a resolution kept

The following is a “reprint” of what I wrote last year at this time. It really hasn’t changed much. :-)

The other day I was thinking about changes that need to be made in my life. In other words I was thinking about resolutions. To be honest, I am not overly attracted to the New Year’s resolution thing. It’s not that I’m against such things, per se. It’s just that I think it is silly to wait until January 1 to begin. Of course it can also be argued that any “excuse” for positive change is a good one. So be it.

Then again, what I find when it comes to resolutions is that I am so unwilling to follow through with them. At any rate, I was walking around thinking about changes that I should make, when it dawned on me (for about the millionth time!) that I keep on hoping for the same things . . . and I keep on failing. I even said to myself, “What makes this promise any different than any of the others?” You know how that feels, don’t you? You say to yourself that this time will be different. This time you will be more sincere or determined or whatever. Yeah, right.

Okay, so I keep on messing up and often repeat to myself: “”Man, I am an idiot. Will I ever change? Lord, I promise that this time I will ___________.” Yeah, right. Of course we shouldn’t minimize these promises, these determinations of ours. Indeed, who knows, perhaps we are making progress, albeit very slowly. So, I guess we should continue with our resolutions. But–and this is essential–there is also something else to consider.

While I was feeling sorry for myself and going back and forth between frustration and determination, it dawned on me that one thing hasn’t changed. One resolution has been kept. One person has not gone back on his promise. God was still there with me! Amazingly, he was still there to hear my complaints, my poor excuses for repentance, my pitiful confessions, my not-so-sincere determinations to change. He was still there to listen to me, forgive me, absorb my wrongs, and walk by my side.

None of this should surprise me, of course. After all, he did say that he would love me with an everlasting love, that he would be with me until the end of the age. How incredibly thankful I (we) should be that he does not forsake me (us)! How immensely grateful I (we) should be that his love is a gracious and merciful determination, a resoluteness that does not dependent on my (our) faulty resolutions!

Who knows, if I were to think more often of his indestructible commitment to me, if I were to contemplate more regularly how infinite his love is, even my defective promises might be slightly more effective. Perhaps, this is what is intended when we read that “we love because he first loved us.” Yeah, his love undergirds and guides and sustains our efforts. Indeed, as weak as our resolutions may be, his is firm, certain, and driven by immutable love. What do you know–a resolution that is kept!

Apologetics in a Postmodern Era

Society is experiencing a monumental cultural shift as it moves from a modern to a postmodern paradigm. Today’s priorities have changed, and the way we think has changed, as well. Dogmatism is out, and inclusion is in. Community has replaced individualism as a dominant theme. Certainty and confidence must compete with an increased skepticism and cynicism. Though these are surely generalizations, they reflect some of the current trends. In such a world, what role is there for Christian apologetics? Can (should) the faith be defended in a world that frowns upon anything too dogmatic? Indeed, if apologetics is to adapt to the times, what strategies are available?

Some within the church have continued to utilize modernistic approaches, believing that traditional arguments still have a place in a postmodern world. In fact for many, postmodernism is seen as an enemy of faith. Others, however, think postmodern inclinations militate against the continuance of traditional apologetics. Thus, the discipline must either be abandoned or somehow adapted. 1

Given the changes that have taken place in popular culture, many Christians have taken a defensive stance, hoping to counter error and defend the truth against the onslaughts of religious pluralism and relativism. Though radical postmodern tendencies should be resisted, other trends may be conducive to the promulgation of the gospel in this era. As the church seeks to live faithfully within today’s cultural milieu, it is imperative to honestly and creatively address the contemporary situation, giving “a reason for the hope that is in [us]” (1 Peter 3:15).

Apologetics, from the Greek word apologia, is often described as a reasoned defense of the faith. But this defensive approach must be supplemented by a more positive outlook in which the believability and attractiveness of the faith are highlighted. In our day this will include locating contemporary themes that are consistent with a Christian worldview and might be given expression in a postmodern world.

The Postmodern Shift
During the modern era (1500-1960), a number of pertinent ideas flourished, including a reliance on logic, a focus on the individual, an emphasis on the printed word, and an attitude of confidence regarding knowledge claims. All of these tendencies proved useful and yielded many benefits.

The problem with modernity, however, was that these features were often exaggerated to the point of imbalance. Logic was employed with such zeal and confidence that it fostered hubris, and other avenues of discovery (e.g., intuition) were discounted as issues of faith were approached in a more-or-less rationalistic fashion. Likewise, an excessive individualism led to a neglect of the corporate and a proneness to “do it yourself” spirituality. 2

As increased numbers came to recognize the abuses of the modern era, a new attitude began to take shape. Given that this was, at heart, a reaction against the prevailing tendencies of modernity, the cultural shift came to be known as postmodern. Long describes postmodernism as a “moving away from reason by the autonomous self and moving toward relationship in community.”3 Smith adds that it includes such ideas as intuitiveness, skepticism, personal experience, and community.4 Though defying simple explanation, postmodernism5 can be understood as the pervasive cultural reaction against the tendencies of the modern era. In light of these changes, our task will be to consider what a postmodern apologia might look like.

A Postmodern Apologetic
A postmodern apologetic is one that takes seriously the challenges and questions that are relevant in today’s cultural environment. Though careful to guard against influences that might prove harmful, it is important to look with discerning eyes for indicators of God’s presence in this era. What current ideas and cultural inclinations are evidences of His presence? Where has He left His “finger prints” on this world? These and related questions demand that we consider afresh the manner in which we do apologetics. We must begin, in other words, to envision a postmodern apologetic.

Postmodern Pause: Avoiding Naivete When Encountering Popular Ideas. An apologetic that truly engages postmodern thought and trends will not only consider the potential benefits but also the dangers that are inherent to this time in human history. While some apologists clearly overreact to postmodern trends–often either embracing too much or discounting the whole–a more balanced approach must include both negative and positive features of postmodernism. Though the positive characteristics of postmodernity will be take up the bulk this work, it will also be essential to explore the potential dangers.

Some of the more virulent forms of postmodernism reject anything like an all-encompassing universal standard in favor of local “truths” or opinions; what we are left with, in other words, are nothing but the sentiments of individuals and communities.6 Likewise, extreme versions of deconstructionism deny that words actually reflect, in any meaningful way, the genuine state of affairs to which they supposedly point. According to some, this renders impossible the discovery of anything (or Anyone) via written texts.7 A related contention is that all truth claims are, at their heart, efforts to exert power and gain control. Whenever a person promulgates a belief system, his ultimate intent is to get others to fall under his sway. The name of the game is power and control.8

In seeking to counter extreme claims, the church must neither succumb to relativism nor exaggerate its own grasp of the truth. On the one hand, Christian presuppositions insist that truth is accessible through common and special revelation; in other words, God can indeed speak, and we are able–by his providence, gifts, and grace, and because we are made in His image–to hear Him. On the other hand, it is essential to acknowledge the inherent limitations in all human knowing; though God has spoken, we are apt–due to human limitations and divine transcendence–to miss what he has said. The quest for knowledge must be tempered with humility, and boldness must be balanced by a recognition that the truths of which we speak are enveloped in great mystery.

In learning to deal with these issues, it is important not to over react or become condescending. Too many apologists have taken an overly critical stance toward postmoderns and, instead of attracting them to the faith, have actually driven postmoderns farther away. Dulles, in describing certain groups, refers to this as an “overanxious defensiveness.”9 As believers and apologists, we must remind ourselves that our responsibility is not simply to be right but to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Likewise, and even more importantly, we must remain open the better postmodern themes, looking for God’s imprint in our world.

Postmodern Positives: Embracing what God is doing today.10
Many evangelicals have taken a stand against postmodernism, belittling its radical nature and encouraging others to do the same. Make no mistake about it; hard or radical postmodernism is an enemy of the truth, and its darker elements must be resisted. However, this does not mean that every postmodern assertion is invalid or that one’s relationship to it must be primarily negative.

In contrast to this mostly negative stance, there is much to garner from postmodernism, and those sensitive to contemporary concerns are better off than those who ignore the issues that have been given voice through the emerging church movement.11 The beneficial features of postmodernism include an embrace of community as the context for faith, a recognition that God is not only knowable but also baffling, a realization that the Lord himself (and not merely our ideas about him) must be encountered, an awareness of our place in the grand story God is telling, and a hopeful willingness to journey with others toward the truth. We will investigate some of these themes.

Community Apologetics: Belonging as the Context for Faith

Though Christians have always given lip service to the notion of community, in practice they have sometimes been guilty of fostering an independent brand of faith. Following cultural inclinations, it is common to hear truth explained in terms of the individual, sanctification as something each person must do, and salvation itself as simply my response to the gospel.

In contrast many in our day are captivated by community and driven by the friendships it provides. Though human beings have always needed to connect with others, postmoderns are particularly concerned to find places of belonging. As a result, there is much emphasis on this theme.

This community orientation is something that is embedded in Scripture, finding its impetus in the fact that human beings are created in the image of a communing God.

The fact that God is the social trinity–Father, Son, and Spirit–gives us some indication that the divine purpose for creation is directed toward the individual-in-relationship. Our gospel must address the human person within the context of the communities in which people are embedded.12

Just as, according to Christian theology, God is a plurality of persons, a divine community of interaction, so we are wired to commune. It is thus no surprise to find that most people desire to lives their lives in conjunction with those who are like-minded.

Scripture is replete with examples of how this is might take place. When the early church was scattered due to persecution, there was a strong impetus to provide a haven for those who had lost everything. As Acts describes, “all those who had believed were together and had all things in common” (Acts 2:44). This is summarized by Paul, who instructs his readers to “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love” (Romans 12:10), which includes a willingness to “rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15).

Here, then, is a wonderful opportunity and privilege. We can be–individually and as faith communities–the place where love and truth coalesce. Indeed, 1 Peter 3:15, that key apologetics text, implicitly highlights this theme. The context of our apologia, the place where others might encounter God, is among those motivated to“give an answer for [their] hope” (1 Peter 3:15).

Hope, in other words, is observable. When we exude an expectation of better things, when purpose and truth emanate from our lives, we “set the stage” for the development of faith. Our responsibility involves much more than providing answers; it also entails an active demonstration of hope. A community of faith provides the framework, the subtle yet powerful influence, by which truth claims are given authentic expression. Only when truth is embedded in life does it become captivating.

A word of warning is in order. The notion of providing safe places must not be viewed simply as a means to something greater, a gimmick to lure people into the church. Too often, postmodern insights are treated like stylistic changes that are made in order to make the truth more palatable to outsiders. While this, no doubt, has a place in our thoughts, we must never reduce our friendships with people to the level where they become agenda-driven. When this occurs, our relationships with others look like cleverly devised evangelistic trickery. We must not play make-believe with people; instead, we should seek genuine, unforced connections with them.

Of course the manner in which this belonging motif takes shape will vary. Whether through regular gatherings, casual activities, or by means of ongoing encounters and friendships with our neighbors, the point remains the same. Human beings need one another. All people crave places where they can feel free to be themselves and to explore life with those who actually care.13 A good part of a postmodern apologetic will entail providing those places.

When Christians are overly judgmental, when we remain aloof from society and only draw attention to what’s wrong with it, when there does not seem to be even a hint of empathy for those who doubt, question, and hurt, the results are predictable. Postmoderns, more than their predecessors, are less willing to endure such attitudes.

Our challenge is to build relationships with others, learning to connect with them. These efforts must never be manipulative or forced but rather expressions of a sincere concern for and enjoyment of our fellow-human beings. Our apologetic, in other words, must embrace the idea that belonging often precedes believing, and faith often develops best when it takes place within the framework of an already established bond. No matter how accurate our doctrinal beliefs or precise our theological formulations, it is imperative that we love and accept people in Jesus’ name. In a postmodern world, a community of unconditional love is one of the strongest apologetics we can provide, for only within integrity-laced, loving relationships can we truly show that Jesus is Lord.14

Sacred Apologetics: Drawn to God through Mystery

Moderns tend to approach life in a rather dogmatic fashion, treating some of the more difficult questions of truth and life as if they are easily answerable. Part of this is understandable, for God has indeed revealed Himself to us. Given that He is a God of truth, it makes sense that we would be confident about what He has shared with us.

That God reveals Himself is no surprise to Christians. On the other hand, believers have not always been willing to admit, or even cognizant of the fact, that many things about God are not easily deciphered. Though He has revealed many things, “the secret things” are hidden from our view (Deuteronomy 29:29). The Lord is a deity who both reveals and conceals (see Deuteronomy 29:29).

Postmoderns, some who have grown skeptical of overly confident claims, tend to reject anything that sounds too dogmatic, (sometimes to the point of embracing outright skepticism), preferring a humbler approach to knowledge. This does not mean that postmoderns themselves are necessarily more humble than their predecessors. It does mean, however, that their general philosophy of life is one in which close mindedness and unnecessarily narrow views are despised. This dovetails nicely into a Christian worldview. Scripture not only provides parameters for living and truths for believing, but it also declares that many things defy the creature. One avenue by which we can approach matters of faith, therefore, is to recognize, even embrace, this fact of human ignorance in the presence of God. A Christian apologetic is fortified by the idea that we can only grasp deity in part, that the Lord will always exceed our efforts to comprehensively understand Him.

A part of our apologetic strategy, therefore, will be place life’s mysteries with the broader context of an often mysterious God.15 This mystery template enables us to consider the difficult questions we encounter in a humbler fashion. Likewise, to the degree that we show ourselves humble, it affords us the opportunity to speak with more boldness about those matters which are not hidden from us.

Can we not revel in the fact that many things about our Creator are far beyond us? Would it not be conducive to building relationships for us to admit that there are often times when we, too, “don’t get it”? Indeed, would it not be refreshing for us to exhibit an attitude of combined humility and confidence? Yes, we know some things because God has revealed them to us; these must be humbly and appropriately shared. But, other things exceed our understanding, and even the things we truly know about God are enveloped in deep mystery. Such is the case when dealing with the great “I am.” As Paul once wrote: “We know in part” (1 Corinthians 13). Isaiah puts it this way: “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word” (66:2). A postmodern apologetic is one that invites others into the presence of a knowable but also mysterious God.

Existential Apologetics: Facilitating Connectivity

During the modern era, the temptation was to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy constructing theories, sometimes mistaking meaning for application and confusing knowledge about God with an actual acquaintance with Him. Clearly, both of these are needed if we are going to live in accordance with the Bible. That is, there is a relationship between the ideas we hold about God and the relationship we establish with Him. Still, with the church’s determination to remain doctrinally sound and theologically informed, the personal matter of connecting with God was sometimes minimized.16

In contrast, postmoderns have a deep sense of wanting to encounter the truth and not merely formulate theories about it. There is, as might be expected, a tendency to go too far in the other direction and to neglect theory in favor of what “feels good.” Still, the postmodern desire to encounter the transcendent is a potentially healthy impulse.

The Bible in many places assumes this personal encounter with the truth. Paul, for instance, makes clear his passion for God as “knowing Him” (Philippians 3:10). Likewise, Peter speaks of growing “in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior” (2 Peter 3:18), and John writes of possessing life through the Son (1 John 5:11-12 - “having the Son” is the way he puts it). In all of these passages, descriptive knowledge of God intersects with a personal encounter with God. Our efforts, therefore, must be directed toward not only providing accurate information but actually looking to the One who is “not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).

Concerning a Christian apologetic, this theme reminds us that, while intellectual matters are certainly relevant, the goal of it all is to be united with one’s Maker. Informing others of the Maker’s identity is still necessary, of course, but we must not neglect to see that it is possible to connect with God despite our imperfect knowledge of Him. Thus, apologists must not assume that people must first accept their arguments before they can actually access God. If this is the case, we have made apologetics into almost an obstacle to faith rather than a facilitator of it. A part of our apologetic strategy, therefore, will be to encourage and provide reasons for people to look outside of themselves. Whether or not we convince them on this or that point, it is nonetheless possible they may contact the God we are attempting to describe. A part of our apologetic must an effort to help others to consider real-life encounters with God.

Narrative Apologetics: Participating in the Story

One key feature of postmodern thought is its fascination with narrative. While moderns were drawn to propositions, postmoderns are attracted to stories. From the vantage point of the Bible, this is very significant, for a good portion of Scripture takes this form. From the story of the nation of Israel to the accounts of the early church, the narrative sections of Scripture play a vital role. Indeed, Jesus’ ministry was often driven by this story-telling agenda, sharing parables with the people of His day (Matthew 22:1ff; Mark 4:1ff).

It is with good reason, therefore, that the church learns to reemphasize this narrative approach. Rather than treating the stories of Scripture as pointers to abstract propositions, as mere addendums to biblical doctrines, the stories themselves become essential features of the church’s mission.

Of course the postmodern penchant for story does not, in itself, guarantee any type of spiritual benefit. It does, however, provide ample reason for believing that human beings are “wired” for story.

The business of the church is to tell and to embody a story, the story of God’s mighty acts in creation and redemption and of God’s promises concerning what will be in the end. The church affirms the truth of this story by celebrating it, interpreting it, and enacting it in the life of the contemporary world.17

Concerning an apologetic, there are hints in Scripture that might assist us along the way. One of these would be a recounting of those stories in which God’s people encountered various circumstances, including those that involved persecution and suffering. For instance, as one contemplates the story of Joseph’s mistreatment, it is easy to recognize both the degree of suffering he endured and the amazing way he handled hard times (Genesis 50:20). Of course the most compelling story of all is that of Jesus. His relationships with the disciple, his confrontation with the religious establishment of his day, his “outside the box” brand of spirituality–all of these are truly captivating. Our apologetic must embrace these stories, allowing their power to impact the lives of others.

In keeping with this story-telling paradigm, it is also important to allow our apologetic to flow from the stories that comprise our lives. We all have tales to tell, disappointments to recount, triumphs to repeat, doubts to acknowledge, hope to proclaim. Moderns were good at stating propositions (e.g., Jesus is Lord) and defending facts (e.g. He rose from the grave). Without ignoring any of these, we must learn as well to invite others into our lives where they can observe what this death-defying Savior does in the life of real people. We must be careful, of course, not to allow a prefabricated agenda, an overly confident fairy-tale, a too-good-to-be-true lie to become our story. Inauthentic is not preferable in this or any other era. But, and this is the key, must be able to share stories, both ours and those with Scripture, allowing others to consider the story that God may be telling in their lives.

Teleological Apologetics: Journeying Toward the Truth

Some within the church place an emphasis on what might be termed immediate transformation. A crisis experience or a decision is held out as the pathway to imminent blessing. If we have needs, a “power encounter” can occur in which the Holy Spirit alters hearts, changes perspectives, and enables people to see their own lives from a different perspective.

No one who wants to be faithful to Scripture can deny the possibility of such encounters. Certainly, God can intervene in our lives in such a way as to radically change us. This “here and how” approach is not to be despised, for none of us can predict how God will work to encourage His children. There is little doubt, therefore, that the living Lord can and does provide direct and sometimes spontaneous aid.

On the other hand, some traditional Christians have taken this instant transformation model too far, treating spirituality as primarily a series of encounters and neglecting to see that it is also a journey. Postmoderns resonate with this gradual approach, recognizing that life, including one’s spiritual life, usually entails a process. Paul sounds this theme when he describes the life of faith as something to be “worked out” over time (Philippians 2:12ff). Likewise, Peter speaks of ongoing diligence and growth as the pattern for Jesus’ disciples (2 Peter 3:14-18).

When considering a postmodern apologetic, it is important to not only look to God expectantly for immediate assistance but to realize, as well, that most matters are worked out over a lifetime. While God can indeed change us in an instant, it is more often the case that he works in our hearts and lives to transform us over time. Concerning apologetics, it is imperative that we treat our encounters with others not so much as an effort to win them over in an instant but as a part of a larger story. While some things remain the same, most of us have changed over time. Sometimes, in practical ways, sometimes in theological ways, we (hopefully) grow. If this is true of us, should we not afford people the opportunity to make gradual changes in their own lives? Some traditional apologists drive people away by insisting that the truths they espouse should be accepted without delay. The irony of this is that some of these same apologists took many years before they embraced the faith. Perhaps a better approach will be to take the approach hinted at in 1 Corinthians. There, Paul said this: “I planted, Apollos waters, but God caused the growth” (3:6). There is a kind of patience built into this kind of thinking. Jesus was the consummate example of this. He walked and talked with His followers, living and teaching among them each day. He never forced a decision and often endured their foolish ways. Along the way, he provided correction and kindness, but he seemed content to allow the cumulative impact of his words and life to gradually lead them in the right direction. A postmodern apologetic must take this journeying approach.

Conclusion

The subjects addressed here are a mere sampling of themes that contribute to a postmodern perspective on apologetics. As God is sovereign in every era, and due to the fact that He has seen fit to direct us in this postmodern way, it is incumbent upon the church to pay attention to what he may be teaching us today. With a healthy openness to what God is doing in our world today, combined with a commitment to the “once for all” nature of the Christian faith, it is possible to benefit from current societal inclinations. In the process, we receive the comfort and the guidance we all so desperately need.

In order to cultivate a postmodern apologetic, certain relevant themes will have to be taken seriously, some of which we have surveyed here. But if apologetics is going to mature and keep pace with the times, we must insist that apologetics take place within the arena of everyday life. We can no longer remain at the distance, observing and then critiquing societal inclinations, seeking merely to protect the faithful from the errors that abound. Though avoiding naivete, we must learn, as well, to genuinely connect with people, not as know-it-all experts but as fellow travelers who long to share the love of Jesus with others. An authentic, timely apologetic must demand nothing less.

Notes

1. Here, we will seek a balanced approach. On the one hand, there are certainly aspects of a modern apologetic that were either inappropriate or will have little impact in a postmodern world. On the other hand, there is no need to jettison the best features of modernity (or any other era). Since postmodern apologetics is the focus here, that will occupy most of the discussion. But the current setting in which we find ourselves must never become so narrow in focus as to exclude the wisdom of the past.

2. Of course, not all that is modern is bad, and some contemporary thinkers have taken an overly reactionary stance, ignoring or at least minimizing the positive features of modernity. In our desire to avoid that which is harmful, we must not reject the positive aspects of previous generations.

3. Jimmy Long, Generating Hope: A Strategy for Reaching the Postmodern Generation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61.

4. Chuck Smith, Jr., The End of the World . . . As We Know It (Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbrook Press, 2001), 46-47. See Smith’s excellent discussion, 45-62.

5. Postmodernism has its proponents and its detractors. Philosophers, theologians, and others have varying opinions regarding this phenomenon. Though a good deal of this can be traced to the presuppositions of the individual, it is nonetheless true that postmodernism is an idea that is difficult to define. This, in turn, has led some to delineate different forms or types of postmodernism. Though somewhat simplistic, postmodernism can be separated into “soft” and “hard” versions. Hard postmodernism, which is the more radical type, is difficult to maintain on a Christian worldview. Soft postmodernism, on the other hand, is much more amenable/conducive to faith, providing a number of potentially beneficial avenues of thought.

6. The problem with this type of pluralism, however, is that in the desire to accept all avenues to God it actually detracts from the significance of the unique One described as “the way” (John 14:6).

7. If, as some assert, no text (or spoken word) points to a reality beyond itself, if it is impossible to arrive at anything resembling objective reality, then radical postmoderns themselves are forced to allow their extreme views of deconstructionism to be deconstructed. Playing by their own rules, they must either admit the limitations of that which they proclaim with certainty (religious and philosophical pluralism, deconstructionism, etc.) or else allow for the possibility of objective truth claims. In other words, deconstructionists cannot actually live according to their own philosophy, since to do so would undermine the assumption that readers can actually understand their writings. Orthodox Christians, of course, affirm that language does refer to something, that the canonical Scriptures disclose truth, and that there is something (and Someone) behind the biblical texts. Indeed, believers have long declared that the biblical documents are intended to reveal their author.

8. In response to this contention, it would be foolish to deny the human tendency to seek mastery over others and to bolster one’s position and reputation; Christians have often been guilty of this very thing. Still, this need not deter those whose quest is to see things the way they really are. Though no creature knows truth perfectly, it is possible, by God’s enablement (Psalm 25:4-5, 8, 12), to know perfect truth adequately (John 8:31-32; 17:17). What’s more, the allurement to power, though real and undeniable, does not actually prohibit the acquisition of knowledge. Finally, it is important to recognize that the temptation to control is found among all human beings, including radical postmodernists. If their declarations are to be taken seriously, then the books they write and the lectures they deliver are likewise efforts to control. The irony is remarkable.

9. Avery Cardinal Dulles, A History of Apologetics (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1999), 323).

10. A number of preliminary remarks are in order. (1) This is neither an effort to criticize those not inclined to move in a postmodern direction nor a naive claim that moderns have never engaged in any of the efforts mentioned below. The point, simply, is to recognize some positive ideas that have been brought to light in this era. (2) There is no intent here to become so enamored with postmodernism that it becomes a theological version of political correctness. If moderns made some foolish decisions, postmoderns are just as liable to error. (3) The idea is not to leave behind the best features of modernity. It is never enough to give mere lip service to the best ideas of previous generations. We must, rather, retain whatever is valid from any time, while also looking to see what new things are available in our day. Though the emphasis here will be, as it should be, on postmodern inclinations, a fully orbed apologetic will not fail to embrace modern ideas, as well. Indeed, some supposedly modern concepts, ideas that received much ink and were prominent during the modern era, are actually quite biblical in origin. To this degree we must approach postmodernism not as an end-all but as another aspect of our journey. (4) The key in all of these postmodern ideas is not simply to look or act postmodern, as helpful as that might be. The point, truly, is to locate God’s activity in our age. What postmodernism does, in other words, is drive us back to our sacred texts wherein we discover that some of what is taking place around us is actually quite consistent with Scripture. Our goal is to hear God’s voice as it echoes across time, listening for reverberations that come to us via this postmodern time.

11. Emergence is a term often used to describe the new and sometimes unconventional realities that are emanating from people and groups that are postmodern in orientation. It basically depicts the unprecedented changes that are taking place in society in general and within segments of the church. For a brief discussion, see Kimball, The Emerging Church, 13-17.

12. Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 168-169.

13. What is genuine community? Be like us? Join us? Force yourself into our mold? There is, of course, a sense in which we want people to see the love and truth of God in us, as it is displayed in our relationships. This, however, is only a part of what is necessary. Our apologetic must entail far more than “join us at church.” What’s more, we must not be so naive as to think that we can manufacture some sort of artificial place of belonging. More relevant, or so it seems to me, would be a concerted effort to simply care about our neighbors. Love ought not be a means of coercing a decision, a strategy for getting others to join our congregations, or a tool of religious manipulation. Love is unconditional concern for others in Jesus’ name. A postmodern apologetic is one that provides each day an environment where the people we encounter can feel comfortable, accepted, and (hopefully) willing to journey with us.

14. What is genuine community? Be like us? Join us? Force yourself into our mold? There is, of course, a sense in which we want people to see the love and truth of God in us, as it is displayed in our relationships. This, however, is only a part of what is necessary. Our apologetic, in other words, must entail far more than “join us at church.” What’s more, we must not be so naive as to think that we can manufacture some sort of artificial place of belonging. More relevant, or so it seems to me, would be a concerted effort to simply love our neighbors. Not love as a means of coercing a decision, not love in order to get others to join our congregations, not love as a tool of religious manipulation, but simply love in the name of Jesus. A postmodern apologetic is one that provides each day an environment where the people we encounter can feel comfortable, accepted, and (hopefully) willing to journey with us.

15. Rudolph Otto popularized the idea of the mysterium tremendum, the awful mystery. The basic idea is that God can be encountered in ways that transcended (not contradict) the rational.

16. One obvious exception to this trend is found among Pentecostal and Charismatic believers, who have always emphasized the relational.

17. Leslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 76.

a paradigm for the journey

When you place your kids on a school bus, you take for granted that the bus driver is trustworthy and will get your children to school. When you eat at a restaurant, you assume that the cook is not out to poison you. When you are experiencing a blind spot and another driver assists you across a busy intersection, you presume without proof that he or she is well-meaning. Though there times when your expectations may be inaccurate, generally speaking you accept them. You operate, in other words, in accordance with certain assumptions or presuppositions. It happens all of the time, probably more often than you realize. Not only is this the way we do many things, but it is unavoidable and normally helpful. Until a presupposition is invalidated, we accept it as true. Through experience, our best assumptions are confirmed and our worst ones discarded.

In order to appreciate any approach, it is important to understand some of the ideas, the presuppositions, that guide such efforts. Though I hope that my assumptions are substantiated through what I say, do, and write, others must decide whether this is in fact the case, that is, whether my presuppositions are indeed reasonable and worthy of additional exploration. Among other factors, these are some of the ideas that help pave the way.

• When it comes to knowledge claims, it is important to acknowledge the tension between knowing and not knowing.

The human condition is marked by knowledge and ignorance. Some things defy us, and other things are fairly clear. What’s more, this knowing and not knowing penetrate one another. Thus, while we know many things, we know nothing with flawless precision. Likewise, we are often ignorant, but often our ignorance is not absolute, and even when we acknowledge it, we still recognize that we know at least one thing, namely, that we are ignorant. Knowledge and ignorance work in tandem, each playing a role in our quest to make sense of life, the world, and faith. To approach faith with only one of these features leads to imbalance. On the one hand, if we assume, as many do, that we can have arrive at something approaching perfect knowledge, we close ourselves off from future discovery and yield to arrogance. On the other hand, if we assume, as many do, that we cannot know anything of substance, we likewise succumb to a pompous attitude and block the path to new insights. Of course the exact proportion of what we can and cannot know will vary, and it is difficult to decipher where the quest for knowledge reaches an impasse and mystery begins. But our lack of precision does not eliminate the reality and importance of these components. Whatever else is true, the quest to grasp truth must be viewed through this prism, and we should expect to understand certain things about ourselves and the world, while remaining humble and open to change.

• As human beings, we are built for faith.

What I mean by this is that we must, of necessity, act in a manner that requires that we trust. Our trust may be in other people, things that we’ve received from others, previous experience, or a host of other things. But, in any case, we are forced to believe, to assume, to take for granted, the trustworthiness of many things. As mentioned above, when we place our children on a bus, eat food at a restaurant, trust a stranger to direct us through a dangerous intersection, or many other things, we are in effect placing our trust in another. This does not mean that all of our faith commitments are valid, for often they are not. Nor does it entail a naive acceptance of whatever it is that tickles one’s fancy. Indeed, there are many occasions in which additional information, research, and experience cause us to change our views. The point we mustn’t miss, though, is that we accept many things by faith. This is an inevitable part of the way we are built as human beings. While many factors influence our faith decisions, the decisions themselves are neither inappropriate nor anti-intellectual. We are all believers; the key issues are what we believe and whether or not our beliefs are reasonable, realistic, and sensible.

• Since everything is ultimately filtered through the human interpreter, it is important to recognize what is wrong and right with us.

As human experience tells us, humanity can be described in favorable and unfavorable terms. In fact it is not simply that we can locate examples of good bad around us but that all of us are inherently inclined to both positive and negative elements of character. Thus, our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are a combination of excellence and that which is deplorable. To describe human beings in totally negative terms is to ignore or minimize those traits that demonstrate nobility. To emphasize merely the better features is to neglect the reality that our motives and actions are often questionable or even despicable. Both grandeur and depravity characterize all men and women, being part and parcel of what it means to be human in our world. This tells us that our ability to interpret, to understand, to locate truth, is both possible but hampered. We are intellectually, morally, and spiritually handicapped by our foolish disposition. Likewise, we are emboldened and hopeful due to our honorable tendencies. If we are going to account for these very human traits, we must proceed with a combination of confidence and humility. What’s more, we might also seek the assistance of others, knowing that they, too, are a strange combination of the same attributes. Perhaps, as well, we will look to the ultimate “Other” as we seek answers, direction, and wisdom.

• It is essential to pursue not only truth but also goodness and wisdom.

One of the inherent dangers when discussing spiritual things is neglecting to see that life is more than a debate to determine whose theory is right. While we cannot escape the issue of truth, truth’s goal, if you will, includes the pursuit of goodness and wisdom. Of course the best proponents of any view realize that the accurate assessment of truth ought to produce concomitant changes in thinking and behavior. Unfortunately, however–and due, in great part to the previously discussed “dark features” of humanity–we all too often miss the point and neglect to display the wisdom we espouse. A better approach, I think, is to recognize the need not only for correct ideas and properly demonstrated claims, essential as these are, but also for living with discernment, integrity, inspiration, and authenticity. Indeed, ultimately, these cannot be separated, for just as life is an embodiment of our cherished beliefs, so our viewpoints undergird and promote right living. The thing to understand here is that all worthy pursuits are inextricably linked to the worthy expression of their highest ideals. Truth leads to goodness and wisdom, even as goodness and wisdom prompt the search for truth and provide the lense through which truth is more readily received.

• The pursuit of ultimate reality or truth is a personal venture.

By this I mean that it involves people, namely human beings and, if you accept the possibility of a greater reality, a divine person. Without elaborating on such issues as an the orthodox commitment to a plural Godhead (i.e., the trinity or triunity of God), it is enough to say that a Christian conception of truth involves the person(s) of God. And, in Christian parlance, this points us in the direction of the person Jesus. If the narratives about Jesus are even remotely accurate and if his claims are examined carefully, it’s hard to avoid the implications. The way he handled himself, the manner in which he responded to unfair attacks, the words he spoke, the deeds he performed, the encouragement and forgiveness he offered, and the claim that he conquered our worst foe–all of these indicate that there is something special about Jesus. To put it plainly, there is something unique about this carpenter's son. If nothing else made sense about a Christian worldview, Jesus alone would compel us to consider him. And he, of course, is a person, a person whom we can investigate and, if he is the one he claimed to be, a person we can seek. If I might paraphrase, he put it this way: “Seek Me, and you will find me.” The point here is not to compare and contrast Jesus with other religious figures, though that is certainly a worthy endeavor. And I recognize, of course, that not all will accept my suppositions. But that’s not the point. Though I commend him to you, my primary intent is to show that there just might be a personal side to this apologetic agenda. Truth is an idea, a concept, a viewpoint, but it is also a person. It might be a good idea, in other words, when looking for truth, to be open to the possibility that there is another (divine) person in the room with us, a person we might seek.

Conclusion

These are among the thoughts that influence my thinking and guide much of what I say, do, and write. These ideas–and others could be added–help form the basis for much of what flows forth from me. I believe they are consistent with a Christian worldview and allow for a perspective that broadly matches the world in which we live. That is, they reflect the notion that we are divine image makers, marred by rebellion, searching for both what is right and what works, yearning for the transcendent, for One in whom we can place our trust and for whom we can live our lives. While admitting my own shortcomings and blind spots, these ideas are one person's effort to facilitate this pursuit and satisfy this yearning.

the sheer complexity of things (additional thoughts on ID)

In a reply to comments made on the previous post on ID, I scribbled down a few things that (with a couple of minor changes) I would like to reproduce here.

When it come to the notion of intelligent design and in light of the sheer complexity of many living things (which Darwin himself was willing to admit on certain occasions), I am somewhat astounded that many Darwinists are so quick to dismiss this complexity or else dogmatically characterize it as merely “apparent.” It simultaneously amuses and saddens me that we can so easily re-frame that which gives every appearance of design, in order to, I suppose, take God out of the equation.

On a related note, which is consistent with my broadly Christian worldview and, I think, fits life as most of us know it, it is my opinion that for a theory, idea, or body of facts, to be received, it must be accessible to most people. To the degree that something is truly relevant to know, it ought to make sense to common folks.

Now, please don’t misunderstand. I am not talking about taking polls to decide truth or basing our claims on political correctness. God forbid! Nor am I denying that non-experts can know a truth sufficiently, while experts know it at a deeper level. I’m simply saying that one does not have to be an expert in everything to understand the truth. While experts do indeed have a greater understanding about certain matters, we can learn a lot from non-experts, as well. Sometimes, however, elitists promulgate the idea that people should embrace their views simply on the basis of trust; that is, we can trust the experts to lead us down the right path. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to still utilize and appreciate expertise but never in such a way that the experts become the scientific version of the Pharisees (i.e., the self-proclaimed religious experts of Jesus’ day). Some Darwinists, and some Christians, as well, seem to miss this point. The important thing to convey here is my belief that if something is worth believing, and if God has placed both truth and truth-detectors (i.e., us) here, somehow the public at large will be able to grasp it. Part of the reason why people accept belief in God (and see his imprint) is due to the fact that this makes perfect sense of numerous aspects of the world in which we live. This human tendency should not be dismissed, for–in its best form–it may prove to be an outworking of an impulse that is consistent with reality. Of course the research must continue, and the facts must be interpreted honestly. But if we are all philosophically driven, as I believe we are, this seemingly (only apparent?) intuitive awareness of a divine imprint may be something worth considering.

In saying all this, I am not at all arguing against continued research and debate. Nor am I embracing every statement made by an ID expert simply because it fits my theory. All I’m saying is that some of the attempts to create a scenario in which incredibly complex features of human beings were supposedly created by blind chance and without any help from an information provider, seems a stretch. Most people know this intuitively. Thus, whatever the outcome of ID in history, I truly find it hard to imagine that this amazingly complex universe in which we live just happened to be. This is one of my general presuppositions. I may be wrong, and I am reasonably open to altering my assumptions. Still, these are my views, and I hold them with a measure of confidence. Indeed, I think it is reasonable, defensible, and legitimately appealing to do so.

Note: I should mention here that science is not my area of expertise, per se. I’ve operated in this realm on many occasions, but my personal focus has been in areas of theology, philosophy, postmodern studies, apologetics, and related fields. This emphasis has both influenced my approach to ID (and everything else), even as my research has (I believe) helped shape my views. In my opinion, current opinions (what we currently maintain) and openness to discovery (new insights, etc.) must be held in tension. I’m not sure if I do this, but it is my intent. :-)

intelligent design

Intelligent Design (ID)–it’s in the news and on the minds of many. But, as the recent Dover case demonstrates, there are still many misconceptions about the concept of design, and there is strong political opposition, often governed by fear, to the teaching of design within secular educational institutions.

A part of the problem, I think, is that some are skeptical about the motives of those involved in the Intelligent Design movement, thinking that ID is nothing more than a dressed up version of creationism. Thus, or so the thinking goes, ID advocates are trying to sneak religion in the back door and foist their views on an unsuspecting public. Of course there will always be individuals who attach themselves to various views, and not all of these are the most desirable folks to have in your camp. But politicians, of all people, should know this is the case and should not judge the merits of a view on its worst (and, sometimes, craziest) proponents. What truly matters here is that ID is not at all a religious phenomenon in the traditional sense of the word. Though you will obviously find a variety of different religious beliefs among ID adherents, ID itself arises from an examination of the evidence. Indeed, it is truly preposterous to accuse ID advocates of some type of hidden religious agenda. The overwhelming majority of the those in the ID movement are driven by academic motives and a desire to simply follow the truth wherever it leads. The research that has been conducted at a variety of levels is impressive and represents a genuine challenge to the status quo. Indeed, the credentials and the research conducted would never have been questioned had the views proposed been more in line with the dominant view on origins.

What has taken place is nothing short of a rhetorical campaign designed by Darwinists (and not by chance) to create in the mind of the public a view that is a caricature of the truth. There has been an onslaught of unsubstantiated claims and an ongoing effort to present ID and its proponents in the worst light possible. So, you keep on repeating the same phrases (“Those ID advocates are just creationists in scientific garb.”), you continue to make overstatements concerning your own views (“Everyone who knows anything realizes that Darwinian evolution is the only reasonable view.”), and you frame the debate in such a way that ID proponents appear opposed to ongoing research.

The true story of ID is quite different than what is often promulgated in certain circles. Not only are many of the researchers individuals of the highest integrity, not only have they continued to produce a body of work that is substantial, well-documented, and scientifically viable, but there certain general features of ID that challenge the reigning paradigm and may lead to a revolution of sorts in origins research. For instance, ID has produced substantial evidence of irreducible complexity, the idea that biological systems at the microscopic level are so intricately constructed and so interdependent (all the parts working together are necessary in order for the system to actually function) that there is no current (or conceivable?) Darwinian pathway that might have produced such design. Likewise, there is no real mechanism that has been tested and proven that can account for life’s origin and the production of self-replicating systems, which are needed if evolution is to continue. Also, there is a clear absence of many transitional forms. If you plan on going from, say, A to Z, you would expect to find a lot of B’s, C’s and so forth in the geological record, but this is not at all what we see. Then, there is the inability of natural selection to explain some of the more complex aspects of biological change. While natural selection does indeed play a role in micro-evolution, it seems ill equipped to account for the extremely grand examples of design and change.

But why, I ask myself, the need to misrepresent? Why the near dread of anything that challenges the current theory? Why the frantic desire to maintain a Darwinian-only approach? You would think that the mere mention of design will send our institutions into some sort of dark age and that the design inference will spell the ruin of millions. These reactions are, of course, preposterous and not at all an accurate assessment of potential ID inclusion. Even so, this is not the real issue, for is it not the evidence, the best we can see it and interpret it, that should lead the way? Does not the truth form the basis of our theories?

For some reason a truly reasonable and greatly substantiated grouping of discoveries and inferences are disallowed, and I don’t get it. I have my own theories, of course, but I’m also taken aback by the sheer ignorance, hypocrisy, arrogance, and fury that has dominated far too much of the current discussion.

To be honest, I don’t think we should be overly concerned about which view wins the day. So long as we’re being intellectually honest, I really don’t care, frankly, which view is correct or most likely true. If natural selection plus chance plus time can explain everything about our universe, so be it. If Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to make sense of the world in which we live, that’s okay. If, on the other hand, other forces are evident and if new theories are more consistent with the data, that ought to be fine, as well. Let the truth have its sway.

It seems to me that the propaganda originating in certain circles has proved intellectually debilitating, and rhetoric has blocked the path to academic inquiry and creative scientific investigation. Indeed, if ID is even remotely accurate, when and where, exactly, should we give it a voice? If not in a science classroom, then where? If in a philosophy class, will those opposed to ID also stand against the promulgation of ID in that context, too? And, even if it is allowed to flourish within some non-scientific framework, are we okay with allowing ID theorists to present their case, which is largely scientific, within a classroom that is not a science classroom? While I am strongly in favor of holistic education (with various ideas affecting the teaching of any particular subject), I find it strange that the scientific-based findings of ID would be allowed anywhere except a science classroom. The absurdities continue to abound, and few seem even willing to consider the ramifications.

Then, of course, there is the broader issue at stake. Are we actually willing to allow for the possibility that a body of knowledge exists in the world, something that is based in solid and ongoing research, that is simply not allowed to be discussed? How can truths exist and not be taken up and discussed by the dispensers of truth? Furthermore, do we actually believe that today’s students, those who are already quite adept at discussing various topics that would make many of their parents blush, will be damaged by an open discussion about the possibility of intelligent design? This, once again, is foolishness. Indeed, I think that nearly every young (and old) person is creative and resilient enough to consider varying theories and allow for the examination of competing thoughts. Is that not, in great measure, what education is about? Would it not be a travesty–especially if grounded in misinformation and irrational fear–to ignore whatever insights are available about a subject as grand and relevant as origins?

[Note: the Issue here is not actually evolution, per se, Many ID proponents clearly believe in evolution and are willing--at certain points--to accept some of what Darwin taught. The problem they have, however, is that Darwinian evolution does not explain many of the more profound features of human origins and decent.]

exploring the spiritual (or looking for God): Does it make any sense?

There are obviously various responses when it comes to matters of faith. Some discount spiritual things entirely, either ignoring or else rejecting (even attacking) all truth claims, while others assume their perspective is the right one. But across the spectrum, it seems we are all spiritually inclined. From atheists to agnostics, from traditional religious adherents to advocates of new-age spirituality, there is this impulse within us to seek “the Other.”

But is this impulse valid? Indeed, what is it about us that fits this assumption, that we are indeed spiritual creatures longing for something more. What follows are some general observations about human beings that point, I think, in a spiritual direction. These are not the only things that matter, but they do matter. These are some (not all of the) important things that hint at a core of spirituality all around and within us.

□ As already mentioned there seems to be an innate sense within all of us to reach out and beyond ourselves. There is among most (if not all) human beings a search for the transcendent. This might be interpreted merely as evidence of a natural law or it might seen as an indication of a deity. At the least, however, we must acknowledge this inward tendency to look beyond ourselves.

□ Likewise, and in keeping with the above, there is a general tendency to locate purpose in life. Of course this might simply be wishful thinking or some evolutionary survival trait, but most people act like it is more. In other words there is a perceived meaning to our existence.

□ The good that we encounter amplifies this purposefulness. And the bad, while certainly causing us to wonder about it all (i.e., How can a good God allow for such horrendous events?), also forces us to recognize that we are repelled by evil precisely because we sense that there must be some higher purpose that is being violated by the presence of evil. Even as evil feeds unbelief at one level, it also supports the contention that there is such a thing as evil in the first place. This, in a backward sort of way, actually confirms or is at least consistent with the notion of some higher purpose. Thus, the good and bad we encounter are indicators of life’s meaningfulness.

□ Along with what we’ve already said, there is clearly in all of us a sense of connection to fellow human beings. That is, we tend to gravitate to others. Though some are loners, and have a difficult time relating, the overwhelming majority of human beings long for relationships with one or (usually) more co-travelers. Once again, this fits the idea of reaching out, not only to things but to people. There is an undeniable personal feature to human existence.

□ If we are persons (which, of course, we are) and if we also sense a transcendent purpose (which we generally do), it just might be that our longings can only be satisfied by that which is both transcendent and personal. Throughout human history, this has often been another way of talking about God. Might we have been created for such a being?

□ The things and people that make us look for and embrace purpose indicate that we live in a world designed for us. Not only biologically or psychologically but, one might say, spiritually, we live in a universe that corresponds with our felt needs and desires. While not minimizing those aspects that run contrary to this purpose (e.g., the problem of evil), there are many things around us that are created to promote this relational, purposeful existence. From whence did they originate? Many have taken for granted that a supreme being must be the ultimate provider of such grand design and purpose.

□ In our best moments, we remain open to that which is good and true. That’s the way we are constructed as humans. Scientific discoveries, noble acts of philanthropy, selfless concern for others, and countless other endeavors are motivated by the pursuit of the good and the true. Are we open to a higher, divine reality? Are you?

All of the above ideas are consonant with the idea of a transcendent, personal reality. When combined with other features of humankind, they attest to the reasonableness of a theistic worldview and the sensibleness of those who choose to embrace this “Other,” who has (apparently) made us for himself. One ancient sage, speaking of this divine reality, said it this way: “Come to Me and be rescued, all of the earth.” The way we are made, the type of world in which we live, the trends of life–all of these and more seem to confirm the believability of this invitation. Who knows? Maybe we were born for this very purpose, to receive such an invitation.

scary thoughts on halloween

At this time of year, certain Christians get into a tizzy over the (supposedly) satanic elements of Halloween. While admitting some of the original associations, the great majority of people today have no dark impulses when it comes to this holiday. Indeed, it amazes me how often we equate popular ideas with evil (which may or may not be the case) or attempt to “prove” the historical connection between satanic elements and various holidays (e.g., Halloween).

But often, or so it seems to me, we miss the more obvious, every day influences that lead people away from God, truth, grace, and love. I wonder what role satan has within the accusing church, that is, among those who specialize in holiday bashing and the like and conduct their attacks (in some cases) in a very condescending, arrogant, and less than gracious way.

Regarding the celebration of these things, I agree that we should avoid direct links to that which is evil. But, following the advice of those who want to celebrate Halloween in a Christian way, I am very much uncertain what this actually means. Do we have to Christianize it? I suppose we could take this route, but it seems somewhat arbitrary to me (there are no precise rules for having a distinctly Christian Halloween) , and I’m not convinced that this is a very effective way of helping others (when we choose artificial ways to be different from others, we most often look more hilarious than holy). A better approach, I think, is not necessarily to create a Christian version of Halloween but rather to live like Christians amid Halloween and other holidays. Rather than decrying, say, a Star Wars or a monster costume, we would be better off wearing the costumes but in truly faithful ways. What does that look like? Certainly, it would include exhibiting such traits as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and self control. Likewise, it would entail a determination to follow the wisdom which says, “they will know we are his disciples by our love for one another” (not, primarily, by our opposition to everything cultural). To celebrate in ways unlike the world involves, more than anything else, an effort to embody the sacrificial love of Jesus, whether or not we’re turned on by jackolanterns, pumpkins, and the like. Well, I have to run for now, for I’m on my way to a scary movie. :-)

metanoia–the ongoing need to change

“Repent!” I have to acknowledge that I most often hate it when I hear the word. Often, it comes across as an arbitrary emotional appeal designed to by-pass common-sense and the intellect, an effort to harangue people through the manipulation of human guilt into jumping through various religious hoops. A certain (earned) reputation often accompanies those who use such language. Though some of my personal aversion to this terminology may be due to the caricature promulgated by those opposed to anything Christian, I can’t help but recall the countless times when I’ve been embarrassed by the idiosyncracies of those who incessantly cry, “Repent!”

But, lest we allow our antipathy to fundamentalist caricatures to hinder our progress in (or toward) faith, we should proceed with more balance. Though “repent” may leave a bad taste in your mouth, the actual meaning of the concept is healthy and wise.

The Greek term for repent is metanoia, and it represents an idea that it quite prevalent in the New Testament. Basically, metanoia means “to turn.” It is used in a variety of contexts and implies both a “turning from” that which is harmful and spiritually damaging and a “turning to” that which is good and spiritually rejuvenating. When put that way, the notion of repentance sounds relevant, for we all need to be reminded to stay away from whatever endangers us and to stay near whatever is beneficial to us. This is what we tell our children, is it not? Likewise, we use such words when we’re trying to assist family members or friends who need to make wise choices. Repentance, then–the idea if not always the actual term–is something we are all aware of.

If we were to describe metanoia, it would include (though it wouldn’t be limited to) the following: turning from selfishness to selflessness, from arrogance to humility, from personal autonomy (“I can figure everything out on my own without the help of anyone.”) to reliance on that which is transcendent, from arrogant close mindedness to wise openness, from inappropriate behaviors to helpful and honorable ones, from dishonesty to integrity, from going you own way to following Jesus into the unknown.

Of course to provide these examples is to uncover our own inconsistencies, our own fickle tendencies. Therefore, or so it would seem, the metanoia spoken of here is not simply a once and done deal but rather an attitude that, once begun, continues throughout one’s life.+ And if that is the case, we are faced with the issue of what we are accountable to, or to whom, and this brings us squarely to Jesus and to his call.

Early in Jesus’ ministry, Jesus put it this way: “Follow Me.” He said it in a number of different ways and to a variety of people, but the basic message remained the same: “Follow Me.” At the end of the day metanoia is about acknowledging that he is worth following. It’s not about strange religious garb or weird personal habits. It’s not about living in a bubble, separated from reality. It’s not about some sort of monastic existence or abandoning one’s personality and gifts. Rather, it’s about allowing this carpenter’s son to shape and give purpose to your personality and provide direction in the use of your gifts. Indeed, it’s about recognizing that your gifts actually originate in him.

Metanoia, therefore, may not be such a bad thing after all. It may, in fact, be our highest calling. Repentance challenges us daily to live our lives with purpose and integrity, motivated and empowered by the One who governs our lives and gives us hope.

+ In one sense, repentance can be understood as a “once and for all” event, a turning away from that which leads us astray and a turning to the One for whom we were created. As such, it is the act that initiates the conversion process. However, repentance also has an ongoing character to it, for we are all prone to wander from God and his ways. In this sense, repentance is continual. The important thing, therefore, is not whether you can identify some specific time when you were initially converted, though some will, but that you make it your practice to follow the living God today.

love God . . . and do what you want! (thoughts on worldliness)

“Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). With these words, John warns us that conformity to the world is antithetical to God’s intentions for his followers. According to John, it is impossible to simultaneously love God and the world. But what does it mean to love the world?

For many worldliness has been defined in very rigid and predictable ways. Revealing clothing, hair length, piercings, tattoos, profanity, alcohol, rock music, and a myriad of other subtle and not so subtle practices are often equated with worldliness. In light of the many abuses, it is perhaps understandable that such standards are promulgated. However, whatever one thinks of these issues, worldliness cannot be reduced to a simple list.

To be worldly is to possess a likeness to those who are “in the world.” “The world,” in Scripture, is a reference to those who think their thoughts and live their lives with an exclusively secular focus, that is, those whose point of reference is limited to humanly contrived ideas. To be worldly, in other words, is to exude those qualities that are prevalent among people who, consciously or not, give little or no thought to God. When any of us fall prey to such a mentality, the result is idolatry (making anything into a “god”), self-centeredness, pride, and a host of other traits. Worldliness, therefore, cannot be so easily and externally defined, and it would be wrong to equate it with simplistic prohibitions.

Still, there is something to be said about the danger inherent in any chosen lifestyle. Thus, when Jesus referred to “the worries of this world,” he made a point to warn us that these can “choke the Word” (Mark 4:1-20). Since the cares in view here are likely a reference to the daily routines in which we find ourselves, it is possible to allow otherwise good and healthy things to consume us and crowd out that which matters most. Given this possibility, the problem of worldliness is not simply involvement in this or that activity (though, of course, it can be); the problem is with ourselves. We are the quite capable of allowing anything–good, bad, or indifferent–to so dominate us that God himself is locked out of our lives. This, in many ways, is the ongoing danger of the world. As the comic strip character Pogo once remarked, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

If this is true, worldliness cannot be thwarted by simply avoiding certain arbitrary practices. The key here is neither avoiding this or that activity nor separating ourselves from daily affairs. Rather, it is a matter of the heart. If you are doing something that is actually inappropriate (e.g., stealing), you are demonstrating worldliness. If you involve yourself in that which is personally problematic (e.g., if you drink when you know that you have a tendency to abuse alcohol), you are in a dangerous place. If you set up anything as an idol, you’re on the wrong path. The crucial element is that of the heart, not some legalistically imposed standard.

The fact is that we cannot escape the daily activities of this life, nor should we want to. Though it is important to steer clear of anything that actually violates God’s intentions, the most important thing we can do is set our minds on “things above” (Colossians 3:1-2). That is, we must look outside of ourselves to the One who was (and is) willing to rescue us from waywardness, envelop us in unconditional love, and lead us on a smooth path. With this focus, we will be energized to give expression to such higher aspirations as selflessness, humility, compassion, and love.

Augustine said it so well many centuries ago when he uttered these words: “Love God, and do what you want.” If we love God, we’ll stay away from things that are improper. If we love God, it’s much more likely that we’ll keep our priorities straight. If we love God, wisdom will more readily permeate our lives. If we love God, we’ll learn that it’s not about whether we consume or abstain from alcohol. What truly matters is that our greatest treasure is a reflection of the goodness and grace we’ve received from our Creator/Savior. In this sense, it’s all about loving God.

Do goof balls go to heaven?

Let me be blunt. Sometimes, I am an idiot, a goof ball who demonstrates little understanding of what it means to live the right way or do the right thing, much less live for God. I have often been hypercritical and hypocritical. My attitude is often not what it ought to be, and only God know how many times I’ve entangled in ideas and actions that belie my supposed commitment to higher things.

How can I even speak about things like truth and faith? What gives me the right to even mention God’s name? After all, if you were to interview my wife and kids, if you could read my mind, if you truly knew how foolishly I can behave, you’d notice a great dichotomy between my interests/claims and the real me. Can blockheads and spiritual hypocrites make it to heaven?

Well, first of all, I should be clear. I’m neither advocating hypocrisy nor promoting a relativistic “do what you want” attitude. At least, that’s not my intent. Indeed, even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals God’s distaste for the inauthentic and fake. We cannot make excuses, in other words.

On the other hand, human experience teaches us how inconsistent we can appear and how flimsy our integrity can be. So, what we are to make of these matters? How can we do justice to the fact that we really cannot yield to an excuse-making agenda, a naive assumption that the way we live doesn’t matter, while simultaneously acknowledging and living with the realization that even the best of human beings are just that, human?

To be honest, I haven’t worked all of this out. Indeed, I tend to think that we simply need to live with the tension. That is, we must hold these self-evident realties together, somehow living with our own faults and inconsistencies yet not succumbing to our worst impulses. Or, to put it another way, we must not allow our wrongful tendencies to go unchallenged, but we also have to accept the truth that we are exactly the type of people whom God came to rescue.

Can spiritually and morally flawed creatures make it to heaven? Yes, I think they can, and I sure hope they can. Indeed, a strong argument can be made that it is specifically the unqualified and unconditional love of God that motivates our efforts to grow as human beings. When we recognize that God’s care for us doesn’t waver, when we realize that it was for people like us that Jesus came in the first place, when we face up to the fact that God embraces us even when we have embraced the things he hates–we are set free and given the impetus for following him. This, I think, is what Scripture is referring to when it says things like, “the love of Christ compels us” (2 Corinthians 5:14).

What’s the bottom line? Resist improper inclinations, and own up to both your imperfections and poor choices. But, even as you “come clean,” always remember that he loves you still, despite your inconsistencies and mess ups. Go to him. Look to him. Allow your thoughts to take you to that place from long ago when the only perfect person who ever lived cared about you so much that he was willing to absorb every wrong you’d ever commit. Our Maker sent his Son to reclaim all who are willing to entrust their lives and destinies to him, and he accepts even goof balls like me.

Hope's Reason: The Apologetic Significance of 1 Peter 3:13-17

Many Christian thinkers defend the discipline of apologetics by quoting 1 Peter 3:15. Here the apologetics mandate is clearly delineated. One problem, however, is that most apologists never bother to exegete the actual text to which they often refer! Therefore, because it plays a vital role in understanding the apologetic task, it may be helpful to take a closer look at this significant passage of Scripture.

Introduction

When it comes to apologetics, one of the most important (and often quoted) passages in Scripture is 1 Peter 3:15. Here the apologetics mandate is clearly delineated as Peter urges his readers to give an answer for their hope. Indeed, there is little question that this text plays a key role in understanding the subject.

But many, who rightly see in this text a justification for apologetics, are prone to merely quote it in a cursory fashion, while barely noticing (or missing!) some of the apologetic guidance this rich passage provides. Therefore, this portion of Peter's first letter warrants deeper reflection on its context and contents.

Survey

Peter's first letter to the believers scattered throughout Asia Minor (i.e., modern day Turkey) is filled with instruction on how to live successfully in a fallen world. This he accomplishes by identifying God's people (1:2; 2:9-10), depicting their relationships within society (2:13-20; 3:1ff), and pointing them to the One who alone can produce lasting hope (1:13). The reason why hope is so significant is because of the reality of suffering, specifically suffering for the sake of Christ (1:6-7; 4:12-19).

It is within the framework of this suffering motif that the apostle encourages his readers to live holy lives (2:15-16; 4:7). Indeed, Peter expands on this theme in 3:13-4:19. Then, within this broader context, he elucidates principles relevant to the subject of suffering for godly conduct in society (3:13-17). This passage further divides into two sections: (1) an encouragement to live zealous and informed lives (3:13-14a), and (2) the provision of an alternative to the intimidation resulting from persecution (3:14b-17). In essence, then, Peter here enjoins his readers to utilize, and so enjoy the benefits of, a truly Christian apologetic. This will be explored in greater detail. In verse thirteen of chapter three, Peter asks a rhetorical question: "Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?" The clear implication is that godly living (depicted, for example, in 3:1-12) can sometimes insulate the believer from certain troubles. On the other hand, suffering cannot be completely avoided, and when it comes, says Peter, Christians are "blessed" (v. 14). "This blessedness or happiness is the certainty that comes from belonging to God and His kingdom with the promises of future vindication."[1]

The thought continues as Peter draws, with minor alterations, from Isaiah 8:12 (LXX): "And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled" (v. 14b). This type of intimidation can be crushing for the suffering believer, leading to turmoil and trepidation. But there is an alternative to fear, one about which Peter has already written (e.g., 1:6-9, 13-16; 2:18-25). The alternative is perseverance, which is not to be viewed as a vague quality. On the contrary, the Christian's continuance in the faith is the result of a changed perspective. Instead of concentrating on the troubles that inevitably result from a God-honoring lifestyle, Christians are to "sanctify Christ as Lord" (v. 15). To sanctify Christ as Lord is to treat Him as He really is, to consciously yield to His authority and will. "The focus of itself is upon the inward acknowledgment of Christ's Lordship."[2] The phrase "in your hearts" refers to the believer's inner life. The believer's commitment begins internally and works its way out in practical ways.

Peter goes on to elaborate on the implications of Jesus' Lordship. For him, this entails the implementation of Christian truth and, among other things, a readiness to give an account of one's hope. The passage reads: "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is within you" (v. 15). "Always" stresses the ongoing need to remain alert, for unbelievers are watching (v. 15). This means that hope, normally considered an internal characteristic or mind set, is observable. As the Christian anticipates Jesus' return, hope begins to swell, and even present difficulties become something less than defeating. Far from a merely contemplated and/or verbalized wish, biblical hope so permeates the lives of God's people that unbelievers are forced to take notice.

But hope is not only to be perceived but explained. What is needed is a defense or answer. Though the Greek apologia (from which apologetics is derived) is used of a formal defense in a courtroom setting, here it is "being applied to informal exchanges between Christian and non-Christian at any time (aei) and under varied circumstances."[3] The term "account" (logon) similarly implies that "you are to state on what ground you cherish that hope."[4] In view, then, is the believer's effort to communicate objective Christian realities, those which undergird and stimulate hope. "This implies a constant willingness to speak up for him, to confess one's allegiance to him, and to witness fearlessly to his saving grace."[5]

Thus far Peter has urged holy living, even amidst suffering, and he has instructed his readers to "give an answer." This answer, this apologia, however, is not to be thought of as cold, abstract, and (worse still) condescending. Instead Christian apologists (i.e., all believers) are to speak with "gentleness" (prautetos) and "reverence" (phobou). Commentators differ on the precise meaning of these terms. Some take both as a Godward attitude, i.e., Christians are to be humble and respectful/fearful toward God, and this obviously affects one's relationships with others.[6] Many commentators, however, interpret the first term with reference to man, and the second to God. If this is correct, Peter is saying that "gentleness should be shown toward the antagonists and respect emphatically toward God."[7] It is even feasible that both terms are applicable to the Christian's attitude toward unbelievers. In this case, "gentleness and respect" (NIV) are traits exemplified in the evangelist's stance toward others. "‘Respect' would mean treating the unbeliever as what he is—a person created in the image of God. It would mean not talking down to him, but listening to him—not belittling him, but taking seriously his questions and ideas."[8] Whatever the specifics, central to Peter's purpose is the proper "delivery" of the Christian message. Thus life, words, and manner of presentation are all integral to the apologist's mission. As Peter concludes this portion of the letter, he once again reminds his audience that suffering is inevitable. In context, this takes the form of slander (v. 16), which is to be countered by conduct consistent with a "good conscience" (v. 16). When mistreatment is met in such a fashion, revilers are "put to shame" (v. 16). "Possibly he is thinking of the way in which persecutors will be ashamed at the Last Judgment when they realize that the people whom they despised are honored by God. More likely he has in mind a change of heart by the persecutors here in this life."[9] Therefore, if God allows persecution, it ought to be the result of "doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong" (v. 17). This way, both believer and (potentially, at least) unbeliever benefit. Peter encourages this outlook by appealing once again to Christ—the believer's Savior, hope, example, and strength (3:8-22).

As mentioned earlier, 1 Peter 3:15 is often quoted in connection with apologetics. But rarely is it observed within its wider and narrower contexts. Having conducted a survey, however, it is now possible to draw apologetic principles from this pertinent New Testament passage.

Apologetic Principles

The Bible is simply teeming with apologetic data. To 1 Peter 3:13-17 could be added any one of a number of relevant passages (e.g., Acts 17:2-3, 15ff; 19:8; Philippians 1:5-7, 16; Jude 3). Still, this text is indeed significant, for it provides clues as to how Christian apologetics works. To that end, here are a number of relevant principles.

(1) Genuine hope constitutes a kind of apologetic attention-grabber.

Throughout 1 Peter, hope is a predominant theme. This is the case, of course, because of the difficult circumstances that many a first-century believer endured. The same is true today. Trying and hurtful times require something of substance to cling to. Ultimately, only Christ can provide such an anchor for the soul.

But, the presence of hope is not merely a comfort for believers. It is also has a powerful influence on those outsiders who observe Christian behavior. This means that true biblical hope is often the instrument by which non-Christians come to see the power and uniqueness of the Christian gospel.

In a very real sense, then, hope itself—possessed, perceived, and eventually explained—is the impetus for evangelistic success. When unbelievers notice Christ's followers exuding hope, even when surrounded by persecution, they sometimes want to understand this strange outlook. One of the believer's greatest weapons of communication, therefore, is the stability provided by the knowledge of eschatological glory. As this hope permeates a person's life, it serves as a powerful apologetic attention-grabber.

(2) Hope's explanation is key to the apologetic task.

It is true that hope, all by itself, is able to capture the attention of non-Christians. But eventually more must be done and said. While the Christian's life is to attract people to the gospel, at some point this gospel must be verbalized. In other words, hope demands an explanation. As Goppelt notes: "Here every Christian is summoned to be prepared at all times in relation to every person to give an account about the meaning of being a Christian."[10]

Depending on the circumstances, there are many ways that this might be accomplished. For some a simple declaration of Jesus' suitability as Savior is all that is needed. Others require answers to the objections raised against Christianity. For certain individuals misperceptions need correction.

But whatever the particulars, the Christian's witness must center in God's Son. He, after all, is the source of genuine hope. Thus, apologetics involves a concerted effort to declare the facts about Jesus Christ and to show forth the attractiveness of following Him. There are countless reasons why a person should follow the Savior; the believer's task is to share these.[11]

(3) Life and word are inseparably linked in a truly biblical apologetic.

Christian evangelism involves both hope and an explanation of the same. Indeed, Peter seems convinced that these two cannot (or should not) be divorced. After all, a life without a message may impress, but it leaves the onlooker in his sins. The goal of evangelism is not merely that people notice Christian piety, but that they embrace the One who transforms lives. On the other hand, a message devoid of godly example remains unconvincing, even hypocritical. Indeed, one wonders how many have spurned Christianity because of the lack of godliness among professing Christians.

But the different facets of Christian apologetics were never intended to be compartmentalized, for hope and word, life and message work in tandem. Christian witnessing requires speech, the communicated Word of God, even as it demands conduct worthy of this heavenly message. Put plainly, the apologetic task requires a divinely initiated coalescence of life and word.

(4) Evangelistic relevance and apologetic savvy require the diligent use of the mind.

Peter informs his readers that they are to give an answer or a defense to those who ask. But this is not necessarily an easy task. At one level, of course, the Christian message is simple, and all believers ought to be able to share it with others. At another level, though, the complexity of life and of the situations in which men and women find themselves can make communication quite difficult.

For instance, certain people have been influenced by various anti-Christian philosophies.[12] Others have had bad experiences with church people. Indeed, the objections of some are grounded in the bad impressions fostered by true believers.

It is important or Christians to think through the ways in which they communicate with the unbelieving world. Of course believers should not be pressured (from within or without) to feel they must have the answers to all queries. Furthermore, the central answer to which Peter refers here relates to Christian hope, not some philosophical dispute. Still, there does appear to be more to evangelism (and to this passage) than the robotic repetition of a canned message.[13] Instead, Christians are encouraged to give serious responses to (sometimes reasonable, sometimes unreasonable) questions, and this requires some measure of thought. Indeed, apologetics "rests on two premises: (1) that you know something about your friends, and (2) that you know something about Christianity."[14]

It is true, of course, that believers need not become scholars in order to share the good news. Then again, clear thinking was never intended to be an activity reserved for professional theologians.

(5) One aspect of a Christian theodicy[15] is the hope of Jesus' return, coupled with a life transformed by this hope.

Suffering is surely one of the great equalizers of human existence and one of the major objections to Christianity. Indeed, in one sense, Christians and unbelievers share the same lot. Though perhaps for different reasons, all people eventually experience the pangs of heartache. No one can avoid contact with what theologians and philosophers refer to as the problem of evil. Now, the Bible has much to say (directly or by way of implication) about this subject (e.g., Job 38-42), but Peter's theodicy in this text is quite simple. He urges Christians to live soberly within this fallen world (1:13-16; 2:1-2; 4:7ff), and to look ahead to the time when evil's conqueror, Jesus Christ, returns.

Between now and then much suffering may come into a person's life, some of which is baffling and nearly unbearably painful. But there is a difference in the way Christians and non-Christians handle difficulty. When the unbeliever encounters life's trials, the outcome is often one of escape, frustration, depression, and confusion. Thus, when Christians react otherwise, non-Christians—who have themselves experienced pain—take notice. This does not mean that believers never fall apart. Nor does it imply some type of stoic resignation, as a kind of "spiritual" painkiller. It is just that the Christian's overall perspective is the antithesis of unbelieving thought, and this is a powerful argument against the ultimate triumph of evil. Though believers in Jesus are not given a full explanation concerning the problem of evil, they are given hope that one day the trials will end. In fact, Jesus Himself encountered and defeated evil in His cross (e.g., 1:11, 18-21; 2:21-24). Therefore, amidst the pain, Christians can hold up a genuine and powerful antidote to the problem of evil, the hope given to those who trust Jesus Christ. Whatever nagging questions remain, in Him there is enablement to persevere now and to expect that one day evil will be put down forever.

(6) Hard circumstances, especially those resulting from persecution for Jesus' sake, often provide an opportunity for apologetics to flourish.

As Peter's overall context shows, and as noted above, the Christian's response to suffering is a strong argument for the truthfulness of Christianity. In fact so surprising is this response that those who lack such hope are led to ask questions.

But all of this touches on another factor that is sometimes neglected by those emersed in life's trials. Trying circumstances often provide the context within which apologetics flourish. Though all people experience suffering, the Christian is able to handle it differently. This allows the unbeliever to witness, first-hand, the power of the Christian gospel. Since this is so, Christians should be more alert to apologetic opportunities when trials come.

(7) The proclamation of Jesus' Lordship and the use of reasoned arguments work hand in hand in the doing of apologetics.

Within the realm of apologetics, there are two broad camps, presuppositionalism and evidentialism.[16] Usually, these are viewed as separate and irreconcilable positions. What is interesting here, though, is that both are intertwined. Without getting into a detailed philosophical discussion, it appears that Lordship, the presuppositionalist's battle cry, and reasoning, the evidentialist's mainstay, exist side by side. On the one hand, Jesus' Lordship is to be maintained and announced. On the other hand, coherent answers are to be provided for the non-Christian inquirer. A balanced (and biblical!) apologetic can do nothing less.

(8) The gospel is integral to genuine apologetics.

Certain apologists are so concerned with winning an argument that they forget the ultimate purpose for which they are called, the winning of souls to Christ. This being the case, it is very instructive to see Peter's christocentric focus. Though there is much to share with the unbeliever, hope is of paramount importance. This hope centers in Jesus Christ, the Christian's Lord and love. Only He can rescue fallen humans from spiritual slavery.

Therefore apologetics is true to the evangelistic commission only to the degree that it points people to the unique Savior. He, after all, is the sum and substance of Christian theology, fellowship, evangelism, preaching, and life. In Him apologetics finds its sure foundation and goal.

(9) All Christian are to be, at some level, apologists.

Too often Christians consider themselves spectators, mere observers of Christian ministry.[17] From this mistaken perspective, apologetics seems foreign to some. They think it is the responsibility of someone else. Peter doesn't treat apologetics this way. Instead, he encourages believers to join the apologetic venture. While this does not mean that every Christian is equally gifted (or interested) in these matters, at some level all are urged to consider their role within the spheres in which they live.

Christians are often instructed to be heavenly minded (Philippians 4:8; Colossians 3:1-4);[18] when this outlook evokes a response, they should be prepared. Answers must be provided, reasons given, hope explained. It is the privilege and duty of all Christ's followers to join in these noble efforts.

(10) Apologetics is central, not incidental, to the evangelistic cause.

Apologetics is often treated as ancillary to the task of reaching the world for Christ. Sometimes this mistaken notion is caused by overly zealous defenders of the faith, who promote an imbalanced (or even unbiblical) philosophy of apologetics.

A more biblical approach enables the Christian to see the true relevance of apologetics. Though there are many facets to this discipline, at the core it must be seen as integral to Christian evangelism. Here in 1 Peter it forms the content of the believer's message. Indeed, to excise the apologia to which Peter refers is to strip the gospel of its explanatory force, thus robbing unbelievers of the opportunity to know precisely what it is that stirs the hearts of God's people. If evangelism is, strictly speaking, the sharing of the how-to's of Christian salvation, apologetics is the platform on which evangelism is built. Evangelism says, "Come to the Savior." Apologetics exclaims, "Here is why." Whatever else is true, apologetics must not be minimized or treated as secondary. Instead it should be viewed as an indispensable component of the mission to show forth the beauty of Christ, the believer's hope.

Concluding Reflections

Life is complex and often unpredictable. Joy and sorrow, peace and misery, occupy the lives of all people. Christians especially know this to be the case, for in Christ joys are multiplied, as are persecutions.

It is within this up and down world, that the Christian gospel offers so much hope. This hope, as Peter instructs, is not temporary or shallow. Rather it finds its anchor in the magnificent Jesus, the One who came to save and who will come again to complete the work He initiated.

If anything ought to be true of the believer, it is this mighty allegiance to the Lord. He not only provides blessings now, but hope for tomorrow. So powerful is this hope that it is capable (in God's grace) of reaching into the hearts of lost men and women. When this occurs, they want to know why the Christian is so confident and secure.

A faithful apologia begins with a heart commitment; Jesus is "sanctified as Lord." This works its way out in the words spoken to those so desperately in need of the Savior.

"Our apologetics must be pervaded by a sense of Christ's lordship, and this demands diligent preparation so that we may be able to obey our Lord's great commission, being prepared to answer inquirers—not only with proclamation, but with answers and reasons."[19]

In the final analysis Christians must learn to appreciate the grace that causes them to be members of "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession." Prolonged contemplation of this blessed condition can only compel believers to "proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called [them] out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9). This declaration of the splendid Savior is at the hub of biblical apologetics. To that end, may the Lord Himself reign in the hearts of His people, shining forth in their lives, thus providing opportunities to share the reason for the hope that is in them.

NOTES

1. Edwin A. Blum, 1 Peter, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol 12. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 240.
2. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 49. (Waco,Tx.: Word Books, 1988), 187.
3. Ibid., 188.
4. Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishers, 1976), 1421.
5. Scot McKnight, 1 Peter, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 213.
6. See Michaels, 189.
7. I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter, The IVP New Testament Series (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 116.
8. John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994), 30.
9. Marshall, 116.
10. Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 244.
11. Here the plural, reasons, has been employed, but the text of 1 Peter 3:15 actually reads reason. The use of the singular is probably intended by Peter to highlight the ultimate cause of a person's hope, i.e., Jesus Christ. But the declaration of this single reason, by the nature of the case, demands fuller explanation. Thus, the Christian's reason for hope is Jesus Christ, which is demonstrated through the use of many arguments or reasons.
12. For an exposé of some popular belief systems, see Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture (Nashville, Tn.: Word Publishing, 1997). Also, a good examination of world views can be found in James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988).
13. This is not to suggest that it is wrong for the Christian to memorize and rehearse what he or she might say. The point, rather, is that it is incumbent upon believers to acquire as much knowledge as they reasonably can. Though the essentials of the gospel can be grasped and communicated by a child, the Christian message should not be reduced to the simple repetition of the same words. For example, compare and contrast the evangelistic method of Acts 7 with that of Acts 17. Note also Peter's own instruction to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18).
14. Michael Green and Alister McGrath, How Shall We Reach Them? The Christian Faith to Nonbelievers (Nashville, Tn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 50.
15. A theodicy is an attempt to explain the presence of evil in a good and sovereign God's world. One component of a full-orbed apologetic, therefore, is to provide a solid, biblical perspective on such matters. See, for example, D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990).
16. Presuppositionalism and evidentialism are broad categories, admitting a wide range of perspectives. For an effort to combine the strengths of each, see Ronald B. Mayers, Balanced Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984). See also D. A. Carson's discussion in The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 184-188.
17. Contrast this with Ephesians 4:11-13, where "the saints" (i.e., all believers) are the ones performing Christian ministry.
18. An old saying goes, "You are too heavenly minded to be of any earthy good." Quite the contrary, the Bible tells us that it is precisely this "heavenly mindedness" that equips Christians to benefit others!
19. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), 358.

Hope's Reason: The Apologetic Significance of 1 Peter 3:13-17
Copyright © 1999 by Carmen C. DiCello
All rights reserved.