"The Trilemma: Useless" was written as an entry in Vox Apologia XVIII. Since there were only four entries, RazorsKiss could easily comment on all of them. His commentary on mine causes some head scratches for me.
I'm interested as to why he chooses conversion as the end of apologetics (although, to some extent, it is true), and why he uses the worst-case scenarios to negate all cases where it might work. Go check it out, and see what you think of it.
How is conversion not an end of apologetics?
- apologetics
- The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
- Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.
- Middle English, formal defense, from Latin apologticus, from Greek apologtikos, suitable for defense, from apologeisthai, to defend oneself verbally, from apologos, apology, story. See apologue.]
- conversion
Apologetics is concerned with the rational defense of (in this case) Christianity. Ultimately, we would like our listeners to see things our way, i.e. turn (vertere) to face the direction we face with us (con). IOW, if Christianity can be rationally defended and we intend to perform such defense, do we not desire that our listeners be converted to our position? I understand that not all conversion need be achieved through apologetics. However, the ultimate goal of apologetics should be to convert. Any result short of that is just a comprimise and hopefully temporary.
Funky Dung
Comments 22
While I see that conversion may be the ideal end of apologetics, it seems that today one of its more common, and equally important goals is to provide understanding to people whose beliefs are different than yours. Even if you're not going to convert someone, it is beneficial to the Church and to society that they understand your faith better, and appreciate that yours is no more or less reasonable than theirs.
+0
Posted 16 May 2005 at 4:25 pm ¶Conversion cannot be an endpoint for evangelism and apologetics. While we may present wonderful explications of Christianity, we cannot change anyone. That's the Holy Spirit's job. No sane Christian would claim to be God, yet many try to take over His job.
Our job is to present the truth and to not be a stumbling block. What someone does with that truth is not our responsibility. Believing that it is has resulted in unfortunate forceful attempts at conversion that Christianity is still trying to live down.
By seeing the presentation of truth as the endpoint and not conversion, we also avoid an insidious trap. Seeds that are planted often take years to grow. If conversion is an endpoint, and we do not get to see that endpoint in what we consider to be a reasonable time, we may become frustrated and give up!
Our job is to give an answer for the hope that is within us.
+0
Posted 16 May 2005 at 5:52 pm ¶I think you misunderstood him — he doesn't understand why you (ostensibly) make conversion *the* end of apologetics, rather than simply *an* end, as he would.
+0
Posted 16 May 2005 at 7:03 pm ¶And I guess my argument is that in the end, apologetics is at least implicitly meant for conversion. Like I said, anything less is just a comprimise.
+0
Posted 16 May 2005 at 7:20 pm ¶"By seeing the presentation of truth as the endpoint and not conversion, we also avoid an insidious trap. Seeds that are planted often take years to grow. If conversion is an endpoint, and we do not get to see that endpoint in what we consider to be a reasonable time, we may become frustrated and give up!"
However remote the result, the goal is nevertheless conversion.
"While I see that conversion may be the ideal end of apologetics, it seems that today one of its more common, and equally important goals is to provide understanding to people whose beliefs are different than yours. Even if you're not going to convert someone, it is beneficial to the Church and to society that they understand your faith better, and appreciate that yours is no more or less reasonable than theirs."
I would argue that this goal is merely a comprimise, i.e. if we can't convince so-and-so to share our faith, we can at least help him understand and appreciate it. I should note that I do not mean "comprimise" to be taken in an entirely negative way. Still, we are called to "make disciples of all nations".
+0
Posted 16 May 2005 at 7:24 pm ¶The apologetic idea and the impulse come from Peter's (I Pet 3:15) being prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks the reason for the hope that is in us. It is one thing to have reasons… it is quite another to provide empirical proof.
Reason (inference, logic, ethics, deduction, symbols, abstract language, etc.) only works when it sits upon a basis of axioms, whether these be assumptions, aesthetic judgements, or faith. Such axioms are, by definition, unproven and unprovable. If you start from a position of logical positivism, i.e., only things that can be proved may be believed, then you'll never so much as get to theism, much less the Christian version thereof. (In fact, humorously, you never even get to Logical Positivism… but that is a differerent story.)
Much of modern apologetics seems to forget this, and instead presents itself like we can really get to Christianity by purely intellectual means. So of course, people who fail to see the "obvious truth" of Christianity are mentally deficient. But this isn't the case at all. Faith (just like hope and love) is an exercise of the will. People will believe what they want to believe. So the question is never: why can you not follow the logic of my proof, or which points of the argument need be stated more convincingly or with more "evidence". Instead the real question is: why do you want to believe or not believe. For there is always something underneath, rooted firmly in the will. That is the thing that must be "fixed" (variously either broken or repaired) for a person to be willing to believe or disbelieve.
Once the catechumen accepts, by sheer force of will acting in cooperation with God's grace, the "axiomatic" basis of Christianity, then and only then will the faith that they are approaching seem "reasonable." Til then it is, as another commenter reminds us, either a stumbling block or foolishness… or both.
My $0.02
+0
Posted 16 May 2005 at 8:37 pm ¶Steve, with inflation the way it is, maybe you should give us your 5 or 10 cents.
+0
Posted 16 May 2005 at 9:08 pm ¶For unknown reasons, sometimes when I hear "my 2 cents" I think of a rhyme about pay toilets.
Here I sit broken hearted
I paid a quarter and only farted
The other day I took a chance
I saved a dime but shat my pants
+0
Posted 16 May 2005 at 9:18 pm ¶Rob, I agree completely with your statement. Very clear!
+0
Posted 17 May 2005 at 3:56 am ¶I can cuss in the comments if I use past tense!?! AWESOME!!
+0
Posted 17 May 2005 at 4:21 am ¶… or if you use British variations… "Unknown reasons" my arse, Funky!
To be sure, though, having a mind straying from time to time to the various bodily functions is probably a healthy tonic to the oppressive Puritan heritage under which we suffer.
Anyways, last I checked Sibert, the various English renderings of skubalon didn't quite rise to the level of an Official Curse. We plebes must leave that sort of stuff to the folks in pointy hats of one sort or another.
Cheers!
+0
Posted 17 May 2005 at 5:11 am ¶If you wouldn't say it in front of your priest or your mother, it's a cuss word. Until the verdict comes back from the pointy hats blast away. I know I've perpetrated my share!
+0
Posted 17 May 2005 at 5:34 am ¶As "apologia" is "defense of", not "conversion to", I thought that the goal would be to defend the Gospel, you know?
I don't know very many apologists who ever dream that it is their arguments which would bring conversion. Like an earlier commenter said, that is the work of the Holy Spirit.
So, that was why I was wondering - why would anyone ever think the apologetic is what results in conversion? It is merely a defense. Putting the responsibility for conversion on believers is asking a bit much. On evangelism? That is everyone's responsibility - but the conversion itself is never our job, our result, or our doing.
That was why I was scratching my head there. What makes you think it is anything we do?
As i stated in my post - no apologetic is even effective for a defense, in and of itself. It is only when used with other apologetics, in accord with the Scripture, and the Holy Spirit, that it is even effective in it's stated purpose. I don't think apologetics is a conversion apparatus. it is, as Ravi Zacharias says, "clearing the brush away in front of the path" to Jesus. It removes intellectual obstacles, but that is all.
+0
Posted 17 May 2005 at 8:50 am ¶It seems to me, Steve, that actually the better part of modern apologetics concerns itself with (what I'll term) "deep" Biblical scholarship; that is, going back to original languages, considering sources, translation issues, target audience, rather than reason or anything else.
Perhaps this has to do with the fact that I tend to read specifically Catholic apologetics most. It seems to me that the vast majority of such materials tend to overlook the fact that Catholicism does not have to hang everything on Scripture. For instance, just try to find a defense of the Papacy from the Fathers. One of our richest resources is unused. Or try and find a philosophical exposition of transubstantiation. The dogma was formed philosophically, and is most deeply understood in such a way. Defend it that way.
Perhaps the difference between our two experiences has to do with the fact that new apologetic forms have been adopted recently. Maybe Catholic apologetics readers have become tired of Augustine-and-Aquinas-induced headaches, wanting simple look-it's-in-the-Bible answers, and readers of generalized Christian apologetics (aka Protestants) have become tired of look-it's-right-here Bible-only apologetics. That's not really the fault of any of the latter group, however; wanting to know why something is the case, rather than simply that it is so, seems natural. Deep down, our attitudes are products of Enlightenment sensibilities, rather than truly Christian notions of the world.
+0
Posted 17 May 2005 at 9:35 pm ¶Good points Tom! I agree that most of Catholic apologetics (that I've read–even the scholastics by and large) isn't built upon a fatally flawed foundation that is found in that of modern evangelical thought, viz., rationalistic reduction. It is instead built up out of adherence to the Word of God, which in Catholic parlance refers to Holy Writ and Holy Tradition. One must accept this foundation to perceive much rationality within Catholic thought. This is the way it ought to be: believe, then see.
I absolutely agree that "our" attitudes (i.e., modern attitudes) are shaped much more by "Enlightenment sensibilities, rather than truly Christian notions of the world." This is a notion that must be taken captive and brought into obedience to Christ. Thus, part of our "apologetic" mission in modern times is to counter and reject the modern apologetics that has been poisoned by such ideals.
Cheers!
+0
Posted 18 May 2005 at 3:47 pm ¶"I absolutely agree that 'our' attitudes (i.e., modern attitudes) are shaped much more by 'Enlightenment sensibilities, rather than truly Christian notions of the world.' This is a notion that must be taken captive and brought into obedience to Christ. Thus, part of our 'apologetic' mission in modern times is to counter and reject the modern apologetics that has been poisoned by such ideals."
That's pretty ironic, isn't it? As Christian as one tries to be, it's hard to get yourself to not play the Rationalist.
+0
Posted 18 May 2005 at 9:17 pm ¶Someone lay out for me exactly what "Enlightenment sensibilities" are poisoning modern apologetics, please.
+0
Posted 18 May 2005 at 9:26 pm ¶Sibert:
It is probably expressed best (or at least most succinctly) in the words of our own Declaration of Independence:
[We] are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The last was originally "property" in Locke, but "happiness" works just as well. It isn't as though Christians should be in favor of death, slavery, and the pursuit of misery. It's just that this enlightenment ideal is taken to be the highest (the only rationally recognizable) good in society–that nothing can interfere with what someone wants to make them happy. So on the left, we have folks clamoring for the state to keep laws off "our bodies" and out of "our bedrooms", and on the supposed right, we have folks clamoring for the state to to keep their laws off "their trade" and out of "their pocketbooks". It's all the same enlightenment liberalism, rationalist tripe: there are no transcendant human goods.
My $0.02 anyway…
+0
Posted 18 May 2005 at 10:53 pm ¶Um, well, I'd consider abortion a severe violation of the child's right to happiness…I'm not sure how that predicates abortion, except within a certain modern mindset that denies personhood to humans when it is convenient.
Steve is correct in pointing out that such political language in the Declaration, which is good and necessary in its place, does become a sort of religion and seeks to run everything, something that the Founding Father did try to avoid with a highly divided federal government that we use today (or even the more diffuse Articles of Confederation, which were quite a disaster). Alas, we've lost much of the mindset of the early Americans, so their rhetoric has been used in ways that'd make them spin in their graves!
The end result, perhaps, would be to turn one into a sort of modern-day Gnostic, which seems to be our version of the Deism that was so common in the Enlightenment.
+0
Posted 19 May 2005 at 1:17 am ¶Regarding the modern mind and belief, I highly recommend "An Introduction to Christianity" by Josef Ratzinger, now BXVI.
It's an introduction insofar that one may take classical mechanics as an undergraduate physicist, and then again as a graduate. If C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" is the undergrad text, this is a upperclassman's or grad student's book on the basics of the faith. (This is not a hack on Lewis, of course; teaching the introductory courses *well* is often much harder than teaching advanced students!).
I have not finished the book; in fact, I think I only recently cleared the halfway point, but the insights he's had to the nature of belief and God's unity and trinity are fascinating, and I will be pondering them for some time. A wonderful, challenging read.
+0
Posted 19 May 2005 at 2:20 am ¶"Um, well, I'd consider abortion a severe violation of the child's right to happiness…I'm not sure how that predicates abortion, except within a certain modern mindset that denies personhood to humans when it is convenient."
I think there are a lot of folks who wouldn't deny that abortion violates a child's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but would say that a fully-formed human's rights to the same take priority.
+0
Posted 19 May 2005 at 2:30 am ¶Steve,
Thanks, that certainly clears it up little more. I agree that we should be on constant guard against assuming the spirit of the age. I think apologetics serve another function in the pursuit of Godliness in addition to "clearing the brush". Tearing down those walls of misguided reason helps to strengthen our own faith as well, following the axiom that obedience (to the word in I Peter 3:15) strengthens faith. I think it is a part of "working out our salvation" that Paul mentions in his missive to the Phillipians. We are ministered to by Holy Spirit as we seek to minister to others with a right heart. Apologetics should not take the place of evangelism (related but not synonomous), nor should it's discipline be neglected out of deference or false humility, but it is part of the full life in Him.
+0
Posted 19 May 2005 at 3:52 am ¶Post a Comment