Postmodern Apologetics (Scratching the Surface)
From the Resonate.ca forum, a new friend named Jonathan and I were talking about a class at Providence Seminary that he's enrolled in, that I'd just taken myself a couple of years ago: "Apologetics & Evangelism". My answer to Jonathan's question(s) got so long-winded (surprise, surprise, eh?) that I elected to make it into a long-winded blog post instead.
Here's a snippet of Jonathan's email:
I enjoyed McLaren's "More Ready..." but it's didn't impact me as much as A New Kind of Christian, for example. Still, a good read.
Are you referring to the Five Views of Apologetics book that I seem to recall was also required reading? I found that book to be brilliant in many ways, and not helpful at the same time. I'll get to that later.
Which leads to your question about apologetics in a postmodern context. These are very much embryonic, work-in-progress thoughts, so hopefully the rest of the crew at Resonate and this blog can help both of us out.
Your comment about "More ready..." appearing to be more about evangelism than apologetics is a good insight, and a good starting point.
Apologetics has usually been defined as "the defending of the Christian faith" -- which tells us something about why it even exists: people felt that the faith was under attack (and it was), so they developed a robust system of apologetics to answer peoples' questions about Christianity's truth claims. Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict would be a popular example of the kind of apologetic material being produced.
People in the postmodern context that we find ourselves in aren't so much scientifically attacking the veracity of Christianity -- they're mostly unaware that Christianity even exists, aside from the occasional media feeding frenzy over some televangelist's latest screw-up, or possibly something that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell said that they probably shouldn't have. Either way, they mostly see Christianity as irrelevent, if they think about it at all, or they're reacting to a fundamentalist caricature.
One comment I've heard a few times from friends who are into various forms of the New Age (check out The Making of the New Spirituality, another book I would recommend) could be summed up this way: "Well, if I ever met a 'real' Christian who actually lived like Jesus did, maybe then I'd take Christianity seriously."
Old-skewl apologists would immediately try and argue with this person that their worldview is inadequate, that there's some kind of logical fallacy to their reasoning, etc. in an attempt to argue them into adjusting their perception of Christianity. My personal opinion is that this approach rarely worked even back in the early 80's when Brother Maynard and I were still in high school. It's even more ineffective now -- actually, it's probably more damaging than anything else.
The phrase that I heard someone say once (anyone remember who?) was that we need to learn how to do "incarnational apologetics", instead of acting like we're a bad-tempered debating team of attack-trained penguins.
Larry Norman said it really well back in the mid-80's. He was speaking of music and evangelism, but the same application applies. Larry said,
This really sums up what I mean by "incarnational apologetics". Jonathan, you've hit on a very key element of 21st century apologetics: there is no "one size fits all" methodology that works for everyone; we have to get to know people -- build relationships -- in order to even discover what questions people have (assuming that it's questions that are keeping them from coming to Jesus in the first place).
Another wise observation that you made is that McLaren's book seems to be more about evangelism than apologetics. You're right, and I think that's part of the answer of how to approach apologetics in the postmodern era: apologetics is less about protecting/defending the faith, and more about living and sharing the faith, as we live and share our lives. It becomes more about explaining the faith to our friends, rather than defending the faith from our adversaries.
This is barely scratching the surface, I know... This will likely turn into a series of posts. Thanks for stoking the fires on this one, Jonathan!
Here's a snippet of Jonathan's email:
"Yeah, we're still using McLaren's More Ready Than You Realize. What's your take on it? Judging by the cover (which everyone keeps warning me against these days...), it seems to be more about evangelism than apologetics...Jonathan,
"Reading about different apologetic methodologies leaves me feeling a little bit out of the loop. It sounds as if these apologists are out there delivering their apologias to the skeptical masses, trying to answer their perceived questions according to their chosen method. In thinking about that, I keep coming back to the notion that at some point, apologetics always comes down to a person, who is asking certain questions, and (just as importantly) NOT asking certain other questions (I say this only to underline the fact that too often Christians are answering questions nobody is asking)."
I enjoyed McLaren's "More Ready..." but it's didn't impact me as much as A New Kind of Christian, for example. Still, a good read.
Are you referring to the Five Views of Apologetics book that I seem to recall was also required reading? I found that book to be brilliant in many ways, and not helpful at the same time. I'll get to that later.
Which leads to your question about apologetics in a postmodern context. These are very much embryonic, work-in-progress thoughts, so hopefully the rest of the crew at Resonate and this blog can help both of us out.
Your comment about "More ready..." appearing to be more about evangelism than apologetics is a good insight, and a good starting point.
Apologetics has usually been defined as "the defending of the Christian faith" -- which tells us something about why it even exists: people felt that the faith was under attack (and it was), so they developed a robust system of apologetics to answer peoples' questions about Christianity's truth claims. Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict would be a popular example of the kind of apologetic material being produced.
People in the postmodern context that we find ourselves in aren't so much scientifically attacking the veracity of Christianity -- they're mostly unaware that Christianity even exists, aside from the occasional media feeding frenzy over some televangelist's latest screw-up, or possibly something that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell said that they probably shouldn't have. Either way, they mostly see Christianity as irrelevent, if they think about it at all, or they're reacting to a fundamentalist caricature.
One comment I've heard a few times from friends who are into various forms of the New Age (check out The Making of the New Spirituality, another book I would recommend) could be summed up this way: "Well, if I ever met a 'real' Christian who actually lived like Jesus did, maybe then I'd take Christianity seriously."
Old-skewl apologists would immediately try and argue with this person that their worldview is inadequate, that there's some kind of logical fallacy to their reasoning, etc. in an attempt to argue them into adjusting their perception of Christianity. My personal opinion is that this approach rarely worked even back in the early 80's when Brother Maynard and I were still in high school. It's even more ineffective now -- actually, it's probably more damaging than anything else.
The phrase that I heard someone say once (anyone remember who?) was that we need to learn how to do "incarnational apologetics", instead of acting like we're a bad-tempered debating team of attack-trained penguins.
Larry Norman said it really well back in the mid-80's. He was speaking of music and evangelism, but the same application applies. Larry said,
 | "Too many bands are objectifying the message, and lobbing out 'gospel grenades' at who they think their audience may be, to answer questions that they think (but don't really know) that their audience is asking. I don't think most Christian music is mentally engaging enough to make any impact on unbelievers. They need to stop tossing out the message from behind their safe little walls and learn how to get inside the message, and BE the message." |
Another wise observation that you made is that McLaren's book seems to be more about evangelism than apologetics. You're right, and I think that's part of the answer of how to approach apologetics in the postmodern era: apologetics is less about protecting/defending the faith, and more about living and sharing the faith, as we live and share our lives. It becomes more about explaining the faith to our friends, rather than defending the faith from our adversaries.
Note that I'm not suggesting that the Christian faith isn't under attack; we do need people who are gifted and called by God to explain and defend an orthodox understandng of the faith -- but if we accept that evangelism is incarnational apologetics, then we're talking in this context about conversations with friends.It also means that we'll be listening to their stories, as we "earn the right to be heard" (one of my favourite gems of wisdom from George Mercado), in order to share our story. And in that relational setting, we'll learn what questions they're really asking, and then we can tailor our answers appropriately.
This is barely scratching the surface, I know... This will likely turn into a series of posts. Thanks for stoking the fires on this one, Jonathan!
posted by Robbymac at
11:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home