The genesis of this post comes from , in which I said (rather snarkily, I admit):
If by "Golden Era of Apologetics" [Lee Strobel] means "An Era When Apologetics Will Continue Its Decline into Utter Irrelevance," I'm totally on board.
I was responding to an article/interview in The Christian Post titled . You may recognize Strobel's name — he's the author of series of apologetics-oriented books: The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, The Case for A Creator, et al. They're wildly popular books — several of which I have read — in which Strobel continues the project of Josh McDowell's (and others before McDowell).1
Wikipedia as "the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of reason." But before I go any further, let me begin with a story — it's one that I tell often.
During the summer before my freshman year at college I was going through a significant transformation in my faith. Having been baptized and confirmed Presbyterian, in my teenage years I grew jaded and considered myself an atheist. At the age of 18 I began attending an evangelical church and immediately did a 180° — but in order for me to make the cognitive leap (not simply the emotional one) I needed evidence. So I picked up a copy of the book and dug in. A quick scan of the book's table of contents will inform you that I learned about how Christians shouldn't be moral relativists, why the miracles of Jesus actually happened, and why the Bible is scientifically reliable.
A few months later, I walked into my "Introduction to the Bible" class at Luther College armed with apologetic ammunition. It was Genesis 1-2 day on the syllabus, and I had hand-written out notes about how creation could have literally happened over the course of six days. My professor was notoriously liberal, so my goal was to put her in her place. I raised my hand, began my tirade, and was immediately rebuffed. I was disappointed, to be sure, but over the course of the next five years my faith would continue to mature — and the aforementioned professor became one of my biggest mentors.
I share that story to underscore the fact that my understanding of (and disdain for) apologetics arises not from purely intellectual study removed from lived experience. Instead, I hold my current views precisely because I have had real exposure to apologetics and its consequences in the life of faith.
Apologetics: A Brief History
As a discipline, apologetics arose from the need felt by Christians to "defend" or "apologize for" the Christian faith in the face of encroaching enlightenment thought. . The word is virtually non-existent until the late 1850s when it begins a steady and steep trend upward. To put this into perspective, Charles Darwin's groundbreaking work on evolution, On the Origin of Species debuted in 1859. This is not a coincidence.
Darwin's theory of evolution (apologists love that word — theory) and other scientific advances put Christians in a tough position. Essentially, there were three options: The options were: (1) suggest that scientists are off their collective rockers and discount their findings, (2) suggest that science and religion are like apples and oranges (or head and heart, respectively) or (3) find a way to make science and religion compatible. In a time when rationalism and scientific thought were exploding, the consequences of (1) were that Christianity would fade into irrelevance because of its perceived non-scientific superstitiousness, and for the most part, evangelicals settled on (2). Eventually, however the pressure would become too intense, whereupon (3) became the modus operandi.
In his fantastic book , George M. Marsden says it much better than me:
When Darwinism brought about the second scientific revolution, evangelicals who had adopted this method of reconciling science and religion were faced with a dilemma. If they kept their commitment to autonomous scientific inquiry now, the very foundations of theistic and Christian belief seemed to be threatened... For most educated American evangelicals, however, the commitment both to objective science and to religion was so strong, and the conflict so severe, that they were forced into one of two extreme positions. They could choose to say [that] Darwinism was irreconcilable with Christianity — a new infidelity — and that it was speculative and hypothetical rather than truly scientific. The alternative solution was a redefinition of the relationship between science and religion... Religion would no longer be seen as dependent on historical or scientific fact susceptible of objective inquiry; religion had to do with the spiritual, with the heart, with religious experience... areas not open to scientific investigation.2
Over the course of the next century, evangelicals shifted toward an attempt to make Christianity compatible with science, which attempt resulted in "grasping after scientific straws" and made evangelical Christianity a "laughingstock."3 The solution? What we have today in books like Strobel's A Case for Christ — an even more rigorously scientific and reason-able justification for the faith.
Which leads me to one of my main beefs with apologetics.
Both Pro- and Anti-Science?
Evangelicals, who have been the most ardent proponents of the discipline of apologetics, are also in many cases the the quickest to ignore or refute the discoveries and claims of science itself.
A conducted last fall by the Public Religion Research Institute found, among other things, that "Nearly two-thirds (66%) of white mainline Protestants, 61% of Catholics, and 77% of the unaffiliated believe humans and other living things evolved over time, compared to only about one-third (32%) of white evangelicals." The trend is similar (though not quite as dramatic) for climate change.
It simply isn't intellectually honest to employ the methods of science to defend the faith while simultaneously disputing the validity of certain scientific claims. Which is to say, you can't "use" science as a means only when it's helpful to your ends. Pardon the baseball analogy, but it would be akin to using advanced to justify the purchase of several free-agent baseball players while arguing that (WAR) is a useless statistic. If you buy into advanced sabermetrics as an evaluative discipline for evaluating baseball players, WAR is a non-negotiable. Likewise with science and evolution/climate change.
Moving on.
Hands, Heart, Head
In the aforementioned article, Strobel that apologetics is changing by becoming more relational and conversational, but it's all just a smoke screen. The end goal is still the same: Formulate and disseminate the best possible answers to skeptics' religious questions so that they will believe/convert/be saved.
In her book , Melissa Rudolph writes
The formula that we often use in church is head, heart, hands. We come to knowledge of our need for something more and decide to go to church or to hear an evangelist preach. Then, as we are convicted of our sin and offered the grace and forgiveness of Jesus Christ, our hearts are turned over to God and we decide to offer ourselves in service to the kingdom. In other words, we are called, saved, and sent.4
Later, she hints at a shift in our culture from "head → heart → hands" to "hands → heart → head." As she puts it: "Perhaps the lesson for Christian communities is that opening opportunities for others to work alongside us is a way to introduce more individuals to the life of faith."5 In other words, the preferable method of "convincing" people about the "truth" of Jesus is by showing them your hands (what you've done/are doing) and not your head (what you know/say).
Regardless of what Lee Strobel and other apologists would have you believe, in this postmodern era, people aren't looking for evidence any more. They're looking for participation. A cause. What folks want isn't an answer to the question "Why?" They want an answer to the question "How can I help?" or "What can I do?" Here's one anecdotal example: In just nine years, the number of applicants to the Teach For America program from 15,708 in 2003 to 48,000 in 2011. Again: "How can I help?"
A Truly Relational Apologetic
In the interview, Strobel says,
I call it "relational apologetics." This isn't your grandfather's apologetics, where we line up people against the wall and machine gun them with a barrage of facts. It's where we invite spiritually curious friends and neighbors into a safe environment where we can engage with them, listen, empathize, validate them as people, and help them get answers to the "spiritual sticking points" that are holding up their journey toward Christ. [Emphasis mine]
This new and allegedly kinder brand of apologetics isn't really new at all (but it is interesting how Strobel distances himself from "your grandfather's apologetics"). As many others beside me have pointed out, this is nothing more than a bait-and-switch which uses the façade of relationship and "empathy" to bait the "spiritually curious" into being fed answers. Here's the problem: Relationship isn't a tactic. Any relationship that is viewed as a means to an end and not simply an end in itself is not worthy of the designation of "relationship."
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously said in , "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." We find in the person of Jesus a call to relationship that equates to death — death of the self. We find in the person of Jesus a call to relationship that is about elevating the needs of the other above my own (a truly radical exhortation). We are not called to manipulate others with the help of whatever relational currency we may have amassed.
And that's where the project of apologetics gets it wrong. At the end of the day, the tactics may change, but it will always come down to helping people "get answers," as Strobel says, regardless of current cultural sentiment. They're simply convinced that people want answers (just look at the rising enrollment in conservative Christian colleges!). Unfortunately, it's more likely that the "spiritual sticking points" Strobel mentions are the fact that Christians don't appear to practice what they preach. In other words, it's not that folks simply haven't yet come upon enough evidence to believe, its that the hands aren't doing what the head is saying.
The Case for Grace
How do you explain grace? Here's one take: "I once was lost, but now I'm found."
Yes, grace truly is amazing. But its amazingness comes from the fact that it defies explanation. I once was lost, but not I'm found. Does it matter how I got from point A to point B? If I could explain — scientifically and in detail — how this amazing grace carried me from lost to found, would it make my story more compelling? Or is it more compelling if I honor the mystery and miracle involved?
If well-meaning journalist set out to write a book titled The Case for Grace, I imagine the book would be filled with stories about people who were lost and then found. The book would be compelling because of people's personal narratives, narratives which would likely defy rational explanation and would be less compelling if they were dissected, sterilized, and scrutinized under the microscope of rational or scientific inquiry.
Answers are not the answer. Grace is the answer. Grace that defies explanation. Grace that was, is, and will remain a holy mystery.
So while Strobel contends that "we're on the cusp of a golden era of apologetics," I am content to be the hands and feet of Jesus. I am content to be in relationship with you with no ulterior motives. I am content to continue singing how I once was lost but now I'm found. (Amen.)
- The image for this post comes from . [↩]
- Marsden, George. . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. 20. [↩]
- Ibid., 218. [↩]
- Rudolph, Melissa. . VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, 2011. 47. [↩]
- Ibid., 41. [↩]
{ 0 comments }
