is quite limited.

I think this is a good way to put it, Mark. However, as I mentioned farther up, Penner does indicate that there IS something to say, but he’s not as clear as I would like him to be, and maybe more than clear for you. : )

No one wants to be objectified, do they? Treated like a specimine for experimentation.

It’s good to have you here, Daniel. Welcome to a group of people I hope you enjoy as much as I have in this disussion. Maybe you can help us figure out what should go in Chapter 6.

1 Like
932

I too, found myself often reading Penner’s text with the spirit of Lewis hovering over my shoulder - as an admirer of Lewis, I’m suspecting my Lewisian “fan status” might almost rival yours. And I think this may bear some further productive fleshing out since Lewis (and other examples you gave) do a good job embodying the very thing that Penner seems to be (or actually is) challenging us on.

It may be hard to relay the following thought without being seen as an educational elitist or snob, but I think Lewis’ influencers (and therefore Lewis in his own turn) threaded that needle quite well for us. I don’t have any actual Lewis passages at hand to quote in support, but as a reader who has steeped myself in nearly all his writings, I trust I have a good read on his spirit. So here it is: I’m not convinced that Lewis would have considered his own life story (especially conversion story) to be a typical, much less prescriptive discipleship narrative for all to follow. He very much was a man of high literature and robustly sharpened rational pursuit (though he also exhibited all the requisite humility of seeing that his own interests and rational pursuits did not make him an expert in every field). And yes - he did very much attempt (and in many parts succeeded I think) to develop and marshal universally applicable reasoning in defense of his adult-found faith. And we shouldn’t fault him for using that hammer effectively on every nail he could see. But I think we can also credit him for knowing that the world of people does not consist only of the sorts of nails his hammer is so effective with.

Here’s what I mean. Even in Lewis’ stories (and especially in the stories of at least one that he considered his literary ‘master’ - MacDonald) we find a special kind of veneration reserved, not for the erudite genius or even the well-educated man, but instead for the ‘simple’ man who, even through his menial daily tasks and chores exhibits a profound reliance and trust on the God in whom and with whom he’s learned to confide. It is true that in some stories the ‘professor’ may be the hero or protagonist (thinking of Ransom in the science trilogy), but in others the professor - while an admirable side character is not one of the main heroes of most of the stories (except as a child as in ‘The Magician’s Nephew’ - where Digory isn’t exactly any admirable character at first - and his later professorship role is rather merely incidental in the later stories). Rather we see some of the more educationally “simple” people becoming the more active heroes (and occassional anti-heroes) of the adventures. Their fortunes rise and fall not with their own cleverness or expertise so much as with their spiritual proximity to Aslan. In fact, I daresay that Lewis was familiar enough with upper echelons of education at places like Oxford that he himself (I think) at places held such establishment at a healthy arm’s length with regard to its claims on life and its pursuits.

And I am very sympathetic with Lewis - both in his participation in that world, as well as his (if I read him rightly) his healthy suspicion of it. I am also a teacher, not at the university level like him and so many here, but as a high school teacher, and especially as one whose subjects of specialty are those designed with further university pursuits in mind I am professionally invested in the educational establishment. I have to believe in education and its value for any who are privileged enough to have or get access to it. And yet even from this self-invested position, I recognize (and am in a very good position to observe it) the dangers of esteeming even this pursuit too highly. And it is one that I hold up quite high. Many in my own country here hold up wealth and the practicality of acquiring it as their defacto highest ambition - reducing their ‘educational’ ambition to be merely that which they perceive might most effectively line their pockets. And even that isn’t a bad pursuit, but I in particular have the audacity to think that accurate understanding of creation is a prize for its own sake, and for which I’ve been willing to place wealth in service of that pursuit rather than vice versa. But all these good things … ‘wealth’ or ‘wisdom’ … they all alike are found to be underneath the yet higher biblical imperative that we are not to finally lean on any of these things as our highest pursuit. And I think Lewis knew that and lets it shine through in his writings. As much as he trafficked in any of the ‘lower’ pursuits - in his case: wisdom and education, he yet recognized the limited (and yet in their own proper place: venerated) position they occupy in God’s Kingdom. And he wasn’t above pushing his own training and knowledge to its maximum benefit - but always within that higher context after his conversion.

I see Penner calling us back from the various brinks of enshrining and enthroning all this stuff (in this case modernism and its chief advising officer: modern science) as our highest authorities of appeal. The modern apologist would of course claim he does no such thing, and yet even while such words escape his mouth, we all observe his project being dictated to him by the very forces he so venerates at one moment, and yet sees as an enemy in the next. But despite his love-hate relationship with modernism, he seems to have uncritically accepted its premises as his starting points.

Penner is right to challenge all that - and remains right even if he can’t lay out the future road map of where the apostle may be called by God or what shape her and his testimonies must then take up. There are many (most?) people in the world that will not be educated Lewises or “trained at the feet of Gamaliel” apostle Pauls. The vast majority will probably be reached (or not) by actual living figures and their actions in this world, rather than by erudite argumentation - which does have its place I think - don’t get me wrong. But it should recognize its place and the limitations of its scope. Our cleverness (such as we have been given) may be very useful - even a salvific agent for some - but it is not our Savior and can only be a good agent in that regard if it points us toward Him. I see Penner’s book as attempting to clear away much debris and silt from our waters to help us view the Savior more clearly.

2 Likes
933

Very much appreciated, and i think you and @Mervin_Bitikofer ate quite correct in that i overstated my negative critique of his actual approach, rather than lamenting that it was instead lacking in any positive approach. So that said…

I agree that this was an unfair comparison, as i have to agree that i would be hard pressed to describe any particulars or specifics of his “positive” approach to evangelistic outreach to those who harbor intellectual doubts.

If i may be so bold as to modify my original analogy, then…

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 prayer and palliative care. Now, my hypothetical doctor is deeply and fully supportive of both prayer and palliative care, but believes that using these, alone, are woefully inadequate responses to the various diseases and injuries that afflict his patients.

I think that more accurately and fairly represents my reaction to the book and what Mr. Penner did and didn’t say. Most of what he positively suggested we do i didn’t find any issue with (engage people as persons, be concerned for their entire well-being, etc.)

Now, in my defense, my impression is that Mr. Penner is in fact saying (by analogy) that prayer and palliative care in fact are the only things we should be doing, and to that extent, i think his prescription is inherently wrong, not simply incomplete (whereas it sounds like @Mervin_Bitikofer, yourself, and others are giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming his prescription is merely “incomplete”.) but my reading of the book is not that he unwittingly omitted the positive means of proper/compassionate/postmodern apologetic engagement, i read it as him suggesting that there should not be such a positive engagement whatsoever. and that is why i find his treatment not simply incomplete, but inherently faulty.

But that i think is the crux of my largest complaint. in other words… if an author critiqued the various problems of modern medicine and surgical techniques, and closed his book by recommending prayer and palliative care without any further discussion, because for whatever reason he just forgot, or didn’t get around to discussing the proper way to do surgery and medicine, or because that just wasn’t his pressing focus, but he didn’t at core object to us doing surgery, if done properly, well, that is one thing, and there’s certainly room to engage and dialog further.

But if the author wrote his book in that manner because he thinks that traditional surgery and medicine should be entirely abandoned in deference for prayer and palliative care alone, well, that is an entirely different discussion.

I could be wrong, as i said i didn’t read with the thoroughness that said book deserves, but my distinct impression is that he is doing the latter.

2 Likes
934

Sorry to be so late returning to your reply but a good full night’s sleep intervened. For me one of the main attractions of religion -and of the sacred generally- is that it provides a good rationale to halt the further incursion of rationality and science into matters in which they should not predominate. I guess for those seeking to spread the good way they have found the temptation to use logical argumentation toward that end must be strong. But seeing excessive rationality as something to guard against, I’d be reluctant to make my case in those terms.

935

Admittedly, there is a lot we do not know in the sparse information we are given, so you have some valid points. On the other hand, it has been common to sugar-coat Paul in some circles, and see all his actions as positive, when he himself knew he failed frequently in doing as he wished. We must be careful not to place Paul on a pedestal, and avoid emulating his mistakes. Was his speech in Athens one of them? Perhaps not, as it was a tough crowd, but it was certainly an approach that showed little fruit.

936

Phil, as always appreciate the discussion - I hate to beat a dead horse, but I’m just deeply passionate about this point (and as mentioned it relates to the one aspect that I so deeply agree with about Mr. Penner’s book) - I’m concerned about making any judgment on any evangelistic technique based on the particular standard you’re using. If we apply the basic standard of what we call “fruit” of evangelism and make that the core standard of what is or isn’t a “mistake” in evangelism, then what do we do with Jesus? Again, I could just as easily rephrase your words above as follows:

We must be careful not to place Jesus on a pedestal, and avoid emulating his mistakes. Was his speech in Nazareth one of them? Perhaps not, as it was a tough crowd, but it was certainly an approach that showed little fruit.

SO WHAT if Jesus’s ministry at Nazareth (or Korazin, or Bethsaida, or Capernaum…) did or didn’t “show little fruit”, in the sense you’re using it? (Jesus denounced the latter three cities “where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent.” There were apparently MANY cities that Jesus ministered pretty extensively to that “showed little fruit” by this standard) What does this lack of response, this lack of repentance, this lack of “fruit” tell us about the correctness of Jesus’ methods and words, the truth behind them, the manner of his delivery? I submit that this particular metric tells us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how good or faulty Jesus’s methods were.

So it isn’t that I’m on this kick to defend Paul in particular - I am very concerned about the particular standard by which you’re seeming to judge Paul, whether his method of ministry or evangelism in Athens was a “mistake” or not. If we wouldn’t use the same standard to judge Jesus’s ministry as “mistaken” on the very same grounds, then I think there is something mistaken about the standard we’re using. It is the same standard I see used by the very people Penner is (rightly) critiquing, that judge the effectiveness of whatever apologetic “technique” they are using by counting how many notches it gets on their evangelistic belt, rather than if they are being a faithful witness to Jesus through their whole life to whole people. (Oh, and given the topic at hand… don’t get me started on how much I’m deeply convinced Kierkegaard would agree with me on this point!)

2 Likes
937

A reasonable point. Fruit may not be obvious, and numbers of conversions or turning of hearts may not be good indicators of success. What then do you use as indicators? Also, I feel it inappropriate to equate Paul’s oratory with Jesus’ ministry.
Perhaps we are getting off track a bit, but it is at the heart of the conversation of how we should share the gospel and whether a particular apologetic technique is appropriate. In this case, the argument may well be sound and truth may be expressed through it, but it may still be inappropriate in its presentation in that time and place. Sometimes being right is held to be more important than doing right.

938

I’d say: don’t worry about this. (pending correction from Kendel, of course, as this is her thread.) But I’m guessing you’d agree, @Kendel?

We’ve already made our way through the entire book, so at this point … you and Daniel here are the track. I think several of us here would like to keep all the discussion going. So please - carry on!

I agree with Phil that you make a good point, Daniel. Fruit, or at least the sort that manifests itself as visible quantity, may not be a reliable indicator of validity.

I think Phil’s point is good too - that Paul and Christ are not equals. At least Paul would be the last to think such a thing. “This is my preference … not necessarily from the Lord …” as Paul is careful to say at one point (or something similar to that.)

2 Likes
939

of course not, but - and perhaps i’m not making myself clear here - my basic point is my objection to the standard of “countable” fruit as determining success or failure in an evangelistic or apologetic endeavor. point is, i would object to labeling anyone’s ministry as problematic, faulty, erroneous, dubious, or the like based on a lack of such countable converts - Jesus’s, Paul’s, Jeremiah’s, Ezekiel’s, Elijah’s, Polycarp’s, any current missionary on the field, your Christian friend down the street,… anyone whatsoever. i object deeply, viscerally, and at core to the “notches on the belt” method for determining success vs. failure, proper vs. improper methods, blessing (or lack thereof) by God, etc. the reason i brought up Jesus for comparison is because it is pretty much indisputable that 1) on numerous occasions and locations he ministered without seeing such “countable” fruit, and 2) we can safely assume the “problem” was neither in his approach, method, personal godliness, blessing by God, etc. thus i submit numbers of converts it is a faulty metric to apply to anyone… to Jesus, or Paul, or your neighbor, or a missionary friend, or an OT prophet…

2 Likes
940

On another note, i’m just getting caught up on some of my works of Kierkegaard, inspired by the current discussion, and came upon this relatively relevant quote for the topic at hand:

It is the duty of a Christian, as an Apostle also enjoins, to be always ready to give answer concerning the hope that is in him, that is, concerning his Christianity. And how reasonable that is. A Christian, the lover and votary of the truth, ought he not always to be willing to give a good account of himself and the views which he holds, always ready to witness to truth and against falsehood, abhorring most of all the thought of hiding himself from anything or anybody?

3 Likes
941

Ok, The Athens trip was a rousing success. Seriously, though, the question remains, by what criteria do you decide what approach is proper?

942

I think Penner recommends against rational persuasion as much because it sets up those who already embrace Christian belief to lose their faith on the same basis when a seemingly more reasonable argument goes against belief.

1 Like
943

Jesus used a parable here and there, for what that’s worth. Does anyone else?

944

I agree, that the discussion is far from off topic.
Trying to figure out what comprises “Chapter 6” is messy and will involve casting our nets out farther and pulling things back in to see what we have, and how it fits together.
If that is where the discussion goes at all. Now that the book is done, this thread could evolve broadly. Or die.

I think everyone who has participated in this thread has demonstrated that this is not MY thread. I could not have carried out this discussion on my own, and I have greatly benefitted from the participation of everyone else. I set it up, because, that’s how threads start. That anyone else wanted to discuss this book has felt like a gift to me, which I can’t hoard.

Carry on. I need to catch up.

2 Likes
945

Now that, from my own humble perspective, is the point of this very thread, no? Mr. Penner wrote a book to essentially discredit whole swaths of apologetic methods (and to his credit, didn’t do so on the basis of counting conversion numbers). regardlesss of how much numerical success someone like Bill Craig might enjoy, Mr. Penner remains critical of his method, for reasons with which i generally agree.

Put briefly, i would certainly start with conformity to Jesus own priorities, methods, love, compassion, boldness, lack of compromise, etc. that to the degree that fallen man can and should that we follow him.

Secondly, i would offer (though many here might disagree) both the example and explicit direction of the apostles from inspired Scripture. Of course Scripture records apostle’s sins and errors (Luke recorded Peter’s betrayal and Paul’s approval of Steven’s stoning, after all), but generally I find it generally (though not always) straightforward when an inspired biblical author is using a narrative as a positive or negative or less than perfect example (for instance, there is little doubt that Luke was describing Apollos initial ministry as being less-than-accurate… Luke is quite capable of making such errors or faulty methods obvious to his reader when he so chooses). And while Peter was fallible and sinned, as recorded, evangelicals like me still take his letters as infallible scripture, not because the man was fallible, but because in providing inspired scripture, these fallible “men spoke from [an infallible] God as they were carried along by the [infallible] Holy Spirit.”

So i also use as my criteria adherence to the explicit instructions about evangelism, apologetics, not being taken “captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition”, etc. and thus, additionally, i would take and conformity to the pattern of evangelism outlined by Peter and Paul in particular in the book of Acts, all of which to the best of my reading presents as positive examples to follow for evangelism.

So one straightforward example, for instance… i once [true story] attended an evangelism class wherein the instructor insisted that each of us develop a standard, structured, rigid, unchanging “gospel presentation” that we would present, in total, without variation, to each and every potential convert we were able to present it to.

At the time, i (deeply) objected to the instructor regarding such methodology on the grounds that it didn’t follow the pattern of either Jesus of the Gospels or the apostles in Acts. both Jesus and the apostles modified their approach, conversation style, focus, references, and the like based on their audience, whether they were conversing with one person or speaking to a large crowd, based on their understanding of what their hearer(s) already understood, or what they already believed philosophically, etc.

similarly, to make another obvious example, i object (deeply) to the little quip about “preach the gospel always, if necessary, use words” based on its conflict with many, many explicit instructions and guidance.

But having said all the above, i would caution against using the criteria i laid out above as being prescriptive toward any particular approach. while i think we can safely rule out certain methods or approaches on the basis of it inherently conflicting with scripture, there remain multiple diverse options and methods that remain consistent with scripture, based again on different contexts, audiences, etc. but again i base this flexibility _on scripture. “to the jews i became like a jew, all things to all people, etc…”, and yes, i would use paul’s habit of quoting scripture to jews and pagan poets to athenians as positive examples of such diverse approaches.

and i also find that being able to be flexible and conversant with so many different subcultures, as Paul demonstrated an ability to do in various contexts, fits quite well in the postmodern context that Mr. Penner is advising us regarding, no?

1 Like
946
  • I have yet to read a satisfactory (to me) analysis or study of Paul’s interaction with the Athenians which does not overestimate or underestimate what he did there.
  • Some years ago, I "stood*** side by side with an atheist opposite a Van Til-ian Presuppositionalist in an on-line exchange in which the Van Til-ian argued that Paul’s speech at Mar’s Hill was a prime example of Christian “argumentative” apologetics. Neither the atheist nor I saw it as that, and I still don’t. Where’s the argument? In my book, Paul was proclaiming the Gospel. There were no diatribes, no arguments and counterarguments on the hill, just some stones inscribed “To the Unknown God” and Paul’s use of them as a springboard to proclaim the Gospel.
  • The end result: No debate; some sneering over Paul’s claim that Jesus had been raised from the dead; an invitation from others to hear more about “the resurrection”; and the addition of believers. Sadly, we don’t have a letter or two from him to the Athenians, do we? So can we really say, with certainty, what the immediate or near-immediate result of his speech was?
  • Penner never gets into that, does he?
  • As for Penner’s references to Luther, I was as disappointed as @Daniel Fisher was, with what I took to be a down-playing of Luther’s words.
2 Likes
947

Brilliant and most accurate and apposite analysis here, in my humble opinion. could not agree more.

2 Likes
948

Mark, that is an interesting perspective I had not considered.
Thinking….
Thinking………

949

(the only minor qualification i would offer would be that in the course of the larger message, that Paul presented the resurrection as “evidence”(?), (or in some manner a confirmation of some sort), to undergird or confirm his earlier points, so to that limited degree he could be said to be presenting a limited argument based on evidence as part of his larger presentation. but i don’t want this to detract from my overall and deep agreement with what you said. this is hardly an example of some formal VanTillian presuppositional argumentative apologetic method.)

1 Like