What happens when Christian truth and therefore the defense of it (apologetics) is made amoral and apolitical? After a diagnosis of modern theology’s intellectualism, Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon write:
Apologetics is based on the political assumption
that Christians somehow have a stake in transforming our ecclesial claims into intellectual assumptions that will enable us to be faithful to Christ while still participating in the political structures of a world that does not yet know Christ (Resident Aliens, p. 22).
I doubt that we have to, as these authors do, dichotomize praxis and intellectual belief. I prefer to see knowledge, like all human action, as moral and thus inseparable from our living. But we should, with these authors, recognize the reductionism of modern apologetics. Modern apologetics assumes truth is merely the correspondence of a statement with reality and thus focuses solely on proving that Christianity’s statements (doctrines) are historically/scientifically verifiable. Consequently, Christianity’s truthfulness is reduced to its factuality and its doctrines are reduced to merely statements about history/reality.
The destructive consequence of this reductionism is that the moral-political import of Christian claims are ignored or, at worst, thought to be irrelevant to the belief itself. Modern Christian apologists reduce Christian faith to facts and thus marginalize, even discard altogether the morality of Christian doctrine. The result of this amoral and apolitical understanding of Christian faith is that anti-Christian values and principles fill the void such that one can believe Christianly and yet act and live unChristianly.
True Christian Apologetics is the Preaching of the Word
But true Christian apologetics does not separate belief from action, for Christian truth and so Christian doctrine is as much a claim upon our lives as it is a claim about reality. This is because Christian truth concerns God’s salvation and sanctification of the world in Jesus Christ. The truthfulness of Christianity is not just the correspondence between statements and their referents, but the correspondence between God’s grace and human obedience. True Christian faith is as much about the Christian’s faithfulness as it is about the faithfulness of the claim.
Apologies for Christian truth, therefore, can never stall out at the level of verifying statements. If faith is about faithfulness, then confession of that faith is inherently moral and political. Profession of faith is not just word, but deed. True Christian apologetics, therefore, demands holiness, not just recognition of facts from its audience. A truly Christian apologetic prophetically denounces idolatry, calls God’s people back to the covenant, and exhorts the world to repent and have faith. True Christian apologetics is discipleship before it is demonstration. True Christian apologetics is the preaching of the Word of God.
Well said.
I’ve always been intrigued but puzzled by Lindbeck’s classic claim, in The Nature of Christian Doctrine, that the crusader who cries “Christ is Lord” while chopping off the head of an infidel, has not spoken truly.
Clearly, the propositionalist will tell us, the cry is “true” in itself, irrespective of how the crusader understands it or what he means by it – yet do statements every have any “meaning” in themselves?
I think Christians must affirm some manner of both ‘proposiotional’ and ‘cultural-lingusitic’ (or speech-act) accounts of doctrine, or at least a way of holding on to both the objectivity of Christian truth (it’s correspondence to the reality of God’s self-revelation), and also the way in which all human speech is imbedded and given meaning by their lived existence. But how to account for that well theologically – I don’t know.
Yes, very well said James. I’m entirely with you except that I have some worries about discarding correspondence altogether (which I don’t think you are arguing for – unless of course you don’t want your post to ‘correspond’ to reality either).
Without some form of propositionalism (correspondence), I find it hard to believe that we don’t deplete our capacity for making objective claims for Christian truth, as Paul did, such as “Jesus is risen”. Jesus is risen because he actually is - not just that we believe he is or that our community lives as if he is. The apostle Paul felt the objectivity of the Gospel was critical enough to his proclamation that he reassured his Corinthian audience of its objectivity by reporting that the risen Lord appeared not just to him but to over 500 others (1 Cor. 15:3-6).
I’m also not sure at this point how to theologically hold together doctrine’s objective status with cultural-linguistic insights (i.e. words are situated, imbedded). I’m at least sure, however, that these insights are not new, as indicated again by Paul who said to live so that “your daily life may win the respect of outsiders” (1 Thes 4:12).
Enlighten us James.
It seems, James, that you are mainly reacting against to over-use of propositional apologetics to the exclusion of Christian praxis, rather than condemning the propositional method itself; is this right?
I’m wondering how apologetics as the preaching of the Word is really apologetics, and so I’m interested in your filling out of that statement. Apologetics seems to me to be, by its very nature, a project which bridges the Christian and non-Christian worlds. So, when you say that “A truly Christian apologetic prophetically denounces idolatry, calls God’s people back to the covenant, and exhorts the world to repent and have faith. True Christian apologetics is discipleship before it is demonstration,” this seems to be to be too focused on intra-Christian discussions for apologetic purposes (unless what you are saying is that a Christlike life is the best defense of the faith, on which I’ll touch a bit below).
It is in the statement that apologetics as preaching “exhorts the world to repent and have faith” that your quote seems to be truly about apologetics, but this is where I’m wondering how the project is to be carried out. Simply telling people to have faith in and of itself isn’t enough for many. As my undergrad advisor put it, you don’t preach the gospel to a hungry person and ignore their hunger; (intellectual) apologetics is simply trying to do the same thing for those left mentally hungry. Now, many times apologetics has been turned into a hammer to beat non-believers into submission and squeeze out the barest bit of intellectual assertion deemed necessary, and this is regrettable. However, some people simply are not in a position to acknowledge the historical reality of Christian truth, which is a prerequisite for Christian faithfulness making sense.
For these people (and perhaps no others), a good analysis of the historical statements (quite apart from any theory of truth) is a kindness and a way of loving them as ourselves. For others, there may need to be a worthwhile presentation of Christian art describing the beauty of our path, while in other cases holy lives will play the biggest role (not that these elements really get separated in practice).
Thanks James for a piercing post to challenge the very core of our faith: our discipleship. I have always struggled to balance my obedience to Christ (faith lived out) with the need to speak the truth in love. Obviously, Christ lived and testified to the truth of the Kingdom of God at the appropriate times as guided by the Father by the Spirit.
I believe more and more that I will never find a true balance between the two but I do know that God is intimately concerned/involved in the process of embracing of merging the so-called dichotomy.
However, I am finding that it is imperative that we are engaged in praxis first before we engage in meaningful dialogue. The phrase “earning the right to be heard” comes to mind. That is why my wife and I are greatly interested in getting involved in activities with those who do not know Jesus in our neighborhood with the hope that not only will we develop strong relationships, but also that God will provide opportunities for us to share our faith and give a defense for why we believe.
Historically, the church tends to explode spiritually not due to apologetical truth by via the lived out example of the two greatest commandments: Love God and Love your neighbor. We have to trust that God will work miraculously in our lives to bring about opportunities in which we can speak the truth of the Kingdom in love.
I hope I wasn’t denying the propositional or correspondence element, only suggesting that that element does not go far enough. Taking Scott’s helpful illustration, I would say that the claim “Jesus is Lord” is as much a moral/political claim as it is a factual claim. Accordingly, any apology for the truth of that claim should include those elements and not just stall out at the historical. Ultimately I don’t want to divorce the factual from the moral b/c I hold that cognition/rationality is moral. But the present disjunct b/w the factual and the moral, b/w head and heart if you will, can be accounted for harmartiologically. Perhaps what I’m asking for is a redemptive apologetics, one that does not play into our fragmentary existence, one that does not divorce assent from repentance…
Your concept of redemptive apologetics seems to be the future of church dialogue with the world. Since the culture has moved away from Modernity models of faith expression (with pure propositional apologetics as one of the expressions), the need for praxis apologetics is critical for the church. The “salt of the earth” expression then becomes more active and verbal than a simple statement of propositional truth.
Thanks James – I will be thinking of the concept of redemptive apologetics for a while now. I love your heart and your unmoving quest to be a disciple of Jesus.
James, toward making our discussion a bit more concrete, could we talk some about what it means to say that apologetics should be “redemptive”, not “play[ing] into our fragmentary existence, one that does not divorce assent from repentance”?
I agree that the propositional element of apologetics doesn’t “go far enough”, so what would it mean to move beyond it? If apologetics are political and that “cognition/rationality is moral”, what does that kind of apologetics look like for the church?
In other words, how would I know it if I saw it?
Kent,
Thanks. That’s a good qestion. Well, right now, in our current existence, I can believe and affirm that Jesus is Lord, but live in ways very contradictory of that reality, both knowingly and unwittingly.
Incidentally, this is why the political dimension of theology is becoming more and more important for me: I realize that it is largely through the political that Christians are unwittingly captive to anti-Christian values and ways of life.
Back to the point: we know, however, that according to a Christian understanding of truthfulness, one is truthful not just when she makes a bare claim that “Jesus is Lord” but when she is faithful to that claim. Being truthful, in other words, is not *just* uttering statements that match reality, but living in accordance with reality, under the presently veiled, but no less real Lordship of Jesus Christ, to whom all thanks, praise, glory and honour be forevermore, amen.
Hence, what I have suggested is that our apologetics not play into the divorce that we presently experience b/w our mouth and our lifestyle, our head and our heart, our thoughts and our actions.
You ask: What would such look like? Well, I think the apologist would first recognize that the Christian doctrines which she wished to defend are not simply claims about fact, but claims about the moral/political space in which we live our lives. If Jesus is Lord of this world, and his Kingdom has in some sense come, then we should live accordingly. As N. T. Wright has said about Christ’s resurrection, for example: The NT message is that Jesus has risen from the dead, now you’ve got a job to do. Recognizing that Christian doctrines are not just things to be believed, to assent to, but are claims upon our lives should begin to enlarge the task of the apologist for Christian doctrine.
So, the apologist is not just concerned with historical/scientific/philosophical evidence, but with moral and political issues. In the first place, then, the apologist would no longer perpetuate the assumption that Christian doctrine is just a statement about some fact, but a command and thus not perpetuate the head-heart divide. This is why I have said that true apologetics is the preaching of the Word of God. The apologist does not just defend a claim about reality, but call her audience into that reality.
In this sense, I’m just asking the apologist to be more holistic or comprehensive in her understanding of what counts as truth and her defense of it. It’s a corrective that I’m pushing, trying to get the apologist to realize that demonstrating the evidentiary integrity of Christian doctrine is not a sufficient defense and demonstration of Christian truth. Calvin, of course, said proofs can confirm Christian belief, but cannot be the instrument in causing Christian belief. Any apologist who wants to defend Christian truth must take up the mantle of the preacher, not just the historian or scientist or philosopher.
More specifically, I imagine this would mean that the apologist would become a cultural interpreter and critic. She wouldn’t simply show that, say, Christ’s resurrection is the best explanation of the historical evidence, important as that is, but also explain the moral-political assumptions that make sense of Christ’s resurrection. Christ’s resurrection is not meaningful because it happened, but because of what it accomplishes. So the apologist has to expound that moral-political space, that is, the reality of God’s kingdom reign.
Does this help?
[...] TheologyForum have written an interesting post on the nature of Apologetics [...]
Hey, y’all!
I’ve just read your postings. I’m impressed!!! You guys used lots of words that i don’t recognize. Pretty deep stuff, I’d say.
I grew up Baptist, but never attended church once I was grown–realized that nobody made me go anymore. Did, however, want to continue in the faith. Just found it more and more difficult. I divorced after 37 years and when I remarried, it was to a “born-again Christian”. We are very much involved in our church–which is Pentecostal. Problem is that I still suffer from doubting. Most Pentecostals don’t have much interest in apologetics. They are more like Paul, who as Saul got knocked off his horse and blinded by Jesus himself.
I, however, have not had such an experience and I find it hard to cling to faith. Sometimes I take comfort in Peter’s experience in walking on water–I step out of the boat, but then I get afraid and start sinking!!!
I have heard testimonies from people whom I consider to be very solid and reliable. These are people that I love. But. I can’t seem to get to where they are. I just seem to pick the Bible apart. I don’t want to be that way, but it seems the way that i am. We are taught to study the Bible, but the more I study it the more confused I get. I know “God is not the author of confusion,” but the Bible surely does confuse me.
For instance, I wonder why Jesus said that we should eat his body and drink his blood. That was taboo in the Jewish culture. Why would he use that particular symbolism. I know the “simple” answer–having to do with blood sacrifice and all–but the blood was drained from the animals before the sacrifice. In one of the gospels, if my memory is correct (forgive me for not referencing it right now, but i don’t want to break the thought) He emphasizes that the bread really is His body and that the wine really is His blood.
Also. The Old Testament Jews were told NOT to offer their children as sacrifices. Although there was one warrior type who promised that if he was successful in battle he would sacrifice whatever greeted him on his return home–and it turned out to be his daughter–and he did sacrifice her. It does not say that the sacrifice pleased God–only that he had made the promise to God and he kept it. But. As a rule, the Children of Israel were forbidden from sacrificing their children. And. Although Isaac was tested with the notion that he was to sacrifice his son, God directed him not to do it–it was just a test. So. How does that set the stage for God sacrificing His Son????
I’ve got a million questions–well, maybe only a hundred. I don’t TRY to be contrarian, but I find it hard to ignore very basic contradictions like these. Some of the issues that puzzle me are not so significant, like when Luke says that Jesus was baptizing, then later in Luke it says that Jesus was not baptizing, that his disciples were. My church believes that the Bible is the unerrant word of God. How can both verses be unerrant?
I was looking for a forum of people who are dedicated Christians, but who would not go into attack mode if I expressed my doubts. I really do want a stronger faith, but it’s just quite difficult for me. Sometimes I just “suspend my disbelief” and that works pretty well. But. I would like to have a faith that I truly believed in–good days and bad.
This may sound humorous, but as a child, i held on to the belief in Santa forever. My parents kept telling me that as long as I believed, that Santa would leave me presents. Finally, one Christmas Eve, my mother took me out to the car and showed me the “Santa Claus” in the trunk of her car. Sometimes I wonder if that scarred me for life!!!
Okay. I know I’ve rambled here, but I hope that you can see that I am sincere.
If somebody there is ready, willing, and most of all able to help me, I will be most appreciative.
Lily
And. James. Regarding:
Christ’s resurrection is not meaningful because it happened, but because of what it accomplishes.
I think I understand what you’re saying, but nothing is more important to me than knowing that Christ was resurrected. That one thing would pretty much seal the deal for me. Everything else is icing on the cake.
Thanks.
Lily
Lily, I am very glad you found your way to Theology Forum and be assured that you will always find here a willing group of dialogue partners, pilgrims on the path just like you. You can also be confident that you will be accepted just as you are. We welcome your questions because God welcomes your questions. We see our purpose as cultivating the ability to ask honest questions and deliberate on them wisely.
Based on your comments above about “assurance” and “doubt”, take a look at our recent post “Pastoral Eschatology” and the dialogue that followed it here. Our discussion in that thread is directly related to the reality of doubt and the nature of faith itself (pay special attention to James’ comments). After taking a look at that why don’t you stop back here with some comments and/or further questions. If you have some specific questions feel free to ask them. We can keep this thread active as long as you like or, if you like, we can dialogue offline via email. Just let me know.
Looking forward to hearing back from you.
Lily,
Thanks for your searching questions, and for joining our conversation. I’m very glad you mentioned Peter. I hope that even as you are confused by Scripture you find space within it for doubt as part of faith and life in Christ. I mean just think: The disciples were with Jesus Christ and had him personally explain his teachings to them and they still couldn’t get it, so much so that Peter thrice denied Christ. The rest ran away and hid. So there is a sense in which we all have doubts and fears, and those are part of what it means to encounter Christ and experience him as Lord even as we are growing in faith.
I wonder if some of your questions about Scripture could be eased by a better sense of what Scripture is. The unity of the canon (the 66 books of Scripture) is not like the unity of a novel or a movie, partly because Scripture was written over a long period, from different cultural-historical perspectives, and by different authors. We have to, then, be sensitive to these differences when we interpret Scripture and not try to impose a preconceived and therefore artificial sense of its unity when we interpret it. At the same time, we have to recognize that Scripture is ultimately authored by the Spirit of God, and in all its diversity it testifies to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the deep what I would call ‘poetical’ unity of Scripture and so when we move across the canon of Scripture it is best to think of its relation to Christ, and not simply juxtapose two divergent passages as if they were written in the abstract. In short, perhaps in your obviously detailed study of Scripture, you might want to spend some time reflecting upon what Scripture is and how it is to be interpreted. That might help you make better sense of the contradictions or confusing portions of Scripture.
I’d be happy to talk in more detail with you about this and make reading suggestions if that would be more helpful.
You seem particularly concerned about the resurrection. I would recommend the writings of N. T. Wright, specifically his recent Surprised by Hope. But if you’re really ambitious, read his more academic, scholarly defense in his The Resurrection of the Son of God. Ultimately, however, I would say that just as important as believing in the historical event is living in light of the reality of Christ’s resurrection, the hope it gives. Most Christians tend to assume that what they need to do is believe that something happened in history before they can live as if it were true. I would say belief is more complex than that, such that it may be the case that you have to live in light of the reality of the resurrected Christ, according to his ways and practices, before you can believe in the historical event. This is what the original post is meant to suggest, that there’s a sense in which the truth of Christ’s resurrection is more than just its factuality, but is also the moral-political to which it gives rise. I realize that that may be more cryptic than obvious, but simply put I’m suggesting that devotion to Christ and submission to his Lordship in your daily life may be just as much a catalyst in helping you recognize Christ’s resurrection as the most rigorous historical, scientific, and philosophical defense of it, simply because the truth of Christ’s resurrection is about more than just an event in the past, but about Christ’s present Lordship over the world.
I hope this helps, and by all means, please do reply with more questions or requests for clarification
Kent and James, thank you for your gracious welcome to the Theology Forum. Kent, I went to the Pastoral Eschatology thread and read approximately half of it. It is not easy for me because many of the concepts that are apparently familiar to the other posters are not so familiar to me. I don’t know the language of theology.
Because of the difference in my background, my posts will be a little different; but I do think that I can make a contribution—if even to make you guys (trans-gender reference) think in somewhat different terms—How can we explain that to Lily?
My first contribution is to the Pastoral Eschatology thread. I have what is not quite a first hand experience, but I consider to be close enough to be considered factual. I have chosen to tell it fleshed out with details as much as I can recall.
It was about two or three years ago, I was picking up the newspaper and happened to glimpse a headline that caught my interest. It had something to do with someone’s religious experience; I read it expecting to be cynical about it—a potato that looked like Jesus or something. It turns out that it was about a young man’s death. Jason Lynn was his name. He died in an automobile crash when he was only 19. He was a devout Christian and lived a life that was a wonderful witness to his faith.
After his funeral, his family went to a nearby beach resort to get away for a few days. Amy Grant, the Christian entertainer, was in concert in the small town. Jason’s mother saw the flyers posted and longed to be able to tell Jason’s story to Amy Grant—what a wonderful young man he had been and how he had lived his life for Christ. Jason’s mother, overcome with grief over her loss was in the bedroom crying and praying—asking God to give her some sign that Jason was okay. Her other son came to the door of the bedroom and said, “Mom, Amy Grant is here!” Ms. Lynn chided her son for making such a cruel joke, but he assured her that he was telling the truth. Amy Grant had come to the door and when Jason’s brother opened the door, she said, “I have no idea why I am here.”
It ended up that Amy Grant took Jason’s family to the concert and had Jason’s mom onstage and told the story.
I was telling a close friend of mine about reading the article and she said that she knew Jason’s mom quite well and that she had told her that exact story.
Pretty cool, eh?
James, you said:
“I would say belief is more complex than that, such that it may be the case that you have to live in light of the reality of the resurrected Christ, according to his ways and practices, before you can believe in the historical event.”
This is where I have been. Unfortunately, it sometimes leaves me feeling like an impostor. I walk the walk and talk the talk. My husband says that he knows that I am saved by my “fruit”. I tell him that Christians are not the only people who love others and do good works.
I read and clung to (is that a word?) Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ. It was such beautiful, simple logic. I was even going to teach it. So. I figured that I needed to prepare for the arguments against it. Ordered the book that rebuts it. Found that much of it was ridiculous, but some of the stuff was hard to shake off. That was about two years ago. I have not revisited that study. Anybody here familiar with The Case for Christ and the argument against it? Don’t remember the author right offhand.
My faith in The Case for Christ was so sincere that I dared face the opposition to it.
I’m not sure whether it’s best for me to post on the Forum or correspond via email. I know that I’m not in the league with the rest of you guys, but I’m not embarrassed to be on the forum.
Is anybody here Pentecostal? I grew up Baptist, but for the past 3 years I have been Assembly of God. I have witnessed “gifts of the spirit” and am convinced that although some are probably “wishful thinking” at best and outright fraudulent at worse that there is something genuine in many of the experiences.
Shall we continue here or via email? I do have more questions.
Thanks again for being willing to share your vast knowledge.
Lily
In response to
Jim Reitman
on June 4, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Re: I have to continually question my motivation for engaging in dialogue of this kind. Is it the need for self-affirmation for getting my point across as clearly and unambiguously as possible? Or to convince others of the value of my contribution to the debate? Or to infect others with my own passion?
For myself, I want to find expression for my doubts and overcome them by applying the knowledge and logic of those more learned than myself.
Occasionally, I may make a contribution in the form of something “out of the mouths of babes” or my question itself may contribute to someone else “…getting [their] point across as clearly and unambiguously as possible.”
Lily
I have just read at the following link and wondered if you guys have opinions on this.
http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/04/29/the-talpiot-tomb-separating-truth-from-fiction/
I’ve been “researching” all day and am due a break.
Take care. And. Thanks.
Liy
Hi Lilly,
Your boldness reminds me of the faith of the blind man that everyone was trying to “shush up” when he kept shouting, “Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus, at least, was impressed with his tenacity and most receptive to his pleas. I believe he will bless your tenacity and similarly reward your faith.
You are clearly on the right track with the resurrection. I agree with the heart of James’ recommendations re: NT Wright, but your discovery of the blog about the Talpiot tomb leads me to suggest a possibly more immediately helpful reference: There is a brand new book about to be released that not only covers the Talpiot tomb controversy but also devotes the last half of the book to a tightly argued defense of the resurrection. He cites the key research from NT Wright’s extensive treatment that James alluded to, The Resurrection of the Son of God, but it may well be easier for you to digest.
The author of the book is Rene Lopez, and the title is The Jesus Family Tomb Examined: Did Jesus Really Rise Physically? You can pre-order the book at a discount price on the author’s website, http://www.scriptureunlocked.com.
It should be out in about two weeks.
May God bless your heart and transform you into a bold, confident agent of his redemptive purposes in the lives of others.
Lily, sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I cannot help you on the tomb issue as that is not my area of interest or expertise. In that regard, if you have questions about these historical issues I’m not the best person to talk to. But if you have other, theological questions, I *may* be able to give you some direction or thoughts.
Dear James,
First time here. I am reading thoroughoutly before trying to say anything but let me try to speak a few words and hpe to do some encouragement. I can only express that your words stem out boldness and passion. I do not believe scholasticism is the way to undestand scripture nor to live a christian life where Christ is the center, the Spirit the one who anoints us and the Father as the source of life and virtue. Too much apolegetics and too little preaching the word of God have made more harm than one believes. One should understand that theology is for living and not living to be a theologian. I can only encourage to keep on. There should be no dichotomy in our life. Faith is manifested in actions. Speaking or writing is not enough. I appreciate your observations. God grant you grace in the beloved.
I will keep on reading. Meantime I can send you My email.
Best regards. Phil. 4:23. Adrian
saya tenaga paruh waktu katekese di indonesia sedang mencari bahan bacaan untuk aktivitas katekese saya
Absolutely!
[...] of the tap water, but here in KW I drink freely of the tap water.) We act on our beliefs. Here is a quote I found: But true Christian apologetics does not separate belief from action, for Christian truth [...]