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.