In a perplexing post, Jim West said this morning:
Neither the faith nor God need defending. And the supposition that they do implies they are weaker than their defenders and thus in need of assistance in order to survive. Naturally, nothing could be further from the truth. It’s time for the Church to face the facts: faith is for proclaiming, not defending. If people reject faith that’s their problem- but to paint it up like one of Spitzer’s whores just so it can be palatable and acceptable is not only theologically inappropriate, but offensive. ‘Apologetics’ belongs to the realm of unbelief. Indeed, ‘Apologetics’ is unbelief itself.
Provocative? Sure, why not. Accurate? Not at all (said in my best British accent). I fail to see the logic behind the statement that saying that God and the faith need defending implies they’re weaker than their defenders. How is the same not true for proclaiming God and the Faith? Doesn’t that also imply that they’re in need of assistance in order to survive? If we apply the same logic, then yes, it does imply that.
Now granted, everyone might not need an apologetics study Bible (which is what originally sparked Jim’s comments), but that’s not to say that the faith doesn’t need defending. Proclaiming is obviously a must, we’re all called to preach the Gospel, no one would argue with that (except those nutty hyper-Calvinists), but the defense comes when we’re asked why we believe what we believe, or when what we believe is challenged.
Jim is obviously aware of 1Peter 3:15 in which the author tells the reader to be ready always to give an answer/defense (ἀπολογίαν) for the hope that is in them. Surely he’s no stranger to Jude 3-4 in which the author tells the reader to earnestly contend (ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι) for the faith that has been entrusted to the saints because certain false teachers crept in and attempted to distort the gospel and deny Jesus (these are all obviously my paraphrases).
So one wonders where Jim got the strange idea that he espoused above. He might object to modern American evangelical pop-apologetics, and that’s all good and well, no one wants the Gospel painted up like a whore in order to attract folks to it (but that speaks more to gimmicky preaching than it does apologetics), but he’s simply wrong to say that the faith doesn’t need defending and that apologetics itself is unbelief. He’d do just as well to say that black is white, up is down, right is wrong, and wikipedia is the most accurate source of info in the world. I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense (unless we’re in some sort of bizarro universe where every day is opposite day).
B”H
I could be off here but isn’t his post its own type of defending of the faith? Isn’t it an aplogetic of its own? Ruminating over this…
By: Michael Halcomb on March 12, 2008
at 12:55 pm
Michael: You know what, you’re right. In stating how unnecessary apologetics is he’s actually defending the strength and integrity of the faith. Ironic.
By: Nick Norelli on March 12, 2008
at 1:28 pm
I blame Bultmann
By: Doug Chaplin on March 12, 2008
at 3:36 pm
never thought of it that way Michael. interesting.
By: Bryan L on March 12, 2008
at 3:44 pm
Doug: That seems fitting. ;)
By: Nick Norelli on March 12, 2008
at 4:56 pm
I thought so :)
By: Michael Halcomb on March 12, 2008
at 5:09 pm
Here is the point I think Jim is making. Apologetics attempts to defend the faith via a rational discourse that is not befitting the subject namely God. Apologetics tries to use the same rational frameworks as analytic philosophy and scientific discourse in order to prove God’s existence (as it is these days at least). This is not only bound to fail, but will actually distort the meaning of faith and what God’s providence actually means. As Gene Robinson has said, There are two things that we must do with our faith 1) tell people about how God saved you and 2) tell us what you did about it. That is the essence of proclamation versus a rational defense.
Maybe I am being too kind though. I just think and have seen first hand how “apologetics” has created the fodder for the new atheist crowd and that can’t be good. Without evangelical apologetics, the atheists would not have a lot to chew on other than St. Thomas’ proofs for the existence of God and blaming fundamentalism for everything.
By: Drew on March 12, 2008
at 5:27 pm
If Jim wants God to defend himself, rather than choose to hold back and leave weak humans to defend him, then Jim himself had better watch out!
By: Peter Kirk on March 12, 2008
at 5:49 pm
One of the reasons I love Jim more than Huldrych is that Jim is able to provoke discussion through diatribe while Zwingli preferred to have his opponents drowned.
And actually, I liked Jim’s called to proclamation rather than argumentation. All of us are guilty of too much of the latter and too little of the former.
By: Lingamish on March 12, 2008
at 10:58 pm
One must consider one’s communicants when communicating, and proclamation might seem a bit rude, by itself, or just childish. Argumentation seems to respect the other more; and both are unnecessary for God to reach the other (as is the Bible of course, else how did it get written). The God that spoke through a burning bush could speak through fiery letters in the sky any day, but clearly chooses not to.
Drew, for some people 1 and 2 include reason (the Bible made sense to me, and so (and because) I thought about it), and rational discourse about God befits the God who made us to be rational. Of course, bad apologetics are a favourite fodder of the atheists, but even that gets the atheists thinking about God, which can’t be all bad. And true reason does not distort anything, by definition.
By: Enigman on March 13, 2008
at 1:35 am
Jim’s anti-apologeticism comes from dialectical theology, which got it from Luther (who was, in a sense, already a dialectical theologian). It’s partly based on a screwy misreading of Paul’s words about faith coming from hearing, which Luther and his followers understand to refer to a mystical power being pent up in the “Word”, rather than to the simple idea that the people can’t believe if they’ve never heard. Dialectical theologians (esp. Barth) like to combine this bad idea with a number of other bad ideas, like Kierkegaard’s “infinite qualitative distinction” between God and humans (which gave rise to the idea that humans are not able to approach the subject of God through rational arguments, etc.).
By: John C. Poirier on March 13, 2008
at 7:08 am
John,
Why don’t you have a blog?
By: Bryan L on March 13, 2008
at 7:16 am
Drew: I think you are being too kind. And I can agree with those 2 points when its appropriate to do so. But when the faith needs defending via rational argumentation then that has its place as well.
Peter: You lost me, watch out for what?
David: I like Jim better than Zwingli because people actually know who Jim is. ;) And in my opinion we need to be guilty of both.
Enigman: Indeed. There’s a time and a place for everything. Sometimes a simple proclamation isn’t what the situation calls for. But now that I think about it, isn’t presuppositional apologetics nothing more than a proclamation?
John: Good thoughts. Definitely something to consider. When I get smart like Drew I’ll be able to offer a better comment in response. :)
Bryan: Right? It seems like John should be blogging. Let’s start a petition.
By: Nick Norelli on March 13, 2008
at 7:39 am
This might be slightly off topic, but if you are up for it Nick, you should get a myspace profile and begin to establish truth on the religion forum there in the midst of unnecessary skepticsm being thrown upon the validity of the bible, the historicity of Christ, and existence of the New Testament characters. The reason I feel you should at least consider this is because you have a bunch of kids from ages 15 to 20 being exposed to this stuff by atheists and skeptics. These kids don’t have a chance when it comes to silencing the voice of skepticism in their minds. Let me know if you decide to make some rounds there.
Peace.
Troy
By: Troy on March 15, 2008
at 4:37 pm
Troy: Chances are that I won’t be doing the MySpace thing. Blogging takes up enough time already and I’ve never really been interested in MySpace anyway. But thanks for the thinking about me for such a task.
By: Nick Norelli on March 15, 2008
at 4:45 pm
I agree with you Nick. We need to provide a reason for why we believe what we believe. I do agree with one part of Jim’s post though, I wouldn’t look to this study Bible to do offer my kind of apologetics. I don’t think there’s a problem with apologetics itself, but we need to be offering a different kind of apologetics than one would probably find in this study Bible. Look at me being all prejudgmental.
I do wonder what the Apologetics Study Bible does with its notes. I can see a benefit to offering ways of dealing with difficult topics, but I suspect the Apologetics Study Bible will want to quash any possibility for questions. Would it allow for complexities and nuance? I’m skeptical.
By: Patrick George McCullough on March 17, 2008
at 3:00 am
Patrick: I share your skepticism. If it’s anything like the Apologetics Study Bible that Ray Comfort and Kirk Camron promoted a while back then I wouldn’t expect too much from it. From what I saw of that one, they were more concerned with showing how false evolution was and how the flood was universal, and other such matters. It seemed more a defense of certain pet doctrnies than a defense of the faith as a whole. But you never know, there might some some good stuff in this one. I have no plans on purchasing a copy so I’ll have to wait and get someone elses take on it.
By: Nick Norelli on March 17, 2008
at 3:07 pm
Actually, now that I look at the list of contributors I think this might actually be worth while. Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, Darrell Bock, Ronald Nash, Craig Blomberg, and many more contribute to the notes and articles. At least we no that it’s not a bunch of slouches writing the articles and notes, these are some very able and competent scholars.
By: Nick Norelli on March 17, 2008
at 3:20 pm
[...] his thoughts on how the Christian faith and God don’t need defending, and I disagreed here. But what sparked Jim’s post was a recently published Apologetics Study Bible. It [...]
By: Apologetics Study Bible « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth on March 17, 2008
at 4:27 pm
My point, here I am fundamentally agreeing with Kierkegaard, that rationality can only go so far. The problem with virtually all writing that characterizes itself as apologetics these days is that it does not take care of the limits of the method.
What occurs is a conflation of propositional logic with revelation. That is where reason can distort our theology.
When we read the atheist language we need to clarify what we know and don’t know and what we mean with our theological statements.
As they say in AA, at some point we have to let go and let God in these matters lest we place our rational limits in the place of God’s unfathomable revelation. And that is what I have seen apologetics do.
A good work in the same strain of apologetics, but not an apologetic argument in the sense that this study bible seems to employ is a little book called The God of Faith and Reason by Robert Soklokowski. It should be required reading for any intro to theology course because he does a wonderful and pithy job of writing about the reasons for why Christians believe. Including the idea that the reasons why Christians believe might include irrational reasons!
By: Drew on March 17, 2008
at 5:05 pm
Drew: Would you see rationality only being able to go so far as a reason to adopt a presuppositional apologetic?
By: Nick Norelli on March 17, 2008
at 5:56 pm
Ronald Nash and Norman Geisler are against my religion–as are Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, Douglas Groothuis, Hank Hanegraff, Chuck Colson, William Dembski, Josh McDowell, Gary Habermas, Gordon Lewis, and Boyd Luter, for that matter.
As for people not totally against my religion, there’s Walt Kaiser, John Frame, Michael Holmes, Darrell Bock, Paul Barnett, Craig Blomberg, and Paul Feinberg. I don’t know what substantial contribution they could have made to a project like this.
Also, Paul Feinberg died, like, 4 years ago.
By: Esteban Vázquez on March 17, 2008
at 6:02 pm
Esteban: I rather like Nash and Zacharias. I’ve learned a lot from Nash concerning alleged pagan parallels with the virginal conception and resurrection. And I love Zacharias’ character. I’ve only seen him speak, and I’ve always been impressed. I haven’t read anything he’s written though. And Gary Habermas is one of my favorite conservative scholars. All the others that are against your religion I can do without.
And I didn’t know that about Feinberg.
By: Nick Norelli on March 17, 2008
at 6:06 pm