The Areopagus, as seen from the Acropolis.
When the Apostle Paul delivered his famous speech at the Areopagus near the Acropolis, what was he thinking? As he spoke about the identity of “the Unknown God” did he care what his listeners thought?
The encounter is detailed in the book of Acts:
A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean. (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.”
…When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others. (Acts 17)
Paul was not insensitive to the recipients thought life. He considered the perspective of the Greek philosophers, respecting what they believed and carefully placed his message within that framework.
Understanding the Postmodern Relativism of Today
Christian Apologists today are also concerned with proper presentation of the Gospel as they confront philosophical, scientific and historical objections to the faith.
World magazines, Henry Bleattler interviewed Westminster Theological Seminary professor Dr. William Edgar regarding his approach to apologetics. The key to proper presentation of an argument is understanding the nature of a person’s culture or perspective, according to Edgar.
“For me culture is central to the way we think and move and have our being. Apologetics that simply take tight philosophical arguments, and dump them on people, and then simply wait and see if they can say “uncle” or not, are not very effective. First of all, not all of us are philosophers; second, it does not reach into heart commitments, which is where the issues of life are. It’s not how bright I am and whether I can think through a problem that is going to lead me to Christ. It’s whether I have the kind of information, wisdom, and preaching that will challenge my deepest assumptions and lead me to Christ.”
Edgar discussed one of the more prevalent popular assumptions. He commented on the post-modern condition, which on a positive note recognizes “heart commitments, positions and faith”.
“…Religion has been more recognized and given a better catalyst for faith than when I was growing up, when it was much more modern and science had supposedly refuted the Bible, and so forth…(Negatively) a post-modern mindset can fall into the purely relativistic idea of, you believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, and we can live with each other. Hard-core relativism is just as destructive as modernism.”
Postmodernism is apparently a tough skin to penetrate as suggested by Edgar. When a Christian engages the post-modern thinker it could conclude in a negative way. The post-modern person suspends judgment on claims, viewing all as equally true. In this relative framework the post-modern person reasons, “Let’s bring the Christian along in fairness,” or “He’s got his viewpoint and we’ve got ours, and let’s see if we can get to a lower common denominator.”
Relativism is bound within the fabric of thought for many. When assessing the quality of Christian claims they are sometimes neutralized before consideration in “fairness” to other claims.
Considering our Hearers as we do Apologetics
In the article, Edgar’s educational training and specifically his mentor’s influence is reviewed. Edgar studied under Cornelius Van Til who is considered the leading exponent of pre-suppositionalism.
“This apologetic looks at the issues of the heart and worldview, rather than simply amassing great doses of evidence that are presented as though facts were neutral. Van Til was very favorable to evidence but it had to be in a framework…”
Edgar says the “climate” of the receiver is as much to do with the good apologetics as the argument itself. Christians are often more concerned about the details of the report than the disposition of the receiver.
“In his regrettably overlooked book, The Gravedigger File, Os Guinness portrays the subversion of the North American church using a literary method similar to C. S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters. In a series of memos a senior intelligence agent trains his successor in the spiritual warfare of undermining Christian impact. Each memo describes a successful strategy to be emulated. One of them he calls “The Sandman Effect.” According to this tactic, the junior spy must learn to fool Christians into thinking only the mind matters. This puts them to sleep because they have been lulled into thinking that everyone is a thinker and operates on reason alone, when in fact many other influences are at work. The senior agent points out to his student that a literary or philosophical movement often becomes influential not because specific arguments were carefully studied, but because of cultural factors. For example, the power of revolutionary artists and pundits on the Left Bank of Paris between the two World Wars had as much to do with the European cultural mood and the ambiance of the cafes as with the ideas themselves, which were often less than solid. Christian apologetics which is limited to tight philosophical argument is simply ineffective when the climate is forgotten. This is especially true today, when style is ubiquitous and truth is out of fashion.”
Proper apologetics considers the recipients’ perspective, or perhaps we could say, the ground in which a seed is to be planted.
How do you defend your faith with others? Do you think the perspective of the recipient matters? NEST would like to know.
