The world around us is changing rapidly, and the church is, as usual, unsure of which way to go. Should we resist the prevalent postmodern tendencies of our day? Should we embrace them? Furthermore, how as believers ought we go about attracting people to the good news? Or, to put it another way, what should an apologetic look like today?It seems to me–for what it’s worth–that we tend to go to extremes when it comes to almost everything. Thus, some believers are committed to what might be termed a modern scheme, an apologetic of logic. Lay out the facts, plug in the evidence, weigh the options, and–all things being considered–faith is likely to occur. The weaknesses of this approaches are numerous, and I will only mention a few. For one, the plain fact is that many people today are not logic-driven. This doesn't mean they are necessarily illogical but rather not guided primarily by those impulses. Second, the tendency among those who provide “answers” is to come across in a manner that appears (though not necessarily is) arrogant. After all, if we spend a lot of our time elucidating what we (think we) know, we will eventually come across as if just about all answers are available. Real life, I would argue, demonstrates how fallacious such a view can be. Third, a modern apologetic often seems, shall we say, impersonal in focus. Some apologists expend so much energy trying to organize facts that the object of those facts (i.e., God) is sometimes left out of the picture. While some of these remarks are surely generalizations, I think they are true enough to warrant a careful reconsideration of the modern apologetic program.
Next, there are those who might be termed postmodern apologists. These are individuals who recognize the weaknesses just mentioned (and there are others) and who, therefore, desire to go beyond the modern agenda to a postmodern-sensitive apologetic. Among many features, a postmodern apologetic would include a humbler approach to knowledge, evidence, and just about everything else, combined with a concomitant emphasis on the mystery of faith (and many facets of life in general). Likewise, a postmodern apologetic recognizes the community-oriented heartbeat of human beings, highlighting the relational, seeking avenues of connection with others and with God himself. One of the great challenges (and potential blessings) for postmodern apologists is to locate ways to facilitate these experiences. Another potentially helpful avenue would be an image-oriented application of the truth. Leonard Sweet writes about this fact in general; it is up to apologists to think of creative ways to utilize the visual element in a way that prompts faith without promoting idolatry. All this being said–and there's much more that might be added–what elements might a contemporary and forward-leaning apologetic consist?
A Philosophy of History and Culture
One thing I would argue for is that we need to become much more cognizant of our situatedness, our place in history. We are not simply objective observers in an easy-to-interpret universe. This fact ought to produce humility in us, and it is often mentioned in that context. But I think there is more to our historical locatedness that the recognition that we don’t have all the answers. We must also realize that the God of the Bible, if he is indeed the true God, has been, is, and always will be active in human affairs. This means that it is likely that God does somewhat different things throughout time. A quick survey of Scripture supports this claim, for the unchangeable God (unchangeable so far as his nature and character) often does change in the ways he interacts with his creatures. I have often wondered how differently we would approach theology, philosophy, apologetics, and life if we were able to grasp the reality that God seems to highlight distinct truths at different phases of history. Can’t we learn the lessons of the past, the good and the bad of what preceded us? For instance might we figure out how to resist (and even oppose) the harmful apologetic tendencies without rejecting the good ones? Likewise, is it not possible to notice positive new trends without being dupes of every politically correct agenda? Furthermore, can we not look to the future in informed and creative ways, allowing history to assist us in the task of apologetics? We need a kind of proper attitude toward or a philosophy of history, which is ultimately God’s story. By God’s grace and with his guidance, we must remain aware of the past, alert to the present, and open to what is yet come.
A Balanced (or Both/And) Approach
In keeping with the previous point, I think it is helpful to integrate as many positive features as we can. To the degree that we learn the lessons of history and appreciate the best features of the various “schools” of apologetics, it is feasible to take an integrative approach. This being said, here are a few suggestions as to the apologetic direction we might take.
A Cognitive-Existential Apologetic
Postmoderns emphasize the experiential. This is why we must seeks ways of encouraging this connection between human beings and the ultimate being, God. At the end of the day, people must encounter him. That being said, some postmoderns fail to recognize the need for cognitive content. Our apologetic, therefore, while encouraging an experience with God should also seek to delineate what sort of God he is. One fear of mine is that postmoderns will go so far in their efforts to share more than abstract, theoretical knowledge that they neglect the fact that some postmoderns still demand reasonable answers to their questions. As we move into postmodern terrain, I think that the overly “touchy feely” approach will be seen an over-reaction to modern abuses. To avoid this, I think we should fully embrace the postmodern turn but not with a naivete that would think that we are the only legitimate apologetic practitioners. Somehow, we must combine the cognitive or intellectual with the experiential.
Framework Apologetics
By this I mean that we need to provide an atmosphere, an intellectual and practical place, where men and women, whatever their spiritual status, can explore the faith. While there are certain aspects of the truth that must be argued for vigorously and in some detail, other things are not so neatly categorized. When it comes to many of the mysteries of life, what many people want most is simply a place where they can contemplate the unknown or uncertain. Obviously, this includes the type of people we are. Do we make not-yet-Christians feel comfortable, or do we stress them out with our overly confrontational ways? But, I actually have more in mind than our personal contact with others. What I’m referring to is the manner in which we approach life in general. If we convey the idea that all the “T’s” must be crossed and all the “i’s” must be dotted, we will lose people for a number of reasons. For one, most people already know that life is not so easily grasped. Thus, to force feed certainty where it is inappropriate comes across as arrogant or at least naive. What’s more, it by-passes the avenue by which people can truly encounter the truth. If we provide every opinion of our own, especially when our theories are less-than-certain, we hinder people from exploring the truth for themselves. A framework, then, is just that. It includes broad ideas, drawn from Scripture and life, which provide a measure of guidance in thinking through the issues that confront us. Though details can sometimes matter, they only make sense from within the sphere of the “big picture” God has adequately revealed. Our responsibility, or so it seems to me, is to lay out these broad ideas in a faithful manner, to embody these truths to the best of our ability, and to journey with others as they consider the faith. One wonders how many unnecessary fights might have been avoided, how many misunderstandings could have been curtailed, had conscientious Christians learned to “major on majors,” allowing those essential realities to be the parameters, the guiding principles, for thinking through the things that matter most.
An Exclusivistic Pluralistic Approach
One of the major difficulties that Christians face is how to remain faithful to the biblical claims concerning the exclusive claims of the one true God and his Son, Jesus, in a world that simply assumes that many paths (if not all) lead to God.
First, it is evident to many that what might be termed naive pluralism is an absurd concept, for no one lives in a way that literally places all views on an equal plane. To say that the philosophy of, say, Adolph Hitler should receive as much respect as that of that of Gandhi, is ludicrous. People in the real world, whatever their official claims to the contrary, recognize that there is such a thing as good and evil, proper and improper, mediocrity and excellence.
Second, a reasonable type of pluralism can (indeed, should) be embraced by Christians, for it is quite evident that human beings, created by God in his own image, are likely to give expression to this fact. Therefore, one would expect (and even look for) these God-given qualities to exist in many places and among many people.
All that said, it is also true that human beings are, to say the least, spiritually “out of sorts” and seemingly unable or unwilling to look out for their own best interests. More so, men and women (all of us!) provide daily examples of their alienation from God and his ways. The Christian solution to this dilemma is located in Jesus, God’s unique Son and humanity’s one Savior.
Of course any claim of exclusivity is often met with disdain. How can anyone be so narrow-minded, so arrogant? Well, the fact is that many Christians have been arrogant, but that’s not the real point. The issue, quite simply, is whether Jesus himself is arrogant, and this must be answered in the negative. Unfortunately, these debates have often been framed inaccurately and, as a result, the claims of Jesus are misunderstood. But, what should we do with his claims? Was he the very epitome of out-of-control hubris, some sort of religious megalomaniac? Or, as more often contended, should he simply be “elevated” to a place of equal status with the other leaders of major religions.
Neither of these options will do, for Jesus did indeed claim to be “the way, and the truth, and the life.’ But, and this is important, he was never arrogant in the way he demonstrated these claims. Rather, he came across as God’s humble servant, as the only one able and willing to go to go to such lengths to show forth God’s love and rescue humanity. Though Jesus was often bold (especially, I might add, when confronting the religious leaders of his day), his attitude and demeanor were that of compassion and mercy and boundless love. Thus, the exclusive claims of Jesus should not be seen as the antiquated views of an out-of-control religious fanatic. Rather, they are the manifestation of this amazing fact: He is not simply the one-and-only Savior; he is also the only one who is gracious enough and powerful enough to actually reunite us with our loving (and holy) Creator. (By the way, this is something of an adaptation of C. S. Lewis’s trilemma argument.)
So, we have to account for a number of important ideas: (1) God is present in his world, and thus we ought to anticipate signs of his presence. (2) Human beings, for all their admirable traits, are still in need of reconciliation with their Maker. (3) Jesus alone meets the requirements of God and the needs of human beings. As such he is the only Savior.
In balancing these factors, a few general remarks are necessary. First, if Jesus is the only way, some ways must be wrong ways. Though this statement may not sound very politically correct, it is in fact consistent with the way most human beings actually think and act. Some roads lead to the interstate, while others will take you to a dead end. Second, the normative expectation of Scripture is that of faith. Both the Old and New Testaments confirm that people are expected to know certain things about God and to respond to what they know. Third, a lot about faith is, by the nature of the case, subjective. Thus, it can be difficult to know who has genuine faith and who does not. Furthermore, no exact formula exists as to how much knowledge is enough. Indeed, there are examples in Scripture where minimal knowledge is apparently sufficient to yield saving faith. Fourth, the whole nature of salvation is shrouded in mystery and in the personal. After all, who can “see” faith? You can only observe the fruit of faith. More importantly, one can never tell exactly where the grace of God might reach. Indeed, he searches the earth for those who will follow him. Therefore, it should not surprise us to discover that he “shows up” in some unusual places. This means, among other things, that we ought to maintain a reasonable optimism when it comes to the salvation of those who don’t quite fit our preconceived categories. We shouldn’t be naive, of course. But I think we can prayerfully and with faith look for God to exceed our expectations and to demonstrate, as he did most profoundly in Jesus, that he is indeed a friend of sinners. (For some additional thoughts, look here and here.)
First, it is evident to many that what might be termed naive pluralism is an absurd concept, for no one lives in a way that literally places all views on an equal plane. To say that the philosophy of, say, Adolph Hitler should receive as much respect as that of that of Gandhi, is ludicrous. People in the real world, whatever their official claims to the contrary, recognize that there is such a thing as good and evil, proper and improper, mediocrity and excellence.
Second, a reasonable type of pluralism can (indeed, should) be embraced by Christians, for it is quite evident that human beings, created by God in his own image, are likely to give expression to this fact. Therefore, one would expect (and even look for) these God-given qualities to exist in many places and among many people.
All that said, it is also true that human beings are, to say the least, spiritually “out of sorts” and seemingly unable or unwilling to look out for their own best interests. More so, men and women (all of us!) provide daily examples of their alienation from God and his ways. The Christian solution to this dilemma is located in Jesus, God’s unique Son and humanity’s one Savior.
Of course any claim of exclusivity is often met with disdain. How can anyone be so narrow-minded, so arrogant? Well, the fact is that many Christians have been arrogant, but that’s not the real point. The issue, quite simply, is whether Jesus himself is arrogant, and this must be answered in the negative. Unfortunately, these debates have often been framed inaccurately and, as a result, the claims of Jesus are misunderstood. But, what should we do with his claims? Was he the very epitome of out-of-control hubris, some sort of religious megalomaniac? Or, as more often contended, should he simply be “elevated” to a place of equal status with the other leaders of major religions.
Neither of these options will do, for Jesus did indeed claim to be “the way, and the truth, and the life.’ But, and this is important, he was never arrogant in the way he demonstrated these claims. Rather, he came across as God’s humble servant, as the only one able and willing to go to go to such lengths to show forth God’s love and rescue humanity. Though Jesus was often bold (especially, I might add, when confronting the religious leaders of his day), his attitude and demeanor were that of compassion and mercy and boundless love. Thus, the exclusive claims of Jesus should not be seen as the antiquated views of an out-of-control religious fanatic. Rather, they are the manifestation of this amazing fact: He is not simply the one-and-only Savior; he is also the only one who is gracious enough and powerful enough to actually reunite us with our loving (and holy) Creator. (By the way, this is something of an adaptation of C. S. Lewis’s trilemma argument.)
So, we have to account for a number of important ideas: (1) God is present in his world, and thus we ought to anticipate signs of his presence. (2) Human beings, for all their admirable traits, are still in need of reconciliation with their Maker. (3) Jesus alone meets the requirements of God and the needs of human beings. As such he is the only Savior.
In balancing these factors, a few general remarks are necessary. First, if Jesus is the only way, some ways must be wrong ways. Though this statement may not sound very politically correct, it is in fact consistent with the way most human beings actually think and act. Some roads lead to the interstate, while others will take you to a dead end. Second, the normative expectation of Scripture is that of faith. Both the Old and New Testaments confirm that people are expected to know certain things about God and to respond to what they know. Third, a lot about faith is, by the nature of the case, subjective. Thus, it can be difficult to know who has genuine faith and who does not. Furthermore, no exact formula exists as to how much knowledge is enough. Indeed, there are examples in Scripture where minimal knowledge is apparently sufficient to yield saving faith. Fourth, the whole nature of salvation is shrouded in mystery and in the personal. After all, who can “see” faith? You can only observe the fruit of faith. More importantly, one can never tell exactly where the grace of God might reach. Indeed, he searches the earth for those who will follow him. Therefore, it should not surprise us to discover that he “shows up” in some unusual places. This means, among other things, that we ought to maintain a reasonable optimism when it comes to the salvation of those who don’t quite fit our preconceived categories. We shouldn’t be naive, of course. But I think we can prayerfully and with faith look for God to exceed our expectations and to demonstrate, as he did most profoundly in Jesus, that he is indeed a friend of sinners. (For some additional thoughts, look here and here.)
A “Worldly” Apologetic
Often times it is said that in order to reach those outside of the faith we must get to know them, and this is true, generally speaking. The problem, however, is that this can also come across the wrong way. It’s almost as if we are conducting some sort of clinical research, viewing people from a distance so as to determine the tastes and tendencies of those who have yet to embrace Jesus. This, I would argue, is a superficial way to conduct ministry, producing a disconnect with non-Christians.
Perhaps you’ve been there, or maybe you’ve seen this among certain traditional believers. They want to be nice and helpful and to learn the ways of the people they encounter. But they almost seem like they are from another world, as if they are living “outside the bubble” when it comes to relating to others.
There is a sense, of course, in which we should be “different.” Our attitudes, our commitment to love, our discernment, our humility–these and other things should be evident. Indeed, there ought to be a genuineness to the manner in which we live, an authenticity that truly stands out in a crowd. In this sense we are anything but worldly, in the biblical depiction of the term.
Yet, in another sense, we have to understand that true connections with people will not occur, and our apologetic will not be effective, unless we actually immerse ourselves in the lives of others. What I’m talking about, of course, is an incarnational attitude, that is, a heart that follows Jesus and the patterns he set.
In other words there is a sense in which we must be “worldly” if we expect to relate to people. Indeed, anything less not only comes across as disingenuous but, in many cases, actually is. Human beings are not to be treated as our “projects,” as mere objects of study. They are our friends, co-workers, neighbors, family members, and sometimes they are our enemies. And we have to live among them if we hope to embody an apologetic that is real. We must learn–carefully, wisely, prayerfully, but also wholeheartedly–a worldly apologetic.
Perhaps you’ve been there, or maybe you’ve seen this among certain traditional believers. They want to be nice and helpful and to learn the ways of the people they encounter. But they almost seem like they are from another world, as if they are living “outside the bubble” when it comes to relating to others.
There is a sense, of course, in which we should be “different.” Our attitudes, our commitment to love, our discernment, our humility–these and other things should be evident. Indeed, there ought to be a genuineness to the manner in which we live, an authenticity that truly stands out in a crowd. In this sense we are anything but worldly, in the biblical depiction of the term.
Yet, in another sense, we have to understand that true connections with people will not occur, and our apologetic will not be effective, unless we actually immerse ourselves in the lives of others. What I’m talking about, of course, is an incarnational attitude, that is, a heart that follows Jesus and the patterns he set.
In other words there is a sense in which we must be “worldly” if we expect to relate to people. Indeed, anything less not only comes across as disingenuous but, in many cases, actually is. Human beings are not to be treated as our “projects,” as mere objects of study. They are our friends, co-workers, neighbors, family members, and sometimes they are our enemies. And we have to live among them if we hope to embody an apologetic that is real. We must learn–carefully, wisely, prayerfully, but also wholeheartedly–a worldly apologetic.
(Not Really a ) Conclusion
Obviously, there are many other features that might be added to this list. These are simply a handful of initial thoughts that, perhaps, may prove useful as we consider how best to do apologetics in our postmodern world. The cognitive and the existential must be balanced. A framework must take precedence over extreme details. A type of exclusivism and a type of pluralism must be simultaneously meshed. And, we simply have to become (properly) worldly in our apologetic approach. What’s more, we must embrace the notion that living the faith and sharing it with others are ongoing affairs. At the end of the day, therefore, we need each other and, above all, we need the presence of the living God, if we are to faithfully navigate this strange and changing world.
No comments:
Post a Comment