The post below contains the remaining material form the first ApologetiXperiment seminar (Introducing Apologetics). We will have our second session this evening - Responding To Scientism (the belief that "science disproves God"). I'll post the material from this evening's seminar over the coming days.
Yours,
The Scribbling Apprentice
Approaches to Apologetics
There is no universally accepted way to categorise the different kinds of apologetic approaches. Nonetheless each approach has its own set of distinctive features and unique method. There are five prominent approaches (“The Big 5”) to apologetics. These are:
The Classical Method:
Classical apologetics stresses arguments for the existence of God as well as the historical evidence supporting the truth of Christianity. After God’s existence has been demonstrated, the classical method moves to a presentation of the historical evidences for the deity of Christ and the trustworthiness of Scripture. This approach is called the “classical” method simply because it is assumed that this was the basic method adopted by the most prominent apologists of earlier centuries.
The classical method uses theistic arguments to establish the existence of God apart from an appeal to Scripture. The basic thrust of this approach is as follows; on the basis of a theistic argument or proof, the apologist draws the logical inference that if God exists, miracles are possible – this, of course, includes creation, the greatest miracle of all. The credibility of miracles is essential to the next step – demonstrating that specific historical events recounted in the Scriptures (for example, the resurrection) are miraculous events brought about by God.
Alongside this basic argument, the classical method shows that historical evidence confirms the truth of Christian belief. The New Testament documents are shown to be historically reliable and reveal to us who Jesus claimed to be (and was miraculously proven to be); the Son of God. From this it is often argued that Jesus confirmed the Old Testament as the Word of God and promised the same for the New Testament, thus underlining the reliability of the Bible as a whole.
Proponents of the Classical approach include: William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, C. S. Lewis, J. P. Moreland and R. C. Sproul. Major practitioners (and developers) of this method in the past include Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke and William Paley.
The Evidential Method:
Evidential apologetics stresses the need for evidence in support of the Christian truth claims. The evidence can be rational, historical, archaeological, and even experiential. This method is quite eclectic and very broad, overlapping with other methods of apologetics. It focuses mainly on accumulating various historical and other inductive arguments for the truth of Christianity. It works from the “bottom-up”, accumulating historical evidences which support the veracity of the Biblical documents and their witness, rather then beginning first with an elaborate argument for the existence of God (a “top-down” argument).
An evidentialist might begin, for example, by arguing for the historical factuality of Jesus’ resurrection and then argue that such an unusual event is explicable only if a being very much like the Christian God exists. Having established God’s existence on the basis of the resurrection, the evidentialist might then go on to argue that Jesus’ resurrection also authenticates his claims to be the Son of God and his teaching on the divine authority of Scripture.
Proponents of this approach include: Gary Habermas, Lee Strobel, Paul Barnett, F. F. Bruce, Clark Pinnock, Josh McDowell and Wolfhart Pannenberg.
The Cumulative Case Method:
This method was pioneered by apologists who became dissatisfied with the classical and evidential approaches. According to advocates of this approach, formal proofs and arguments from probability do not demonstrate the case for Christianity in the best possible manner. As such, the cumulative case method does not conform to the ordinary pattern of inductive or deductive reasoning. Rather, this approach is more like an informed argument that pieces together various lines or types of data into a hypothesis or theory that comprehensively explains that data better than any competing alternative hypothesis.
Therefore, this method basically argues that Christianity makes better sense of all the evidence available to human scrutiny than does any alternative worldview on offer. The data the cumulative case method seeks to explain include the existence and nature of the cosmos, the reality of religious experience, the objectivity of morality and certain historical facts, such as the resurrection of Jesus. Rather than a tightly argued philosophical proof or an inventory of historical evidence, this method is more like a brief presented by a lawyer in a court of law. It is a looser, more informal approach; it is broad-based and not confined to the realm of philosophy and logic alone. It also draws on the realms of history, law and literature to show that Christianity is the best explanation of all the data available to human understanding and investigation.
Proponents of this approach include: C. S Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Paul Feinberg, Tim Keller and C. Stephen Evans.
The Presuppositional Approach:
Due to the noetic effects of sin (the way in which it distorts our mental faculties and reasoning) presuppositionalists believe that there is not enough common ground between believers and unbelievers to enable any of the above approaches to work effectively. Therefore, the presuppositionalist presupposes (hence the name) the truth of Christianity as the only proper starting point of apologetics. Rather than working from proofs that gradually build to show that Christianity is true, it is presumed to be true from the outset.
On the basis of this approach, the Scriptures are the framework through which all experience is interpreted and all truth is known. Presuppositional apologetics seeks to show unbelievers that their own worldview is inadequate to explain their experience of the world and to get them to see that Christianity alone makes sense of human experience. Presuppositional apologists generally reject the validity of the theistic proofs espoused by classical apologetics and assume there is no meaning to facts apart from the Christian framework or view of reality.
A major proponent of this approach was Francis Schaeffer. He showed that false beliefs and worldviews are inherently unliveable; only Christian truth is liveable. For example, no atheist actually lives as if there is no inherent meaning to existence; he/she still seeks to live in accordance with objective right and wrong, thereby adopting an ethical view of life their atheism doesn’t really permit because it affirms that life is meaningless and the product of chance. If life is truly meaningless, there is no objective right and wrong.
Other major proponents of the propositional approach include: Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark and John Frame.
The Reformed Epistemology Approach:
Since the Enlightenment, the commonly held belief has been that if you cannot present evidence to support personal faith, then it is irrational to hold on to it. Everything we believe must be supported by evidence of some kind (whether historical proof or rational demonstration.)
Reformed epistemology challenges this assumption. Advocates hold that it is perfectly reasonable for a person to believe many things without evidence. Most importantly, they argue that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. This method of apologetics therefore argues that positive arguments in defence of Christianity are not necessary for rational faith. If John Calvin was right when he wrote that human beings are born with a sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) then people may rightly and rationally come to a belief in God without the aid of evidence and argument. Furthermore, the inner witness of the Spirit is a self-authenticating sign that Christianity is true. Generally, this approach takes on a defensive shape as it meets the challenges levelled at Christian belief.
Major proponents of this approach include: Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Pulpit
“The pulpit, therefore, (and I name it filled
with solemn awe, that bids me well beware
with what intent I touch that holy thing;)
the pulpit (when the satirist has at last,
strutting and vaporing in an empty school,
spent all his force, and made no proselyte;)
I say the pulpit (in the sober use
of its legitimate, peculiar powers)
must stand acknowledged, while the world shall stand,
the most important and effectual guard,
support, and ornament of virtue’s cause.
There stands the messenger of truth. There stands
the legate of the skies; his theme divine,
his office sacred, his credentials clear.
By him, the violated law speaks out
its thunders, and by him, in strains as sweet
as angels use, the gospel whispers peace.
He ‘stablishes the strong, restores the weak,
reclaims the wanderer, binds the broken heart,
and, armed himself in panoply complete
of heavenly temper, furnishes with arms
bright as his own, and trains, by every rule
of holy discipline, to glorious war,
the sacramental host of God’s elect.
Are all such teachers?–would to heaven all were!”
–William Cowper
Friday, April 23, 2010
The ApologetiXperiment
The material in this post is part of the first ApologetiXperiment seminar held at Immanuel about two weeks ago ("What is Apologetics?"). It offers another two reasons why Christian apologetics is needed and important. Over the next days, I'll post some more material which aims to cover the major apologetic methods or approaches.
Yours,
The Scribbling Apprentice
A third reason underpinning apologetics is the need Christians have of shaping culture. Beyond the earliest years of the church recounted in the New Testament, the apostolic example of apologetics set the trend for outreach undertaken by well-educated men who were won to Christ. The work of scholars like Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Augustine eventually laid the foundations for global outreach and gospel growth as the predominantly pagan worldview was refuted and discredited. The same task faces Christians in every generation. J. Gresham Machen was able to write in 1913:
“False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the Gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed in winning only a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation to be controlled by ideas which prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.”[1]
We need to look beyond our immediate evangelistic contact to grasp the wider picture of contemporary Western thought and culture. In general, the culture we live in is becoming deeply post-Christian. This is a product of the Enlightenment, which kick-started the secularism that now permeates the whole of Western society. The hallmark of the Enlightenment was “free thought” – the pursuit of knowledge with the aid of human reason alone. While it’s by no means inevitable that such a pursuit should lead to non-Christian conclusions, it has been the overwhelming impact of the Enlightenment mentality that has led people generally to deny the possibility that there is a personal-infinite God who exists and can be known. As such, a theological worldview is generally viewed with suspicion or discounted as being irrelevant and unscientific. This has led to the view that Reason and Religion are in conflict with one another.
Today, generally speaking, the physical sciences are seen as the authoritative guides to our understanding of the world. As a result, the general assumption is that modern science supports a naturalistic worldview (one which discounts the existence of God) and the person who is honest and follows the pursuit of reason will end up a convinced atheist or agnostic.
According to Alvin Plantinga, there are three main contestants in the contemporary western intellectual world vying for peoples’ souls; “three fundamental perspectives or ways of thinking about what the world is like, what we ourselves are like, what it most important about the world, what our place in it is, and what we must do to live the good life” (Christian Scholarship: Need And Nature). These worldviews consist of what he terms 1) Christianity or Christian Theism; 2) Perennial Naturalism and 3) Postmodernism or Antirealism with Respect to Truth.
2. Perennial Naturalism arose in the Ancient world, articulated by thinkers like Democritus and Epicurus. However it was with the advent of the Enlightenment and Modernity that the most complete manifestation of this perspective emerged. Today it is often termed “scientism”. We normally associate such a viewpoint with the New Atheist aggressors (for example, fundamentalist Darwinists like Richard Dawkins).
On the basis of such a worldview, there is no God; we are insignificant parts of a giant cosmic machine that proceeds with blind indifference to all of us, our hopes and aspirations, our needs and desires, our sense of fairness and longing for justice. From the perspective of Perennial Naturalism all human phenomena, love, art, literature, music, play and humour; science, philosophy and mathematics; religion and morality are all to be seen as existing only as the result of the blind mechanism driving cosmic evolution. There is no fundamental, intrinsic meaning attached to human (or indeed, all biological) life.
3. According to Post-modernism or Antirealism, we ourselves are responsible for the basic structure of the world. This notion was first articulated in the Ancient world by Protagoras (“Man is the measure of all things”). It found its most persuasive advocate in Immanuel Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason (1781) instigated a Copernican revolution in Western thought.
This worldview is anti-realist with respect to truth. In other words, “truth” is not grounded in any kind of objective reality that is independent of the knower. There is no theory-independent world or “thing-in-itself”. Our theoretical terms (especially those of science) do not refer to real entities “out there”. Truth is therefore constructed subjectively (in one’s own mind) and projected out into the “world”. Our mind constitutes and structures the world we inhabit. What matters is personal, private, internal, subjective interpretation and perception. Thus, all mental perceptions of the world (worldviews) are to be equally accepted and tolerated as valid interpretations of reality. Your version of reality is as “true” as mine. Objective truth is an illusion.
Needless to say, such a worldview results in a pervasive and all-encompassing relativism. Concurrently, any worldview which makes a claim to ultimate, universally binding truth (a “metanarrative”) is scorned as illusory and naïve. Alternatively, it is perceived as being motivated by questionable intentions (for example, the desire to manipulate and control others.)
“Post-modernism” is a common umbrella-term which captures an array of thought forms motivated by the above assumptions. Underpinning them all is the idea that “such fundamental structures of the world as those of time and space, object and property, number, truth and falsehood, possibility and necessity…are not to be found in the world as such, but are somehow constituted by our own mental and conceptual activity” (Alvin Plantinga, Christian Scholarship: Need and Nature). Fundamentally then, there would be nothing at all existing in space-time if it were not for the creative, mental structuring activity of people like you and me.
Although such a worldview seems quite ridiculous, it is widely accepted and is an extremely potent force in much contemporary thinking. In terms of such differing disciplines as recent philosophy of physics and theology, “it is said that there is no reality in itself and unobserved, or if there is, it is nothing at all like the world we actually live in.” (Alvin Plantinga, Christian Scholarship: Need and Nature). In ethics, this view takes the form of the idea that no moral law can be binding unless I myself (or perhaps society) issue or set the law.
Generally speaking, Perennial Naturalism vastly underestimates the place of human-beings in the universe. Post-modernism or anti-realism vastly overestimates it. According to Perennial Naturalism, we are no more than complicated machines determined by factors utterly outside our control. We cannot act or live with any more authentic freedom than can a car or a coffee-grinder or a washing-machine. Human dignity is profoundly under-valued. However, according to post-modernism/anti-realism, we confer the basic structure on the world and therefore essentially take the place of God. What the world is and what it is like is based purely on our personal preference. Indeed, the world itself is enabled to exist only on the basis of our mental activity.
These then, according to Plantinga, are the two basic perspectives that have filtered through Western culture and thinking. Besides a basic Christian worldview, they are the two basic thought-systems that vie for the allegiance of contemporary people.
These considerations are important because no one ever hears the gospel in a vacuum. It is always heard against the cultural backdrop in which we live. We live in a culture in which, generally speaking, Christianity is no longer seen as an intellectually viable option. The Enlightenment legacy has produced either a predominantly secular, naturalist outlook in many or a post-modern antirealist outlook in others. Both worldviews immediately baulk at the central claims of Christian truth. The vital task of apologetics is to engage such varied outlooks, shaping the intellectual climate in such a way that Christianity remains a live option for thinking men and women.
Finally, apologetics strengthens the faith of the Christian believer. As we grow in our understanding of the inherent rationality of our own beliefs and how they can stand up to scrutiny, we will grow in confidence as we seek to share our faith with unbelievers. “Nothing inspires confidence and boldness more than knowing that one has good reasons for what one believes and good answers to the typical questions and objections that the unbeliever may raise. Sound training in apologetics is one of the keys to fearless evangelism.” (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith)
Furthermore, as we grow in the knowledge and understanding of the created world and humankind, the trustworthiness of the Scriptures and the Person of Christ – all central to the task of apologetics - we will be moved to deeper levels of worship, reverence and awe in the face of the glory of God whom we serve.
Footnotes:
[1] In the same article, Machen underscored the pervasive power of ideas and the need to combat them effectively: “What is to-day a matter of academic speculation begins to-morrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassionate debate. So as Christians we should try to mould the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity” (“Christianity and Culture,” Princeton Theological Review, 1913)
Yours,
The Scribbling Apprentice
A third reason underpinning apologetics is the need Christians have of shaping culture. Beyond the earliest years of the church recounted in the New Testament, the apostolic example of apologetics set the trend for outreach undertaken by well-educated men who were won to Christ. The work of scholars like Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Augustine eventually laid the foundations for global outreach and gospel growth as the predominantly pagan worldview was refuted and discredited. The same task faces Christians in every generation. J. Gresham Machen was able to write in 1913:
“False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the Gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed in winning only a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation to be controlled by ideas which prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.”[1]
We need to look beyond our immediate evangelistic contact to grasp the wider picture of contemporary Western thought and culture. In general, the culture we live in is becoming deeply post-Christian. This is a product of the Enlightenment, which kick-started the secularism that now permeates the whole of Western society. The hallmark of the Enlightenment was “free thought” – the pursuit of knowledge with the aid of human reason alone. While it’s by no means inevitable that such a pursuit should lead to non-Christian conclusions, it has been the overwhelming impact of the Enlightenment mentality that has led people generally to deny the possibility that there is a personal-infinite God who exists and can be known. As such, a theological worldview is generally viewed with suspicion or discounted as being irrelevant and unscientific. This has led to the view that Reason and Religion are in conflict with one another.
Today, generally speaking, the physical sciences are seen as the authoritative guides to our understanding of the world. As a result, the general assumption is that modern science supports a naturalistic worldview (one which discounts the existence of God) and the person who is honest and follows the pursuit of reason will end up a convinced atheist or agnostic.
According to Alvin Plantinga, there are three main contestants in the contemporary western intellectual world vying for peoples’ souls; “three fundamental perspectives or ways of thinking about what the world is like, what we ourselves are like, what it most important about the world, what our place in it is, and what we must do to live the good life” (Christian Scholarship: Need And Nature). These worldviews consist of what he terms 1) Christianity or Christian Theism; 2) Perennial Naturalism and 3) Postmodernism or Antirealism with Respect to Truth.
2. Perennial Naturalism arose in the Ancient world, articulated by thinkers like Democritus and Epicurus. However it was with the advent of the Enlightenment and Modernity that the most complete manifestation of this perspective emerged. Today it is often termed “scientism”. We normally associate such a viewpoint with the New Atheist aggressors (for example, fundamentalist Darwinists like Richard Dawkins).
On the basis of such a worldview, there is no God; we are insignificant parts of a giant cosmic machine that proceeds with blind indifference to all of us, our hopes and aspirations, our needs and desires, our sense of fairness and longing for justice. From the perspective of Perennial Naturalism all human phenomena, love, art, literature, music, play and humour; science, philosophy and mathematics; religion and morality are all to be seen as existing only as the result of the blind mechanism driving cosmic evolution. There is no fundamental, intrinsic meaning attached to human (or indeed, all biological) life.
3. According to Post-modernism or Antirealism, we ourselves are responsible for the basic structure of the world. This notion was first articulated in the Ancient world by Protagoras (“Man is the measure of all things”). It found its most persuasive advocate in Immanuel Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason (1781) instigated a Copernican revolution in Western thought.
This worldview is anti-realist with respect to truth. In other words, “truth” is not grounded in any kind of objective reality that is independent of the knower. There is no theory-independent world or “thing-in-itself”. Our theoretical terms (especially those of science) do not refer to real entities “out there”. Truth is therefore constructed subjectively (in one’s own mind) and projected out into the “world”. Our mind constitutes and structures the world we inhabit. What matters is personal, private, internal, subjective interpretation and perception. Thus, all mental perceptions of the world (worldviews) are to be equally accepted and tolerated as valid interpretations of reality. Your version of reality is as “true” as mine. Objective truth is an illusion.
Needless to say, such a worldview results in a pervasive and all-encompassing relativism. Concurrently, any worldview which makes a claim to ultimate, universally binding truth (a “metanarrative”) is scorned as illusory and naïve. Alternatively, it is perceived as being motivated by questionable intentions (for example, the desire to manipulate and control others.)
“Post-modernism” is a common umbrella-term which captures an array of thought forms motivated by the above assumptions. Underpinning them all is the idea that “such fundamental structures of the world as those of time and space, object and property, number, truth and falsehood, possibility and necessity…are not to be found in the world as such, but are somehow constituted by our own mental and conceptual activity” (Alvin Plantinga, Christian Scholarship: Need and Nature). Fundamentally then, there would be nothing at all existing in space-time if it were not for the creative, mental structuring activity of people like you and me.
Although such a worldview seems quite ridiculous, it is widely accepted and is an extremely potent force in much contemporary thinking. In terms of such differing disciplines as recent philosophy of physics and theology, “it is said that there is no reality in itself and unobserved, or if there is, it is nothing at all like the world we actually live in.” (Alvin Plantinga, Christian Scholarship: Need and Nature). In ethics, this view takes the form of the idea that no moral law can be binding unless I myself (or perhaps society) issue or set the law.
Generally speaking, Perennial Naturalism vastly underestimates the place of human-beings in the universe. Post-modernism or anti-realism vastly overestimates it. According to Perennial Naturalism, we are no more than complicated machines determined by factors utterly outside our control. We cannot act or live with any more authentic freedom than can a car or a coffee-grinder or a washing-machine. Human dignity is profoundly under-valued. However, according to post-modernism/anti-realism, we confer the basic structure on the world and therefore essentially take the place of God. What the world is and what it is like is based purely on our personal preference. Indeed, the world itself is enabled to exist only on the basis of our mental activity.
These then, according to Plantinga, are the two basic perspectives that have filtered through Western culture and thinking. Besides a basic Christian worldview, they are the two basic thought-systems that vie for the allegiance of contemporary people.
These considerations are important because no one ever hears the gospel in a vacuum. It is always heard against the cultural backdrop in which we live. We live in a culture in which, generally speaking, Christianity is no longer seen as an intellectually viable option. The Enlightenment legacy has produced either a predominantly secular, naturalist outlook in many or a post-modern antirealist outlook in others. Both worldviews immediately baulk at the central claims of Christian truth. The vital task of apologetics is to engage such varied outlooks, shaping the intellectual climate in such a way that Christianity remains a live option for thinking men and women.
Finally, apologetics strengthens the faith of the Christian believer. As we grow in our understanding of the inherent rationality of our own beliefs and how they can stand up to scrutiny, we will grow in confidence as we seek to share our faith with unbelievers. “Nothing inspires confidence and boldness more than knowing that one has good reasons for what one believes and good answers to the typical questions and objections that the unbeliever may raise. Sound training in apologetics is one of the keys to fearless evangelism.” (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith)
Furthermore, as we grow in the knowledge and understanding of the created world and humankind, the trustworthiness of the Scriptures and the Person of Christ – all central to the task of apologetics - we will be moved to deeper levels of worship, reverence and awe in the face of the glory of God whom we serve.
Footnotes:
[1] In the same article, Machen underscored the pervasive power of ideas and the need to combat them effectively: “What is to-day a matter of academic speculation begins to-morrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassionate debate. So as Christians we should try to mould the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity” (“Christianity and Culture,” Princeton Theological Review, 1913)
Home Again
Ahh, finally home.
Claire and I left for a short break in Berlin about ten days ago, intending to remain in Germany for one week. On account of the volcano however, our stay was unexpectedly extended. Thankfully, our good friends in Leipzig, Hermann and Miriam, put us up as we waited for flight news to drip through on the ryanair website. In the meantime we enjoyed the sights of Leipzig, taking a trip out to nearby Wittenberg, the birthplace of the Reformation. There we saw Luther's house (a former monastery) - a fascinating catalogue of his writings and pamphlets, the remains of his pulpit were all on display. Very enjoyable. We literally stepped into the engine room of the European reformation; Luther's home and study - the epicentre of so much vast and momentous change.
Berlin was also fascinating - so much building work going on as efforts contiue to restore the city in the wake of ww2, the socialist GDR regime and the Fall of the Berlin Wall in '89. We enjoyed a tour of the city that really took us into the midst of Berlin's tumultuous recent history; the buildings erected during the Third Reich, so austere and sterile and looking very much as they did 70-odd years ago, the location of Hitler's bunker (now a carpark/clothes recycling depot), Checkpoint Charlie, every major landmock pock-marked with bullet holes and mortor damage all served to bring home the reality of recent history. Berlin is still very much marked by such recent history; there are memorials located all over the city commemorating minorities persecuted and wiped out under the Nazi regime. The Holocaust memorial and the Jewish museum were both painfully moving. We also popped into the Stasi musuem which documented the extent of the goverment power under the GDR regime - the national socialist government that took power in the wake of ww2. Sponsored by Soviet power, the socialist government of East Germany woked to infiltrate the lives of almost every East German citizen - bugging devices, hidden camera footage documenting suspected dissidents, recording devices and so on were all on display. It was quite chilling. The film "The Lives of Others" is set during the period of the GDR regime in East Germany is a remarkably apt portrayal of what occured. The Stasi museum gave us the chance to actually see the implements and surveillence equipment put to use during the GDR regime up close.
The museums and monuments in Berlin expose and display what was at one time hidden and out of sight. There is no effort to soften or sugar-coat the grim realities of twentieth century history in Berlin. In fact, the visitor is invited to take an objective look at the events of German (and European) history that have had unthinkably terrible consequences for so many. Well worth a visit.
Also managed to finsih reading Marilynne Robinson's novel Home (the sequel to Gilead) as we roved about. An epic read. Very moving. Both books are crammed with beautifully crafted meditations on faith, hope, doubt, grace and so much more besides. Such rich writing. My aim is to jam up a post or two in the future touching on either/or both these novels. In terms of recent literature that powerfully communicates theological truth with imagination and aplomb, Marilynne Robinson's novels are unmatched. I cannot think of a more fitting gift for someone you may know who is either doggedly sceptical about Christianity or asking searching questions about the nature of faith and the reality of God. I hope to read some of her non-fiction work at some point in the near-future.
Now that I'm home again I can finally get round to posting up some more of that apologetiXperiment material too.
Claire and I left for a short break in Berlin about ten days ago, intending to remain in Germany for one week. On account of the volcano however, our stay was unexpectedly extended. Thankfully, our good friends in Leipzig, Hermann and Miriam, put us up as we waited for flight news to drip through on the ryanair website. In the meantime we enjoyed the sights of Leipzig, taking a trip out to nearby Wittenberg, the birthplace of the Reformation. There we saw Luther's house (a former monastery) - a fascinating catalogue of his writings and pamphlets, the remains of his pulpit were all on display. Very enjoyable. We literally stepped into the engine room of the European reformation; Luther's home and study - the epicentre of so much vast and momentous change.
Berlin was also fascinating - so much building work going on as efforts contiue to restore the city in the wake of ww2, the socialist GDR regime and the Fall of the Berlin Wall in '89. We enjoyed a tour of the city that really took us into the midst of Berlin's tumultuous recent history; the buildings erected during the Third Reich, so austere and sterile and looking very much as they did 70-odd years ago, the location of Hitler's bunker (now a carpark/clothes recycling depot), Checkpoint Charlie, every major landmock pock-marked with bullet holes and mortor damage all served to bring home the reality of recent history. Berlin is still very much marked by such recent history; there are memorials located all over the city commemorating minorities persecuted and wiped out under the Nazi regime. The Holocaust memorial and the Jewish museum were both painfully moving. We also popped into the Stasi musuem which documented the extent of the goverment power under the GDR regime - the national socialist government that took power in the wake of ww2. Sponsored by Soviet power, the socialist government of East Germany woked to infiltrate the lives of almost every East German citizen - bugging devices, hidden camera footage documenting suspected dissidents, recording devices and so on were all on display. It was quite chilling. The film "The Lives of Others" is set during the period of the GDR regime in East Germany is a remarkably apt portrayal of what occured. The Stasi museum gave us the chance to actually see the implements and surveillence equipment put to use during the GDR regime up close.
The museums and monuments in Berlin expose and display what was at one time hidden and out of sight. There is no effort to soften or sugar-coat the grim realities of twentieth century history in Berlin. In fact, the visitor is invited to take an objective look at the events of German (and European) history that have had unthinkably terrible consequences for so many. Well worth a visit.
Also managed to finsih reading Marilynne Robinson's novel Home (the sequel to Gilead) as we roved about. An epic read. Very moving. Both books are crammed with beautifully crafted meditations on faith, hope, doubt, grace and so much more besides. Such rich writing. My aim is to jam up a post or two in the future touching on either/or both these novels. In terms of recent literature that powerfully communicates theological truth with imagination and aplomb, Marilynne Robinson's novels are unmatched. I cannot think of a more fitting gift for someone you may know who is either doggedly sceptical about Christianity or asking searching questions about the nature of faith and the reality of God. I hope to read some of her non-fiction work at some point in the near-future.
Now that I'm home again I can finally get round to posting up some more of that apologetiXperiment material too.
Friday, April 9, 2010
The ApologetiXperiment
The material in this post is a short segment form the seminar material we covered last night at the first ApologetiXperiment seminar in Immanuel. The aim of last night's session was to simply underline the role and purpose of Christian apologetics; the vital role it has to play in commending Christian truth and engaging the culture in which we live. We also looked at five of the major apologetic methods/approaches. Over the course of the next few days I'll post up the rest of the material we covered together last night...
Introduction: What is Apologetics?
Apologetics is the discipline that deals with a rational defence of the Christian faith. The term “apologetics” comes from the Greek word apologia, which means to give a reason or a defence. “Apologetics is that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith…In addition to serving, like the rest of theology in general, as an expression of loving God with all our minds, apologetics specifically serves to show to unbelievers the truth of the Christian faith, to confirm that faith to believers, and to reveal and explore the connections between Christian doctrine and other truths” (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith). Although there are Christians who object to the work of apologetics, it is in fact a vital work for all sorts of reasons.
Why Apologetics?
Firstly, Scripture provides us with many reasons for engaging in apologetics -
Matthew 22.36-37: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.”
1 Peter 3.15: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…”
2 Corinthians 10.5: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
Philippians 1.7: “…for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me” He adds in verse 16, “…I am put here for the defence of the gospel.”
Jude 3: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” Jude makes a significant statement about our attitude in verse 21 & 22, “Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Be merciful to those who doubt…”
Titus 1.9 outlines a requirement for an elder in the church: “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”
2 Timothy 2.24-25: “And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.”
Acts 17.16-34: here the apostle Paul models effective apologetics. It is missional, engaging and God-centred.
Secondly, the world needs apologetics. “People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, he expects them to live rationally, to look before they leap. This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than a leap in the dark” (Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics). Although we cannot reason people into the Kingdom, apologetics can do the groundwork of demonstrating the rationality of the Christian faith. This helps to dispel prejudice and disarm unexamined assumptions that prevent people form seriously examining the claims of Christianity.
Apologetics helps us to “deconstruct defeater beliefs”, to borrow the words of Tim Keller (The Reason for God). Defeater beliefs are the unexamined & largely borrowed objections people have to the gospel. For example, Richard Dawkins’ books have led some to the blind (and erroneous) view that science disproves religion. Apologetics gives us the tools we need to deconstruct such a view, thereby demonstrating the rationality of the Christian worldview in contrast to the worldview of atheism. This helps to clear the way for an open-minded hearing of the gospel message. Ultimately of course, it is the Holy Spirit who draws people into a saving relationship with Christ, but a rational justification for Christian faith can assist in the process.
As we can see from Acts 17 (also 19.8, 29.23-24), it was the apostles’ standard procedure to argue for the truth of the Christian worldview with both Jews and pagans. In appealing to Jewish audiences, the apostles appealed to fulfilled prophecy, Jesus’ miracles and resurrection as evidence that he was the Messiah. When they confronted Gentile audiences who did not know or accept the Jewish Scriptures, they appealed to God’s handiwork in nature as evidence for the existence of the creator (Acts 14.17). Then appeal was made to the eyewitness testimony of the resurrection of Jesus to show specifically that God had revealed himself in Jesus Christ (Acts 17.30-31, 1.Corinthians 15.3-8).
We face precisely the same challenge as Christians living in the 21st century. As Christians, we are called to present the Gospel to a world without hope. Often this involves appealing to the order and purpose in the created world and pointing people to the Person of Jesus Christ, as Paul did. Apologetics can help us do this persuasively and effectively.
Introduction: What is Apologetics?
Apologetics is the discipline that deals with a rational defence of the Christian faith. The term “apologetics” comes from the Greek word apologia, which means to give a reason or a defence. “Apologetics is that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith…In addition to serving, like the rest of theology in general, as an expression of loving God with all our minds, apologetics specifically serves to show to unbelievers the truth of the Christian faith, to confirm that faith to believers, and to reveal and explore the connections between Christian doctrine and other truths” (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith). Although there are Christians who object to the work of apologetics, it is in fact a vital work for all sorts of reasons.
Why Apologetics?
Firstly, Scripture provides us with many reasons for engaging in apologetics -
Matthew 22.36-37: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.”
1 Peter 3.15: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…”
2 Corinthians 10.5: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
Philippians 1.7: “…for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me” He adds in verse 16, “…I am put here for the defence of the gospel.”
Jude 3: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” Jude makes a significant statement about our attitude in verse 21 & 22, “Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Be merciful to those who doubt…”
Titus 1.9 outlines a requirement for an elder in the church: “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”
2 Timothy 2.24-25: “And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.”
Acts 17.16-34: here the apostle Paul models effective apologetics. It is missional, engaging and God-centred.
Secondly, the world needs apologetics. “People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, he expects them to live rationally, to look before they leap. This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than a leap in the dark” (Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics). Although we cannot reason people into the Kingdom, apologetics can do the groundwork of demonstrating the rationality of the Christian faith. This helps to dispel prejudice and disarm unexamined assumptions that prevent people form seriously examining the claims of Christianity.
Apologetics helps us to “deconstruct defeater beliefs”, to borrow the words of Tim Keller (The Reason for God). Defeater beliefs are the unexamined & largely borrowed objections people have to the gospel. For example, Richard Dawkins’ books have led some to the blind (and erroneous) view that science disproves religion. Apologetics gives us the tools we need to deconstruct such a view, thereby demonstrating the rationality of the Christian worldview in contrast to the worldview of atheism. This helps to clear the way for an open-minded hearing of the gospel message. Ultimately of course, it is the Holy Spirit who draws people into a saving relationship with Christ, but a rational justification for Christian faith can assist in the process.
As we can see from Acts 17 (also 19.8, 29.23-24), it was the apostles’ standard procedure to argue for the truth of the Christian worldview with both Jews and pagans. In appealing to Jewish audiences, the apostles appealed to fulfilled prophecy, Jesus’ miracles and resurrection as evidence that he was the Messiah. When they confronted Gentile audiences who did not know or accept the Jewish Scriptures, they appealed to God’s handiwork in nature as evidence for the existence of the creator (Acts 14.17). Then appeal was made to the eyewitness testimony of the resurrection of Jesus to show specifically that God had revealed himself in Jesus Christ (Acts 17.30-31, 1.Corinthians 15.3-8).
We face precisely the same challenge as Christians living in the 21st century. As Christians, we are called to present the Gospel to a world without hope. Often this involves appealing to the order and purpose in the created world and pointing people to the Person of Jesus Christ, as Paul did. Apologetics can help us do this persuasively and effectively.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The ApologetiXperiment
The following posts will mainly contain material I'm putting together as part of The ApologetiXperiment - a six (or so) seminar course in basic apologetics running at Immanuel church over the next six to eight weeks. The seminars kick off this evening. I hope to unleash more of the seminar material on this new-fangled blog as the weeks go by, along with reflections on how members of Immanuel take to it. I am hoping the material will assist them as they commend the gospel to their friends, family, co-workers and so on. Hopefully too, it will help them to think critically/apologetically about Christian truth and their personal faith.
The seminars will aim to cover the following topics:
1. What is Apologetics?
2. Refuting Scientism
3. Engaging Postmodernism
4. Deconstructing Atheism
5. Demonstrating the Existence of God
6. The Self-Understanding of Jesus
7. The Resurrection of Jesus
The seminars will aim to cover the following topics:
1. What is Apologetics?
2. Refuting Scientism
3. Engaging Postmodernism
4. Deconstructing Atheism
5. Demonstrating the Existence of God
6. The Self-Understanding of Jesus
7. The Resurrection of Jesus
Enquirer: Mr. Apprentice, what the dickens gave you - such a bockety fellow - the idea of starting a blog?
The Apprentice: My dear sir, it was the parting words of the late Sir Ian Bloggage that put fire under me. I was one of few lucky enough to be by his bed-side the evening he expired.
A mere twinkling before he passed on, he grapped my arm with a fiercesome look in his smouldering eyes and with his last breath, he rasped out these words: "Have at you sir! Thou must start a blog! Do not stand onion-eyed; begin anon - indeed, dear sir, begin presently!"
And then, just like that, he died.
Well, dear sir, what could I do? I put it off as long as I could and well, yesterday evening as the sun was going down, I got to it.
Enquirer: I see.
The Apprentice: My dear sir, it was the parting words of the late Sir Ian Bloggage that put fire under me. I was one of few lucky enough to be by his bed-side the evening he expired.
A mere twinkling before he passed on, he grapped my arm with a fiercesome look in his smouldering eyes and with his last breath, he rasped out these words: "Have at you sir! Thou must start a blog! Do not stand onion-eyed; begin anon - indeed, dear sir, begin presently!"
And then, just like that, he died.
Well, dear sir, what could I do? I put it off as long as I could and well, yesterday evening as the sun was going down, I got to it.
Enquirer: I see.
The apprentice shuffles...
The apprentice shuffles about the Mission building, stalking the marbled steps. All the while muttering and whispering as he fingers the dusty, crumbling tomes that weigh the library shelves into a concave arc..."Hmmm..." he mutters, "long have I thought of setting my bony fingers to the dusty keys of the Dell in a bid to enter the cyber-world of theological reflection called blogdom...perhaps the time has come..." Mouldering and limping to the computer, he finally sets himself the task of beginning a modest blog, an inconspicuous outpost in the vast reaches of the cyber-domain, the great noosphere of internet blogdom. "Hmphh" he mutters, "Where should I begin...?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)