In the Christian community there is a resurgence of interest in apologetics underway, in part as a response to the aggressive “new atheism” of figures like Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris. This resurgence is evidenced in publishing, the founding of schools, interest in dedicated classes and attendance at special lectures and debates. Just this past October Ravi Zacharias spoke at Yale University to a standing-room only auditorium packed with students, and the atmosphere was absolutely crackling with intellectual excitement.
What is the nature and purpose of Christian apologetics? How do we engage in apologetics in a way that is biblically faithful and theologically coherent? These are not new questions. Below I present a few simple thoughts of my own as they crystalized while teaching an apologetics course this past fall at The New England School of Theology. My remarks are followed by selections from a newly published work by noted theologian Alister McGrath in which he also addresses this issue. McGrath partly confirms, and partly pushes beyond, my own basic observations.
Pennoyer on Apologetics. A simple definition of apologetics might be “the rational defense of the faith.” When engaged in Christian apologetics I believe we have two audiences: Those outside the faith and those inside the faith.
Regarding those outside the faith, we know that people sometimes have erroneous assumptions and unthought-through objections. Apologetics can help clear away those problems and confirm the validity of the Christian faith by gathering evidence and helping people think through issues carefully. But ultimately we cannot convince someone to believe through arguments or accumulated evidence. That only happens by “an encounter with Jesus,” i.e. God the Father drawing a person to Christ (John 6:24). To use more philosophical language, at some point there needs to be an existential realization of the truth of the gospel of Jesus and a resulting faith commitment. And this is the way it should be, really, because only personal trust in the living Christ can weather the storms and trials of life – not carefully reasoned arguments. Besides, if we did have the power to convince someone to believe by our own clever arguments, we would also have to concede that someone could simply come along later who is a bit more clever than we are and unconvince that person. If the Christian faith is real it cannot rest so tenuously on human hearts. Properly speaking, therefore, one important purpose of apologetics is to clear away stumbling blocks standing between a person and an encounter with Jesus.
Regarding those inside the faith, we know that not all our questions are answered as soon as we believe in Jesus. Indeed, part of the lifelong call of discipleship is to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30). The engagement of these great questions is part of loving the Lord with all our mind. But we approach these questions now in the context of faith. Saint Anselm famously described this as “faith seeking understanding.” The father of the demonized boy in Mark 9 had his own way of putting it: “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”
McGrath on Apologetics. I just finished reading Alister McGrath’s The Passionate Intellect
Apologetics can be seen as an attempt to demonstrate that the Christian faith is able to provide meaningful answers to the “ultimate questions.” . . . Evangelism, on the other hand, moves beyond this concern with clearing the ground for faith in Christ and invites people to respond to the gospel. Apologetics aims to secure consent; evangelism aims to secure commitment. . . . Apologetics is conversational; evangelism is invitational.
McGrath continues on apologetics and divine encounter:
The apologetic task cannot be limited to developing arguments. In some way we must realize that apologetics involves enabling people to glimpse something of the glory and beauty of God. It is these, not slick arguments, that will ultimately convert and hold people. True apologetics engages not only the mind but also the heart and the imagination. . . . Arguments do not convert. They may remove obstacles to conversion and support the faith of believers, but in and of themselves they do not possess the capacity to transform humanity. For [Jonathan] Edwards true conversion rests on an encounter with a glorious and gracious God. This insight is liberating in that it reaffirms that apologetics is not about developing manipulative human techniques but about recognizing and coming to rely on the grace and glory of God.
I conclude with a paragraph on the role of apologetics within the larger culture (and here McGrath actually incorporates a quote from Austin Farrer):
We are thus called upon to demonstrate and embody – not to create or invent – the truth, beauty and goodness of faith. . . . Demonstrating the reasonableness of faith [is] important for its cultural acceptance. Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.
For additional resources from our friends at The Gospel Coalition, see Tim Keller’s recent call for a renewal of apologetics and John Stark’s brand new post on Evangelism and Apologetics.
Reference: Alister McGrath, The Passionate Intellect (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2010), published in the U.K. as Mere Theology (London: SPCK, 2010).
By: Ray Pennoyer (January 2 7, 2010)
Click here for bio and other posts by this same author.
“only personal trust in the living Christ can weather the storms and trials of life – not carefully reasoned arguments.”
You just admitted that the beliefs are irrational, wow!!
@Nightvid Cole: Think about the closest relationship you have right now. Can you reduce the reality of that relationship to a set of logical arguments? Of course not. That is because the reality of a relationship is supra-rational, that is, above or beyond rational argument. That is not the same thing as being irrational.
Three non-sequitirs before anyone can say “Jack Robbins” do not a good argument make…
“Can you answer Camus with Kant?” Meaning, if you were sit down with Albert Camus at a Parisian cafe sipping on espressos, and Camus leans over to you, looks you straight in the eye and asks you, “why should I not commit suicide”, what would you say? Taken aback at the abruptness of this question (good way to ruin a beautiful Saturday morning in Paris!), you pause and say, “Yes Al, I understand your problem and I have just the right answer for you. You see, Immanuel Kant developed a moral categorical imperative which you will find quite convincing. This, sir, will quiet your deathly existential woes. He claimed as one of his criteria for making ethical decisions something called ‘an appeal to human universality’. In this, Kant asked that before you make a moral decision ask yourself what would happen if every living person performed this action, what would be the results? You see, Mr. Camus, you cannot kill yourself because if every human being killed themselves, we would all go extinct and there would no longer be a human race to continue our gene pool. This simple deduction explains why you must not commit suicide.” Leaning back in his chair, watching a trail of smoke leaving his cigarette to freely float into the sky, disappearing on the journey, Camus smiles a grin of simplicity, shrugs his shoulders and says, “so?”
Pithy and profound, Camus need not continue.
“Reason” fought with its best weapon only to be disarmed by a grin delivering a trite response. Camus’ simple reply points to the irreducibility of life into logical arguments developed by sophisticated methodologies. The Kantian reply, used here to represent “reason Proper”, merely pushes the question back further from “should one individual kill himself” to “should all individuals kill themselves?” There is no qualitative difference between the two and surely pushing the problem back even further is not an answer to Camus’ first question.
The point to this rambling is that logic cannot answer the deep internal questions that life enforces upon us. When entering the hospital to see a dying loved one, we attempt to tell ourselves “it’s going to be ok. This is merely the circle of life; death is a natural part of all of our lives.” However, when we see our 80 lb mother, withered away by bone cancer, we break down into tears and rightfully so. It is impossible and inhumane to have a blasé attitude toward our dying parent all under the mantra of “it’s the cycle of life.” Logic and reason lack the strength to lift and carry the heavy burden of these deep, emotional, dare I say, existential moments. The relationship with Christ, and reassurance that death can be re-answered by Life, is the vehicle through those moments of true difficulty. All reason is preceded by faith, so don’t bet your eternal location on a faithless reason; for it does not exist.