Apologetics in the 21st Century

INTRODUCTION

The word apologetics finds its roots in the Greek word “apologia.” It means to create a defense or apology for a position based on truth by providing evidence for your position. According to Don Matzat (1997), “An apologist is one who argues a case.” Christian apologetics go all the way back to the Bible where we see Peter urging his readers to “Always be ready to make a defense” (1 Peter 3:15). Paul engaged in apologetics at Mars Hill (Acts 17) by making the case for a creator and redeemer to the men of Athens. Arguing the position of Christianity continued into the second century with men like Justin Martyr and has carried on in different forms in different times all the way to the present. In the last few decades, the Western world has seen a drastic change in our culture as the predominant worldview has slowly transitioned from modernity to postmodernity. This change has opened a debate in the Christian community concerning the role of Christian apologetics in the future. Is there still a need for classic modern apologetics? Should there be a new kind of apologetics for a new kind of culture? Do we need apologetics at all in a postmodern world? These are the questions being asked right now in the world of Christian apologetics. These are the questions we will look and attempt to answer. Ultimately, I believe, we will find that the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding “yes.”

THE GOAL OF APOLOGETICS

There are two major types of apologetics, each with a different goal. The first is the type of apologetics that seek to build up the faith of Christians, particularly those that are young in their faith. The second type of apologetics is geared for evangelism. This is the type of apologetics that we will look at. Evangelism apologetics seeks to lay out a case for Christianity so as to convince non-Christians to become believers. There are some Christians that believe that the Christian perspective is true and so does not need a defense. They believe that the reasoning of non-Christians is darkened by their sin and so it is a waste of time to engage in apologetics. For the purposes of this paper, however, we will assume the evidentialist position that provides evidence for the truth in hopes that the non-believer will decide to accept Christ based on that evidence, which may take many different forms. What we want to focus on is what forms that evidence should take so as to be most useful in today’s society.

MODERNITY

A brief look at the modern mindset will help us in creating perspective for the current topic. Modernity is the mindset that rose out of the Enlightenment Project. The modernist put a great amount in the human ability to reason. According to the modernist, truth is objective, rational, and knowable. The autonomous individual, relying on their own rational ability to reason can discover that truth. Modernists hold that the search for knowledge is a good thing and that knowledge will virtually always lead to advancement. For the modernist, rational reasonable arguments presented with prevailing evidence are highly prized. This is the world from which modern apologetics rose. Modern apologetics seeks to lay out the facts of the Christian faith complete with the best evidence for Christianity, and make an airtight case based on reason. Once the evidence is all considered, says the modern apologist, a verdict is demanded. One must look rationally upon the evidence for Christianity and make a truth decision based on the reasonability of its arguments.

POSTMODERNITY

Postmodernity is primarily about deconstruction of modernity. Postmoderns question the ability to ever know truth and look dimly on the entire concept of an absolute knowable truth. For the postmodern, the only absolute is that there are no absolutes (and they are not bothered by the seeming contradiction of that statement). Key to the postmodern view is the belief that truth can only be gained from a text within the context of community. Each community will interpret the text based on their own experiences, culture, and biases. There are, says the postmodern, as many interpretations as interpreters. Postmoderns take an extremely skeptical view of modern science, modern religion, and any absolute truth claims. They embrace mystery, accept contradiction, and believe that truth is relative to the community which holds it. What is true within the context of one community may not be true within the context of another community. Modern apologetics which are based on empirical proofs and rational arguments seem to have fallen on hard times in an increasingly post modern world. “So what if you can prove the historical reliability of the New Testament,” says the postmodern, “texts are only as reliable as the community interpreting them.” Rational arguments and truth claims can seem to fall flat in the postmodern world. The postmodern is looking for authentic experiences that will seem true for them as they live their life. This creates a unique problem for the Christian apologist. Are modern apologetics still viable in the postmodern world? Do we need apologetics at all in a culture that values mystery and experience much more than reason and truth?

THE POSTMODERN VIEW OF APOLOGETICS – Radical Orthodoxy

According to Robert Webber, in The Younger Evangelicals, many of the younger evangelicals fall into a line of thinking known as Radical Orthodoxy, which argues that Christianity is the truth and so everything in the world should be interpreted and understood through the Christian faith. They feel that reason has become the modern apologist’s interpreter of the Christian faith and that Christianity, therefore, has had to rely on reason and the principles of the social sciences used to prove Christianity. These younger evangelicals, says Webber, “wants us to return to the unknown, invisible reality that stands behind all things, through which all things are understood” (p. 99). In other words, they are calling for an end to the era in which reason is the starting point that leads us to accept the truth of Christianity, and want us instead to start with Christianity as an assumed truth that does not need to be proven by the crutch of reason and science. Webber supports this thought, quoting William Placher’s summation of Hans Frei: “Suppose we do not start with the modern world. Suppose we start with the biblical world, and let those narratives decide what’s real, so that our lives have meaning to the extent that we fit them into that framework.” This group of younger evangelicals who hold to this Radical Orthodoxy, believe that Christianity cannot offer an effective criticism of the culture if it is propped up on certain assumptions of the culture, like reason and the social sciences are the starting point of discovering truth. Webber argues that for modern apologists, “reason has become the determiner of truth, not revelation. Faith is determined by reason, not by the witness of the Holy Spirit.” (p. 100).

Younger evangelicals believe that the focus of apologetics should be shifted from reason and logical arguments to an embodiment of the faith. This leaves most younger evangelicals leaning towards the fideist position, which says the best defense of the Gospel is preaching. Once the Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit inspires faith that leads to conversion. They tend to believe that there is a mystery to faith that cannot be bridged by reason. The younger evangelicals argue that moderns were more concerned with the existence of God than with experiencing the real impact that God has on lives. This may be somewhat of a caricature of the modern position, but it is the assumption from which many younger evangelicals criticize modern apologetics. Modern apologetics, says the younger evangelical, leads to conquered minds but not surrendered hearts. The younger evangelical desire to present an apologetic that is an embodied experience is summarized by Webber who paraphrases Charles Moore, “the only interesting apologetic question concerns the existence and fidelity of the church. Truth, he says, is not defended by reason but by the individual and the community that embodies and lives it out.” (p. 102).

REJECTING RADICAL ORTHODOXY

Much of what postmodernity consists is a rejection of modernity. Postmodernity exists primarily at this point to deconstruct and criticize modernity without really offering a solid framework on its own. It cannot really stand as a viable worldview apart from its rejection of modernity. It stands, therefore, on the very system that it wishes to deconstruct. Postmodernity has some very valid criticisms of modernity. Modernity did place too much emphasis on the autonomous individual and the ability to use reason to discover all truth. The idea that knowledge is always pushing us towards the positive is also an idea that postmoderns justly criticize. The problem is that they have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. There are things about modernity that are worth keeping. The concept of absolute truth is one of them. Just because certain truths can be interpreted in different ways in some situations does not necessarily mean that we should throw the entire concept of truth out the window. The postmodern logic that there are no absolute truths cannot be a valid claim because it is a self-refuting one. It uses an absolute truth statement to argue that there are no absolute truth statements.

I have to reject the younger evangelical trend away from modern apologetics to Radical Orthodoxy on the similar grounds that they are tossing out the baby with the bathwater. They certainly have some legitimate criticisms of apologetics. The main one is the tendency to view God as something to be proven and then accepted rationally. Modern apologetics did not leave enough room for mystery and spirituality. It would be rash at best and dangerous at worst, though, to completely abandon modern apologetics.

The main reason to keep some aspects of modern apologetics is because there is such a thing as absolute truth. We live in a world that increasingly rejects that idea. They accept all religious expressions as equally valid. There was a time when you either believed in Jesus Christ or you did not. That belief was the dividing line between Christians and non-Christians. This is no longer the case in our world today. Nearly every religion thinks highly of Jesus and claims to follow His teachings even if they don’t accept Him as God. This is the problem with retreating completely from truth-based apologetics and going completely over to the Radical Orthodoxy of fideism; if we only preach Jesus and the Gospel, which Jesus will people think we are preaching?
In the modern world, evolution was the greatest threat to Christianity. It made sense to argue against the so-called facts of evolution and for creation. In some ways the fideist position of preaching the Gospel and allowing it to burn inside made some sense because it would have differentiated Christianity from the competing worldview. If we relegate Christianity to inner feelings and pragmatism today, however, we lose what sets it apart from competing worldview in the postmodern age. It is a big mistake to use the only style of apologetic argument that the world is using. That means that using only rational arguments in a rational age was a mistake but it also means that using embodied apologetics in an age of community and relative truth is also a mistake. What sets Christianity apart in that scenario? There are many religions and worldviews that produce a burning, passion inside just as Christianity will do for the believer. There are many worldviews that can, at least temporarily, create warm, loving, communities. If this is our only source of appeal how do we differentiate Christianity in the marketplace of ideas?

It is vital to not abandon the very thing that will distinguish Christianity in these postmodern times. Christianity is based on truth. It is based on logic. Its precepts are not self-defeating and contradictory. In his Issues, Etc. Journal, (Fall 1997), Don Matzat argues that the fideist position actually gives credibility to other religious expressions because fideism and postmodernism are cut from the same cloth. They are, he says, both pragmatic, personal, emerge out of a community of believers, and are based on experience. We should take the younger evangelical’s valid ideas of an authentic community apologetic seriously, but what a tragedy to throw out the one thing that will distinguish Christianity in an age of pluralism.

APOLOGETICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY- Relevance for the ministry

It is important to remember that apologetics do not save people. By engaging in apologetics we in no way diminish the work and role of the Holy Spirit. We all want to lead the unsaved into the garden of salvation. Apologetics is not the garden itself. All that apologetics do is to clear the paths of debris so that people may find the garden if they so choose. We have already seen that apologetics should not be abandoned but what should they look like in a postmodern world?

Apologetics in a postmodern world should take the good aspects from the modern concept of apologetics and the younger evangelical’s embodiment apologetics and create a hybrid. This would create a community that values the truth, strives for the truth, and can clearly communicate the truth to world. It would create a community that can demonstrate that Christianity is truth in and of itself, but that empirical methods can be used to further validate it.

At the same time, though, this should not be merely a mental exercise. Apologetics of the 21st century should also stress the importance of living these truths not just knowing. Information is good, but transformation is better. What a powerful apologetic to the world to see a community that not only claims to possess inner truth and empirically verifiable truth but also lives it out in the real world. What does this mean? It means not only presenting evidence for the Resurrection and discussing the ultimate importance of believing in the fact of the Resurrection and accepting Christ as Lord of our life, but it also means living incarnationally as a community. It means we should be able to present a living, breathing community that can articulate that the reason we are an authentic community is due to not only experience but also truth.

Another example would be creation apologetics, the crown jewel of modern apologetics. Arguing for creation is fine and can be helpful but it does not do any good if we are not a community demonstrating a life of good stewardship of the earth. Earth stewardship is very important in the postmodern view. It would be an incredible testimony if the Christian community were to be held up as fantastic stewards of the earth and nature and then be able to demonstrate that we lived in such a way because of the logical truth claims of creationism. We could show that we act because stewardship rings true in the experience of our community but also because we value the logical evidences in favor of a creator that calls us to be good stewards.

I would also recommend a four-pronged approach in 21st century apologetics. The first aspect would be to be a constant clarion call against self-refuting or self-contradicting logic. Norman Geisler calls this the Road Runner approach (due to the Road Runner’s penchant for quick stops that caused Wiley Coyote to run off the cliff). It is important in an age that wants to embrace relativism to constantly but gently confront them with the reality of the law of non-contradiction. For instance, you cannot logically make the claim that there is no truth, when that is, in fact, a claim of absolute truth. The statement, “that’s true for me but not for you,” also falls into that category because in order for that statement to be true it HAS to be true for both of us. Nearly all tenets of postmodern belief as well as atheism are self-refuting.

The second prong is to gently help the non-believer see where their belief system will take them. Following non-Christian belief systems to their logical conclusions will show how bankrupt and empty they are. For example, if you want to argue the relativist position, then let’s take it to its logical conclusion. I can come up and shoot you because it seemed right to me. If there is no absolute truth then by what standard could you condemn me? This aspect requires some work on the part of the Christian because we have to be familiar with competing beliefs and their arguments.

The third prong would be to describe the completeness, beauty, and coherency of the Christian faith. This involves demonstrating that Christianity is a logical and comprehensive worldview more than it argues for specific evidences. This would mean that issues like theodicy and eschatology would have as much importance in 21st century apologetics as the old mainstays like the Resurrection and creation.

The final area in which apologetics in the 21st century could change is in format. The days of one guru speaker getting up and mesmerizing an audience with facts for 2 hours are quickly waning. This format does not work with college students nearly as much today as it did even ten years ago. Recently at UW-Milwaukee, a world famous creation speaker came for a presentation. The room of nearly a thousand quickly filled up but I couldn’t help but notice that at least 80% of the crowd was over 30, non-college students. And this was at an event that was not advertised off campus at all. On a campus of 26,000 students, the college kids just did not show up. Mike Metzger in his online article, Open Forums for Reaching Postmoderns, argues that open forums are the most effective way to reach postmodern students. He offers five components to this new style of open forum:

1. Offer not just answers, but also present faith as a context for exploring mystery.
2. Focus on essentials; don’t get bogged down in minutiae.
3. Don’t push credibility alone, stress plausibility. Credibility is about coherence, plausibility is about beauty and satisfaction.
4. Don’t condemn competitors. Treat them with gentleness and respect as colleagues.
5. Don’t rush people. Emphasize the process of conversion.

CONCLUSION
The younger evangelicals have legitimate criticisms of modern apologetics. Just as postmodernity has some legitimate criticisms of modernity. In both cases, however, it is dangerous to throw out the entire system because of some mistakes. Rather than abandoning modern apologetics, they should be infused the ideas of the younger evangelicals. This leaves us with a hybrid apologetics that will be effective for the most people in the 21st century. Stressing the law of non-contradiction, the poverty of competing worldview beliefs, and the richness of Christianity, and doing so in a welcoming, open-format style will help us to achieve in the 21st century the ultimate goal of apologetics, which is to clear the road so that as many as possible can find their way to a relationship with Christ.