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

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Good points:

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Because it probably isn’t a given that we enjoy being around them. A prophet likely is quite the opposite of a barrel of fun. So while Jesus did draw many to him, he also repulsed so many (maybe for the very same reasons). Truth is not always a pleasant thing for me to be around - depending on my own spiritual state which is the much more fluidly changeable thing.

Especially if one denies the very possibility of sin (speaking as one who is a sinner).
 

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Both he and even Jesus (aside from answering their question about marriage in the after-life) did not spend much (or any?) powder or shot on the very “unbelievers” of their time who might have most anticipated or been like modern skeptics.

 
For any not recently familiar with that answer:

Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection [nor anything spiritual?], came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

Mark 12:18-27

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

Wouldn’t it be interesting (at least I think so) to know how the Sadducees reacted to Jesus’ answer? We’re not told - so apparently that wasn’t important to Mark who was more focused on Jesus’ words (and rightly so, of course!) What I’ve been “making much” of is that this seems to be the only instance (that I can recall) of interaction with the Sadducees (or anybody who thought like that.) It isn’t that these people weren’t around - and on the religious scene even. It just seems like the Pharisees were a big focus, either because they were the ones who showed more interest or because of something about Jesus and his disciples.

[Kendel]

Tough reading. And these are just samples. I suspect context may complicate the reading even more, but also clarify…maybe.

A few things strike me on my first (fairly thorough) reading. It usually takes me many, and my eyes are about done working for the day. But this:

@Daniel_Fisher

Quoting Kierkegaard:

‘But,’ you perhaps say, ‘there are so many obscure passages in the Bible, whole boks that are practically riddles.’ To that I would answer: 'Before I have anything to do with this objection, it must be made by someone whose life manifests tat he has scrupulously complied with all the passages that are easy to understand; is that the case with you? … God’s Word is given in order that you shall act according to it, not that you shall practice interpreting obscure passages. If you do not read God’s Word in such a way that you consider that the least little bit you do understand instantly binds you to do accordingly, then you are not reading God’s Word."

“There is always a secular mentality that no doubt wants to have the name of being Christian but wants to become Christian as cheaply as possible.”

“Christianity’s requirement is this: your life should express works as strenuously as possible; then one thng more is required–that you humble yourself and cnfess: But my being saved is nevertheless grace.”

“Christianity does indeed proclaim itself to be comfort, cure, and healing–that being so, people turn to it as they turn to a friend in need, thank it as they thank a helper, because by the help of it or by its help they believe they will be able to bear the suffering under which they sigh. And then–then the very opposite happens. they go to the Word to seek help-and then come to suffer on account of the word… Tribulation and persecution come upon one because he has turned to Christianity for help…So also with Christianity. Now the issue is, will you be offended or will you believe. 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.”

This certainly addresses much of what we see popularized as Christianity today. “Moralistic, therapeutic deism is largely what is peddled. Church growth as a business model. Jesus as a therapist or fixer.” These quotes speak to me very loudly.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone on tv promote the truth about it: Jesus just might make your life seem worse.

@Daniel_Fisher

“There [in Christendom] those enormous folios have been written that develop the demonstrations of the truth of Christianity. Behind these, the demonstrations and folios, we feel perfectly convinced ourselves and secure against all attack, because every demonstration and every folio end with “ergo, Christ was the one he claimed to be.” By means of the demonstrations it is just as certain as 2+2=4 and as easy as putting one’s foot in a sock. With this irrefutable ‘ergo’, which directly clarifies the matter, the assistant professor and preach bid defiance, and the missionary confidently goes forth to convert the heathen with the aid of this ‘ergo.’ But not Christ! He does not say, ‘Ergo, I am the expected one.’ He says, after having referred to the demonstrations, : “Blessed is he who is not offended at me.” That is, he himself makes it clear that in relation to him there can be no question of any demonstrating, that we do not come to him by means of demonstrations, that there is no direct transition to become Christian, that demonstrations can at best serve to make a person aware, so that made aware he can now come to the point: whether he will believe or he will be offended… Only in the choice is the heart disclosed (and this indeed, was why Christ came into the world – to disclose the thoughts of the heart)… See, a theological professor who, with the help of everything that had been written earlier about it, has written a new book on the demonstrations of the truth of Christianity, would feel insulted if someone would not admit that it was now demonstrated. Christ himself, however, says no more than that the demonstrations are able to lead someone–not to faith, far from it (for then it would be superfluous to add: 'blessed is he who is not offended), but to the point where faith can come into existence, are able to help someone to become aware and to that extent help him to come into the dialectical tension from which faith breaks forth. Will you believe or will you be offended?” [Bolding added by Kendel]

@Daniel_Fisher

But he indeed had made this connection explicit, by using the same word (demonstration) for both rational arguments and for Jesus’s miracles.

Yes, he does use the term “demonstration”, but notice the irony, when he talks about the apologist, professor and missionary with their folios and “ergos”. Since I’ve only read this a few times and only as quotes from the books, not in context, I could very well be missing something, but I maybe I got it.

Thanks for all the quotes and the book references.
The other week I started the OUP Very Short Introduction to K, before attempting to forge out into the actual work. Having a few more hooks to tie ideas to will help, at least it has with other tough reading in other contexts. But I would like to start into some of K’s work sometime soon. It probably won’t be “Either/Or” at first. Seems rather notorious.

And finally, angling back to how to go forward with Penner’s proposals for Christians in a postmodern context…do you see anything in these quotes, or your other reading of K, that would help the standard-issue Christian demonstrate the truth of their encounter with Christ in a way that would make sense outside of the church doors, while maintaining an ethics of belief as well as of witness?

[Kendel]

Terry, you may be on to something really great here, but I have no idea what it is. Speak plainly, man.
There’s enough hidden code language elsewhere in this thread. I ignore it as a rule.

[Kendel]

Mark, thanks for all your valuable input in this book discussion. You’ve forced me to think better about a lot of what we’ve read and discussed and you’ve brought good insights into the discussion.
If we are able to come around to themes that are of interest to you again, I hope you’ll feel like joining in the discussion again. I do understand, though, that discussions morph in ways that become uninteresting. I’ll “see” you in other threads, if not here.

[Kendel]

I’m trying to get my mind back to where I want it to be in this discussion and went back up to the rough beginning of our writing “Chapter 6” discussion.
I will be reviewing the conclusions of the chapters, particularly 4 and 5 to reorient my thinking back to where I want it to be–Penner’s theses.

And I hope to feed on some others’ work that may give insight I lack.
I’d forgotten that @MarkD had mentioned this book. While I don’t have time to read a whole book, I’ll look over some of it on my Kobo (thank you Bookshare) and think about what application might be made. I have a few other things I want to look over by James K. A. Smith, Charles Taylor, Merold Westphal, J. Todd Billings an anthology called “The Gospel after Christendom.” Plus others I have on my Kindle.

@MarkD

Here is another candidate drawn from a list of recommended books that @jpm passed along a while back. (Jayber Crow was #1 on that list.) Here is the recommendation from that list:

James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2010)

Still looking through the top of the end of this thread, I had pulled this quote from the blurb for J.D. Hunter’s newer book. I would like to explore the idea of the church maintaining a Faithful Presence. I understand the word “Faithful” and “Faithfulness” have come to be controversial. In spite of that, I wonder if there is something of value in Hunter’s idea here.

@Kendel

I just looked at the blurb on Amazon. This part really stood out to me, and probably to you as well:

What is really needed is a different paradigm of Christian engagement with the world, one that Hunter calls “faithful presence”–an ideal of Christian practice that is not only individual but institutional; a model that plays out not only in all relationships but in our work and all spheres of social life. He offers real-life examples, large and small, of what can be accomplished through the practice of “faithful presence.” Such practices will be more fruitful, Hunter argues, more exemplary, and more deeply transfiguring than any more overtly ambitious attempts can ever be.

“Faithful presence.” To read that fleshed out in today’s context sounds very valuable indeed.

The main reason I wrote the bibliography for The End of Apologetics (see the resource slide for the link to it) is so I could have an orderly list of resources Penner relied on to look into myself. Some things I have already pulled together from Bookshare. And I can’t possibly read it all. But I have the list to pick and choose from.

@Mervin_Bitikofer brought up enchantment and even tried to get a separate thread going to talk about it. Got derailed a bit, but enchantment may still have a place in this thread.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I don’t think a “postmodernist” (in the Pennerian sense) can voluntarily re-assume pre-modern enchantments. But I do think that within our co-existing modern and post-modern contexts, we can recognize, affirm, and engage with the enchantment that is still here to be seen now - even after so much false enchantment has been culled away for us - and probably mostly for the better. Hebrews 12 speaks of lots of stuff (including the heavens) being shaken, so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Our world may be [or seem] largely ‘disenchanted’. But that is not the same as it being entirely disenchanted.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

The positive truth value of what I say does not one whit rescue the unedifying (and therefore unchristian) nature of my communication if I am failing to be Christ to my neighbor. Penner has my total agreement on that (if indeed I understood him correctly).

What and how do we communicate. We know there is content Penner has in mind. He’s vague, though. I think he is. Can we pull together our thoughts on this a la Penner (with both senses of the END of apologetics in mind).

[Anyone who would like to start a new thread on the Defense of Apologetics, please do. This thread has unfinished business:

@Mervin_Bitikofer

“Unfinished” might be a good and (for our 'this-side-of-the-grave-purposes") permanent descriptor of our grasp of truth. I would love to see any more exploration you or others have to offer on the nature of truth as a person or as a dialogue - beyond just being a ‘mere’ proposition - as important as propositions are.]

Merv mentioned Macdonald, and @Randy has as well. I wonder, if what could be brought in regarding:

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I really see echoes of the author George Macdonald in all of this. He was big on just being in the presence of Christ (and drawing others there). Once you’re at Christ’s feet, all the truth propositions we have right and wrong will all get sorted out in due time. Those are the minor concern - compared to just being in the presence of and listening to the Teacher.

Lots to do today. I’ll be listening and reviewing while I drive and get the groceries. Get back to that place where I once belonged.

About where the sidewalk ends.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

Wow, a real tour de force of a post Kendal. I’m instantly interested again. Of course I don’t feel entitled to say what way forward will be felt adequate for a Christian way of life. But I still find value in your discussion and continue to have associations and ideas arise as I follow along. For example you mentioned Merv’s thoughts about the enchantment of the world and that made me realize ways I still think the world and we who are enmeshed here very much live in a state of enchantment. Seeing things that way is so much better in a number of ways. It is basically what it feels like to walk into the truth. You recognize it as you go and the world opens up to us more richly. Perhaps that discussion belongs here perhaps in a new thread Merv may want to start. Count me in.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

Here is a review of a book which might make a nice tangential bridge for the likes of me to poke around in some of the ideas in the Penner book from a less Christian centric perspective. I’m 15th on the wait list for this book reviewed below, Magnificent Rebels: The First Romantics an the Invention of the Self. I’ll be sure to share relevant tidbits.

These Romantics Celebrated the Self, to a Fault

Sorry if this is behind a pay wall. I’m holding the hard copy in my hands having finally gotten to open Sunday’s NYT. The article occurs in the Sunday Opinion section. I am most interested in the philosopher Friedrich Shelling, another like Kierkegaard and Spinoza that was brilliant and then died tragically young. He is one that McGilchrist quotes frequently and which I often find thought provoking.

Edited to include a link to avoid the pay wall for anyone who encounters it, courtesy of Kendal.
nytimes.com – 14 Sep 22

These Romantics Celebrated the Self, to a Fault

“Magnificent Rebels,” by Andrea Wulf, paints a vivid portrait of the 18th-century German Romantics: brilliant intellectuals and poets who could also be petty, thin-skinned and self-involved.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

The truth has to be known before anyone can truly feel like they’re walking in it, speaking of used car salesmen. What’s enchanting are God’s providential co-instants – they can be embraced, and they are delightful!

[Kendel]

The German Romantics were a trip! Goodness. I haven’t dealt with them since, I think, fall of 1987. In the original German. All those bright yellow Reclam paperbacks in eye-murderingly small fonts. Mark, I’m not sure the literary crew can help you out with much more than decadence. They went where their emotions lead.

Enjoy the book. It should be fun. I think I’ve “felt” some kinship from Mr. K himself with the Romantics. I’d be interested in any insights the book might lend in that regard especially. The concept of the “self” seems a particular point of similarity.

But, if nothing else, the book should be great fun.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

Thanks, @Kendel, for your reference to Lewis’ book “Letters to Children”. In the process of my trying to purchase a Kindle edition of that, I’m discovering, alas, that such purchases are now curtailed due to tax politics between Amazon and Google. Oh well - the loss is theirs as it should be - and it happily drives me to what I should have considered the superior sources to begin with: library offerings of places like Hoopla or the Gutenberg online books. While my search for that title remains stymied, I yet stumbled on this gem: “MacDonald” (by Lewis) available to me from my Hoopla account.

The opening paragraphs in the preface already show me that this will be my reading for the next days (as if the title alone hadn’t already thoroughly sold me on it.) I cannot paste any teaser paragraphs here, as Hoopla prevents this (and I’m not about to complain about their scruples now). But I’ll at least place some from the opening paragraphs here (that I found to paste in from elsewhere):

[I]n MacDonald it is always the voice of conscience that speaks. He addresses the will: the demand for obedience, for “something to be neither more nor less nor other than done” is incessant. Yet in that very voice of conscience every other faculty somehow speaks as well – intellect, and imagination, and humor, and fancy, and all the affections; and no man in modern times was perhaps more aware of the distinction between Law and Gospel, the inevitable failure of mere morality. The Divine Sonship is the key conception which unites all the different elements of his thought…. Inexorability – but never the inexorability of anything less than love – runs through it like a refrain; “escape is hopeless” – “agree quickly with your adversary” – “compulsion waits behind” – “the uttermost farthing will be exacted.” Yet this urgency never becomes shrill. All the sermons are suffused with a spirit of love and wonder which prevents it from doing so. MacDonald shows God threatening, but (as Jeremy Taylor says) “He threatens terrible things if we will not be happy.”

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

[I]n MacDonald it is always the voice of conscience that speaks. He addresses the will: the demand for obedience, for “something to be neither more nor less nor other than done” is incessant.

That works for me in that I think what gives rise to God belief like our conscience is already onboard. This goes a ways toward explaining sin and fallenness too. We intuit wrong from right just fine but we mediate our understanding of which is which through our intellect, depending on our own powers and reason. We do this instead of cultivating an eager will to trust what is recognized directly by what is greater than our power of reason. Reason has a role to play but it shouldn’t stand as the gate keeper of our acceptance of what must be done. Seek to understand but not while standing by idly in response to what is given to conscience to know. Serving comes first.

[Kendel]

@MarkD ,

@MarkD

Reason has a role to play but it shouldn’t stand as the gate keeper of our acceptance of what must be done. Seek to understand but not while standing by idly in response to what is given to conscience to know. Serving comes first.

This is good wisdom. Wisdom that any person, Christian or no should be able to agree with.

Framed differently, K. himself, quoted above by Daniel Fisher, condemns most of his fellow believers at one time in our lives or another here:

@Daniel_Fisher

’ ‘But,’ you perhaps say, ‘there are so many obscure passages in the Bible, whole books that are practically riddles.’ To that I would answer: 'Before I have anything to do with this objection, it must be made by someone whose life manifests that he has scrupulously complied with all the passages that are easy to understand; is that the case with you? … God’s Word is given in order that you shall act according to it, not that you shall practice interpreting obscure passages. If you do not read God’s Word in such a way that you consider that the least little bit you do understand instantly binds you to do accordingly, then you are not reading God’s Word." [Bolding by Kendel]

And then our man, Penner, says (pages 127-129):

The second reason I introduce Ricoeur’s concept of attestation is to show that when we view truth as edification, truth-telling is agonistic. It is a struggle (agon = “struggle” or “contest”). Truth­ telling is a process of attesting to the truth of our convictions. It is not a snap shot of reality but more like a dramatic portrayal of how things may be when the rule and reign of Christ is expressed in and through our lives. Christian truth is an aleitheia-an uncovering, disclosing, or making visible the very presence of God among us. And this uncovering is concrete and actual, not abstract and intellec­tual. Christian truth-telling, therefore, is a field of performance and an acting or living out of the truth that is edifying and upbuilding. This is not merely an objective apprehension or formal acknowledg­ment-we must win these truths for ourselves and make them our own. It is not an instant calculation that is over and then done with, but the undertaking of a lifetime. As I have mentioned several times already, the truth to which Christians witness is not the sort of truth that one has, but the sort of truth that one is.
Thus, truth for the Christian is a task, and the task is not to know the truth intellectually but to become the truth. For this reason Kierke­gaard connects belief, truth, and suffering. Belief shapes us into who we are, and the truth-the kind that edifies us-rubs off the rough corners and molds us into the kind of selves that can both attest to them and express them with our lives. Christian witness, then, also takes the form of a struggle against untruth, against everything that is soul-destroying and unedifying and that sets itself up against the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ-in our lives, in our communities, and in the world-as we establish a community that manifests the gospel truth. In this way Christian truth stands as an offense to us in our secular condition and often runs counter to our staid interpretations of the world that are based on our empirical observations and rational calculations. Christians, quite literally, are to display another reality and an alternative way of living in and ordering our world­ one structured by the message of the crucified and risen Christ and displays the presence and reality of the Holy Spirit. It is a reality shaped by cross and resurrection.
The sense in which Christian truth claims can be verified is the degree to which they are true of us-those who believe-both in our corporate and individual lives. The proof of Christian truth does not depend upon a rational apologetic procedure but on the witness of Christians-our full testimony to the truth that edifies us and builds us up. The character and quality of our lives together are a witness that we have been built up and shaped by the truths we confess. This confession involves placing our entire lives on the line, confessing with our words and our lives the truth of God in Jesus Christ and put­ting ourselves at the disposal of those to whom we witness (Marcel). Vanhoozer notes that the Greek term for one who testifies is martyr, which includes both the act of “giving witness” and that of “giving one’s life” for the truth. In a truly Kierkegaardian spirit, he goes on to argue that what is ultimately required to stake a theological truth claim is martyrdom, “for it is the whole speech act of testifying, not only the proposition, that ultimately communicates truth claims about the way of wisdom.” The martyr’s witness, as one who stakes one’s life on the truths by which one has been edified, enables those of us who receive it to imagine a truth bigger than our own lives- one for which we could live and die-and it presents us with an opportunity to make that truth our own. This sort of witness, I contend, creates the conditions for the intelligibility of the truths of the Christian gospel by publically displaying a life or a way of being in which its claims make sense–a life that can only be made sense of in terms of those claims. [all bolding by Kendel]

It’s incredibly easy to talk ourselves out of this one (that being witness/martyrdom). Although I think Penner (and K) is right.

[Kendel]

Yesterday I ran across this discussion between Myron B. Penner and Nathan Greeley (Faculty - JUST & SINNER) about TEA; I listened while I was stenciling stationery. It was a really lively and lovely discussion between two nerdy brainiacs. You can watch it here or listen to it here. I took notes and wrote time stamps based on the YouTube version. And YouTube has an auto-transcript generator.

This discussion took place back in May of this year, so the book is still making waves. He’s had 9 years to think it through and practice talking about it, and I think that (as well as the beautifully non-adversarial setting) really helped Penner articulate better some of the things we have wondered about as a group. I include time stamps of sections I found particularly interesting. If you have time to listen to the whole thing doing mindless tasks, I thought Nathan Greeley (whom I’ve only ever seen in this video) was interesting and thoughtful. I’d like to have them over this fall with the rest of you, so we can eat chili and corn chips and talk it all over.

Some time stamps
10:55 Penner’s growing up, spiritual and intellectual background
17:35 Penner’s intro to Kierkegaard
25:00 Greeley’s discussion of PoMo
28:15 Greeley paraphrased from transcript: “I would say that I found myself getting drawn more and more to pre-modern philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas, because I felt like they were somewhat immune to the kinds of criticisms that modern philosophers were susceptible to. I thought they were also very reasonable and they valued the use of argument and evidence. They presented a kind of happy medium between the extremes of modernism on the one hand and post-modernism on the other. So instead of see-sawing back and forth, what was really needed was something like a “critical premodernism” that understands what value of the criticisms leveled by postmodernists but also notices the shortcomings of those critiques, especially in their extreme forms that can go too far and lead to abject skepticism and nihilism. To avoid that, the best alternative is the kind of pre-modern thinking that understood that a lot of things need to be assumed or taken for granted, if we’re going to know anything. This whole modern quest for certainty is misguided. However assuming we can only be uncertain about everything is misguided, too.”
32:00 What Penner means by “end of apologetics” and apologetics all together.
“I think in the book I say that I’m writing in service to the truth of Jesus Christ and his life, death and resurrection. So I’m not against apologetics in total; I identify quite clearly that I’m against modern apologetics.”

34:20 Penner discusses differences between premodern and modern.
36:56 Penner: “Reason does not simply ground itself.”
43:00 Penner on modern concept of human reason: “Omnicompetence”
44:35 Greeley asks how to understand the morality of apologetics, if it’s ALL coercive.
46:21 Penne’s nutshell answer: “The nature of Christ’s invitation means we can’t coerce someone into accepting it, because if you do, you’re not proclaiming the Gospel.”
57:45 Penner discussion of certainty, doubt, subjectivity and objectivity.
1:00:20 Greeley discussion of confidence vs skepticism
1:07:00 Problem of believing faith is all about “having answers”

[Kendel]

I’ve been looking back through the thread a bit, gleaning again. This was just beautiful, @Mervin_Bitikofer.

@Kendel

how do I do it?

@Mervin_Bitikofer

By letting them experience Christ’s love and care for them through you . I.e. - they should see it and receive blessing from you, probably before actually hearing anything from you about it. And even then, it would be better for them to hear of you orienting your life toward Christ and that being a fount of blessing to those around you - rather than you preaching directly to or at them. That way you aren’t putting pressure on them, but letting them just observe and draw their own conclusions. It probably doesn’t even qualify as “apologetics” at all, but is merely scriptural instead. That’s what I aspire toward, and I think it stays above most of the dangers Penner associates with modernism. [Bolding by Kendel]

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

I listened to it too. It seemed they had some overlapping interests in philosophy in addition to a strong Christian orientation. I suspect Penner, by virtue of thinking through it all enough to write the book we read, may have the settled and comprehensive understanding of the significance of pomo to their interests. But both were conscientious about leaving room for the other. While both listened well I felt the other guy was more often motivated to pump Penner to clarify points in the book as an interested reader. I was relieved that the moderator was laying in wait to ambush Penner the way that woman associated with Craig did in another video that was mentioned here above. But I did find him just a tad intrusive and distracting at times, maybe because I expect a moderator to draw out the two guests. But I didn’t find what he had to say so bad in itself.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

That was a good discussion. Thanks, Kendel. “Omnicompetence” is a great word for a revealing concept at the core of the modern project. I liked Penner’s description early on of the influence of writers on him earlier in his formational years. He would be reading an author’s brilliant take on Kierkegaard and find himself resonating with it all, only to have the author turn and deflate it all as terribly wrong. We’ve heard the proverb that somebody’s case sounds so good to us until somebody else comes along and makes the counter-case. Then that suddenly sounds good. What fickle intellects we can have!

[Kendel]

I’m glad you found it interesting.
I need to incorporate “omnicompetence” into my vocabulary. It speaks volumes.
While I have read NONE of the authors he mentioned, Kierkegaard is so widely “known” among Christians, that I DID “know” exactly the things that Penner said he had heard about him. Leap of faith. Irrationality. Dangerous. Do not enter.
The tiny bit I’ve read by Christians in the past that engaged any PoMo ideas, misunderstood or misrepresented them. Why should I not consider that K may also have been misunderstood or misrepresented. What little I’d ever heard about him seemed worth investigating, much the way Penner described it. But honestly, what have I got to be afraid of, reading a self-identified Christian, who seemed to be addressing a lot of questions and frustrations I have?

I think the thing that is rock-bottom hardest to swallow about PoMo and K is the lack of the kind of certainty (as we’ve known it) that Christians have wished to believe they enjoyed for so long. At least in the contexts I know, people have been fighting tooth and nail, trying to “maintain” it, only to find there are very good reasons to recognize that it was never established according to our own standards in the first place.
So, what do we do now? Chuck it all? I guess that would be simplest, most elegant in programming terms. But I think that system of thought relies on other assumptions that don’t work well with humans and God are in the mix.
I guess we could continue to insist on absolute certainty that is not there. In the end, though, an honest person is going to recognize the “cognative disonance” (at the moment I’m more inclined toward the term: prostituted intellect).
Neither of these options appeals to me.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

What fickle intellects we can have!

Absolutely. And often because of the modes of reasoning that we can tolerate along with the answers that those modes lead us to. It’s not easy being human, even if it is entirely natural.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Jesus wasn’t trying to coerce the Pharisees (nor the Sadducees), so we may be missing some of the truth in our flowery and cordial prose. I think there’s a mistake hiding somewhere that I’m having a little difficulty sussing out. Maybe part of it is that we have to use reason to decide what must be done? How not?

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Kendel

I think the thing that is rock-bottom hardest to swallow about PoMo and K is the lack of the kind of certainty (as we’ve known it) that Christians have wished to believe they enjoyed for so long.

This over-selling of certainty (or over-selling the need for certainty) really comes back to haunt anybody who wishes to sell something to somebody else. If there is a high degree of warranted confidence that something is true and/or good and prudent to commit to … then the person who has been told they should expect to be absolutely certain about it ends up later noticing the shortfall since the merely well-warranted beliefs fail to live up to the advertised certainty. Their experience, which may have been more rooted in a feeling of entitlement to certainty, typically then ends with disappointment. A person who comes to the same conviction more-or-less innocently and from a perspective of gratitude for anything that can speak to them in any meaningful way at all, can then end up being surprised and moved by their experiences and their confidence that then grows more organically and registers as a positive and well-warranted faith for them.

Whatever experiences I may have had with Kierkegaard earlier in life, they didn’t leave any impression on me (either positive or negative) - I think (if I read him at all), it may have just been dry reading I failed to connect with at the time. So in a way, my first real introduction to Kierkegaard might actually be through Penner’s eyes here, and maybe I should consider myself fortunate in that regard, as all the heresy hunters so often prove less than trustworthy regarding where and with whom the Spirit allegedly can’t work.