|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 12, 2007 18:42:51 GMT -8
This thread, originally intended to discuss the pros and cons of the "Bible Answer Man" radio show ended up becoming a major dialogue on the nature and usefulness of Christian apologetics in general. An interesting way to jump into the subject, for sure!
4/12/06:
Do any of you ever listen to the “Bible Answer Man”/ Hank Hanegraaf? It’s on every weekday from 3:00- 4:00 PM on 93.9 FM.
I’m just curious because I listen from time to time and have a few thoughts to share on the program in general. (I know I’ve talked to Nate about this before, as well as Sarah a long time ago)
In general, I like the program for what it’s worth. Basically, it’s a Christian apologetics program. Sometimes there are guest speakers or Hank will be speaking on a specific subject, but most of the time, he answers call- in questions.
The level of apologetics being delivered is pretty basic. Hank does a great job dealing with certain topics (I really like his succinct way of explaining the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, for example). Another thing I like is his way of breaking Christian theology into primary and secondary issues. He is very careful to emphasize that there are core Christian beliefs that are essential, but that secondary issues (debatable positions such as eschatology, or 'end times', the age of the earth, interpretations of the spiritual gifts, etc.) should not divide the Christian community. He does much to foster respectful dialogue on many of those secondary issues.
Over-simplistic answers do often frustrate me often as I’m listening. I’m sure that that is sort of the ‘nature of the call-in show beast’. And of course, there are many levels of complexity when it comes to thinking critically about Christian faith. But, also, I frequently get the feeling that Hank has perhaps not fully understood the nature of a question he’s being posed, or at least what motivations might be behind it.
It just goes to show me that the best environment for true apologetic work isn’t the radio- it’s in the living room or the pub- places where people have time for extended dialogue and reflection.
Along with this air of simplicity is sometimes an air of over-confidence. Some might call it pride or bravado. The title of the show (Bible Answer Man) does seem to foster this feeling. The whole idea of such a show pretty much dictates that Hank has to always be portrayed as correct, which is really an unrealistic expectation of any apologist- and probably not a very healthy one either.
Still, I commend Hank for taking what I think to be some brave stands on some of the ‘secondary issues’- stands which I think run counter to popular evangelicalism- evidence of his conviction.
For instance, I really resonate with his views on Eschatology (study of the ‘last things’, or, more crudely, ‘end times’). As opposed to the Futurist stance (the currently dominant evangelical view of the End Times, ala Tim Lahaye’s Left Behind series, etc.), Hank has adopted a view similar to the Partial Preterist stance. Having started out as a tried and true Futurist, I spend years studying Eschatology only to find myself in roughly the same camp on that one as him. And I know the resistance one gets when taking a stance other than Futurism in regard to Eschatology. So, I value his willingness to speak out on that in a respectful but authoritative way.
The same holds for his willingness to be open to the Old Earth position. Having people like Hugh Ross on his show has really helped respectful dialogue in the Christian community instead of Christians branding each other heretics over every secondary issue disagreement.
Similarly, I appreciate his way of dealing with the current sexuality-related issues that are confronting the Church. His compassion and commitment to truth are both evident there as well.
And in regard to cults and charlatans, Hank’s ministry is very useful-- most of the time.
I disagree with him on some things (but that‘s not a bad thing). He seems to be a cessationist, believing that certain gifts of the spirit no longer apply - or at least he seems to redefine those gifts. I disagree with his suggestion that there can’t really be true Prophets today (he seems to redefine this term to simply meaning those who speak God’s truth). And while he rightly emphasizes reading the Bible with the author’s original intent, I cringe sometimes when he tries to convince people not to take Bible passages as sometimes containing specific, subjective messages from God for the reader (I hope that makes sense. If not, take this link: Verse Roulette). Sometimes it just feels like there’s some throwing of the baby out with the bathwater.
All that said, would I recommend the show? Yes. It will provoke thought. And whatever reactions you have about it are probably worth investigating and moving beyond. Might it be better to listen to something else? Well, I guess that depends on your other options. Right now my “What would Socrates Do?” CDs by Peter Kreeft are proving much more satisfying. And sometimes I just need to listen to Daniel Amos on the way home. But you can bet I’ll probably turn to the Bible Answer Man for a listen every now and then.
Anyone else have an opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Mar 20, 2007 23:13:36 GMT -8
I'll bet you already know what my opinion is, but just in case...
Apologetics will do the Church more harm than good. Christianity isn't about convincing someone that our theology makes sense, or that God is a logical beginning and end, or that our alternative to the dominant world-view is better. I would also argue that it is unhealthy to remove that "final intellectual obstacle" that is preventing someone from professing to follow Christ.
"Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence," said Peter, but I don't think he was referring to what we would call apologetics.
If someone is considering becoming a Christian, but the confounding issues of sin in the world, or suffering, or an old vs. new earth, or eschatology stand in his or her way, then they don't have any clue what Christianity truly is. Even if that person is apologetically convinced and "converts", I would question what it actually is they're signing up for. Christianity isn't a political party; it isn't an activist group; it isn't a philosophy.
If Christianity has any real threat to its survival and growth, it certainly isn't atheism or liberalism, nor is it Darwin or Satan or the E! channel (though that's close). Christianity cannot be overcome or overshadowed by anything - it is an unshakable and irrepressible force. The only way it can be destroyed is if it fails to be true to its calling.
The only threat to Christianity is not Christians. It is people who truly believe they are Christians but have no idea what Christianity actually entails (and even less idea about how to live it) who are redefining what it means to follow Christ. They have the best of intentions, but they have steered the popular church down the wrong road altogether. Apologetics, although from noble motives, sends people down that road.
Read Jesus' story. He didn't bother with apologetical approaches or argue the rational aspects of the faith, even though philosophy and intellectualism had already swept through most of the Romanized world. He knew that, ultimately, human institutions and logic will fail, and that intellectual values are not God's values.
Follow me, you'll lose your life! The last shall be first! Love your enemies! Don't bury your father, let the dead bury their dead! Give all you have to the poor! Blessed are the persecuted! Put yourself (and even your family) last! Turn the other cheek! Forgive people who don't deserve forgiveness! Don't value security, wealth, or beauty!
The Greek philosophers, even with their "do all for the good of the state" meanderings, were still in complete discontinuity with the message of Christ. True disciples of Christ are so radical, and different, and illogical that no reasonable intellectual appeal would ever lead to joining them. You have to be nuts to be a Christian. Freaking nuts.
I'm just now discovering what it is to be a disciple of Christ. For the longest time, I was convinced that being saved and being a Christian were synonymous, as if repentance and forgiveness and eternal life automatically made me a disciple. What I needed was to see Christianity lived out in its abundant form, its only form. Apologetics distracts and misguides, even with the best intentions, from the heart of the matter. Apologetics can't beckon someone to Christ - only Christ can. And that's the job of Christians, to be Christ to the world. A guy on the radio defending Biblical accuracy or trinitarian doctrine exemplifies Christ about as well as a vial of water describes a waterfall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 21, 2007 16:36:57 GMT -8
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
Matthew 12:28-30
God desires our whole self. Our faith is utterly holistic. God wants our hearts, souls, minds, and our strength and everything those facets of our humanity entail: our loyalty, our love, our reason, our logic, our intuition, our intelligence, our consciences submitted to Him, our will, our actions, and the list goes on. The point at which we fail to grow in offering all of these things to Him is the point at which our Christianity fails to be truly authentic.
We must not seal off avenues to the Father, write off whole ‘ways of knowing’, polarize our humanity into whatever the latest false dichotomy happens to be (reason vs. intuition, thought vs. action, mystery vs. knowledge).
Thankfully, our Scriptures do not do any such thing, as I hope to show.
Marcus, thank you for the impassioned apologetic you have made. Here is mine, and as always in a spirit of healthy exchange of ideas and loving debate over crucially important subjects. Still, that doesn’t mean a detached exchange.
First off, a question: you have railed against “apologetics” without clearly defining what you mean by the term. You quoted Peter in saying that we as Christians should “always be reading to give a reason for the hope within us” (1 Peter 3:15-16) and said you didn’t think he was referring to apologetics, when all apologetics ultimately means is “giving a reason or defense”. An apologetic can come in many different forms ranging everywhere from the completely rational to the completely intuitive. All forms have value and are useful in different situations.
As to rational apologetics which focus on the use of logic or reason, we’ve got to realize that the New Testament is in it’s basic essence a rational apologetic (among many other things, of course).
Over and over again in the NT, Paul uses rational/logical arguments in his attempt to ‘become all things to all people in order to save some’- including the use of his excellent Greco-Roman rhetorical skills. Paul uses a number of rational apologetic arguments—from the use of Platonic logic to appeals to predictive prophecy, but his favorite is eyewitness testimony. He doesn’t tell his hearers to simply believe what he is saying, but invites them to test what he is saying by logical, rational criteria (1 Cor. 15, 1 Thess. 5:21, Acts 17:11).
Likewise, Peter (or the writers of 1 and 2 Peter) used rational, eyewitness argumentation as well as predictive prophecy to argue the reality of the incarnation (2 Peter 1:16-21) Even the first ‘sermon’ of the Church had a decidedly apologetic thrust (Acts 2:22-32), with the result of 3,000 conversions.
Similarly, John used Platonic philosophy, eyewitness testimony, and historical evidence of miracles to engage the minds of skeptics (John 1, 1 John 1:1-4, John 14:11).
You argue that Jesus didn’t rely on rational arguments. While I don’t think that’s entirely true, we must consider his audience. His audience wasn’t the larger Gentile world influenced by the language of Greco-Roman philosophy- it was the Jews who relied on their understanding of Scripture, traditions, and expectations of the miraculous. As noted before, demonstrating who you are (as Jesus did) by appealing to Scripture and your own miracles is rational apologetics, it’s just not philosophical apologetics. That sort of approach is used much more later when Paul seeks to find a way to reach the Gentile world. And Paul spoke by the spirit of Jesus.
The Gospels themselves are decidedly apologetic documents- each written to make a rational argument. Of course, there’s Luke who starts Luke-Acts off with a rational apologetic argument (Luke 1:1-4) and throughout is trying to justify Christianity to the Roman world (culturally and philosophically). But it’s not just Luke. Mark is written to a different Gentile audience- one who is interested in understanding why Jesus should be viewed as the true Son of God. John is playing straight to the Platonists (though not always agreeing with Platonism) and refuting the heresy of the Gnostics which, for one, denied that Christianity needed to be historically or logically coherent in the first place. And Matthew is using what we might call “Jewish apologetics”- mastering in the demonstrable fulfillment of OT prophecy.
And what of the early Church? The early Church and it’s radical success rests on at least three firm foundations: the radical actions of Christ’s followers (taking in the orphans, caring for the sick, willingly suffering torture and death for their beliefs) and the radical thoughts of Christ’s followers (their powerful apologetic which other contemporary religions lacked, and were thereby passed by the wayside). I would be extremely wary of saying that the approach of the early Church fathers, with their outstanding ability to be holistic believers (in deed and in philosophy) detrimental to the cause of Christ. In fact, though not perfect, it was through them that Christ furthered his Church, and by their example that we might do the same once more.
And in later times the intellectual questions changed. Of course the disciples didn’t spent much time arguing against materialism or atheism because virtually no one held that belief. But they did tackle the philosophies and ‘worldviews’ of their day and did argue that theirs was better.
As to “intellectual obstacles” I will say from my knowledge of Church history and my own experience that it was indeed the removal of some of these unnecessary obstacles that countless Christians have passed on to relational trust and wholehearted (not feigned) devotion to the demanding, radical call of Jesus. Justin Martyr, arriving at Platonist philosophy as the most true system he had ever encountered (after many false leads) still longed for something more until one day he met an old Christian man who opened his eyes to predictive prophecy. The intellectual obstacle to his faith (that the Logos could have really entered into space and time) fell away through this discovery and Justin went on to encounter the risen Christ and ultimately to stand as a witness before the Emperor and suffer beheaded for his faith. C.S. Lewis came to Christ, among other things, by a realization that in Christ myth had become fact. In my own life, there were indeed intellectual obstacles that needed to be overcome while at the same time there were personal obstacles of my will that Christ had to draw me through.
Should we demand that all our obstacles be removed before we come to faith? Would that even be good? No, I certainly don't think so, and therefor I think we have some agreement. Faith isn't absolute logical certainty (or even close), but it also isn't completely blind. It can be, and I would argue, should be, based on some evidence.
And I don’t think Christianity or Christ is illogical (if by that you mean logically contradictory). I would say Jesus is supra-logical, or goes beyond (not contradicts) human logic to the lofty heights of paradox.
Although I think this could be true depending on the situation, and while I agree that Christianity isn't just a system of thought to align with, I disagree with this statement. Part of Christianity is doctrine (1 Tim. 4:16) and part of Christianity is a claim that real events happened in real history, and so these issues are bound up in what Christianity "is". There are certaintly not the whole cake (just he icing), but certainly part of the cake, and not un-important. And ones views about predestination and the age of the earth and eschatology while of secondary important, do have practical import in how a Christian lives out their faith.
Amen.
Christianity's 'abundant' form is mind, heart, soul, body, will-- all of these.
That's just it- Christ beckons people through all sorts of mediums, by us becoming 'all things to all people'- by his body wearing all the hats: philosopher, miracle-worker, mercy-giver, justice-bringer, artist, counselor, etc....
This whole current reply is certainly not a defense of the Bible answer man, just an FYI. However, I'm not sure any of us can claim to be more than a vial.
Perhaps if the vials would work together holistically....
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 21, 2007 18:32:35 GMT -8
Oh yeah, and... "You've heard of Justin Martyr? Thomas Aquinas? Pascal? Lewis? Morons."  |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Mar 21, 2007 20:41:40 GMT -8
I have met people, in life, in biographies, and in scripture, who were more than a vial. These people are Christ to the world, dead to self, and have life abundantly. An encounter with one of these people is all the evidence someone needs to decide to follow Christ or not. Intellectual hesitation is overwhelmed by the truth that is exemplified before them.
These people are a burning bush that cannot be ignored. In the presence of God (or the Holy Spirit), excuses will be removed. God didn't bother sending someone to argue the merits of following Him (to "prime" Moses, so to speak), but instead revealed His awesomeness to Moses all at once, and after Moses couldn't possibly deny God's truth and authority, God patiently answered Moses' concerns and worries (apologetically, in a way).
My point is not that intellectual or philosophical approaches are worthless, just that they are very, very secondary. They are a horrible starting place. Convincing someone that Christianity is true, worthwhile, and philosophically sound is not the way to "convert". It has to be seen in its vibrant, abundant, and kinetic form to be understood.
The early church was doing that. Most of the letters that comprise the New Testament were written to believers, or at least those who already knew part of God through Judaism.
Again, you don't convince someone that baseball is the greatest game on the planet by explaining the rulebook to them or by slandering other sports. All you can do is take them to a big league game and let them see it played all its glory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 23, 2007 14:55:01 GMT -8
A couple things. I'm assuming you know I was joking with the Princess Bride reference, right?
Second, God doesn't always reveal Himself in a numinous, burning bush experience. He does sometimes send someone to "prime the pump". I could think of a myriad of examples from Acts where this is the case: Paul lecturing and interested people asking further questions, for instance.
Yes, at some point God does reveal Himself more fully in non-intellectual ways, and it's crucially important not to have a head-only transaction with God.
The philosophical aspect of Christianity is vibrant, abundant, and kinetic. Every true aspect of our faith is. And we don't have to approach others with only one facet- I would hope we would approach others with as many as possible- especially depending on the person we're approaching.
Actions often speak louder than words. Our faith must be lived out. But, also, apologetics is much more than "explaining the rulebook" and "slandering other sports". Perhaps you've seen too much of apologetis of that sort (and I'd have to say that the Bible Answer Man does often fit that description). But, again, just because my initial post was there to judge the merits of the BAM, doesn't mean I think it's a great example of Apologetics.
And as to vials, we're just talking past each other there because we're inserting different meanings into the word. I will definitely grant you that some Christians reflect the waterfall far better than others, most often because of their deeds and not their ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Mar 23, 2007 16:24:39 GMT -8
Or deeds and ideas, which propel each other.
We're eventually going to have to talk through this one in person. I think we agree for the most part, but have different definitions of apologetics. Apologetics, to me, brings the Bible Answer Man to mind. What YOU are describing (I think) is the scenario when two friends can have long conversations about their intellectual differences, where the Christian is able to satisfactorily explain the rational aspects of his or her faith, which could possibly help someone see the truth in Christianity and maybe even prime their pump enough to convert. Like Lewis and Tolkien.
That is what I call discipleship, not apologetics.
Apologetics, in my definition, is the act of justifying and defending one's faith. Christianity doesn't need defending. It is a lifestyle that speaks for itself. It does, however, require explanation...it is unnatural enough that it should cause someone to pause and say, "Huh?"
But popular apologetics takes another approach: "You know why I know that evolution is false and the Genesis account is true? Because the Bible is inerrant! Do you know how I know that the Bible is inerrant? Because it's written by God! Do you know how I know that blah blah blah fossil record blah blah blah tower of Babel blah blah rainbows blah blah blah canonization criteria blah blah...and so on.
Discipleship is another approach altogether. It requires credibility, which takes time to establish, and it takes a true disciple of Christ to do the discipling, and those people are rare. My main quarrel with programs like Bible Answer Man is that they see a problem with the world (lack of faith in God) and then set about fixing it by trying to argue the merits of faith in God. I just don't believe that those merits can be argued with words.
I'm having a difficult time articulating my thoughts. I actually think that Biblical accuracy and prophecy and the canonization process are vital components of our theology. But the way you prove that Christianity is true is by doing it. Here are my final thoughts on this topic:
In microbiology, a class that I just completed after a full year bacterial classifications and viral pathologies and infectious mechanisms, there was one interesting story that I'll remember (I'm trying to forget everything else as quickly as I can).
One of the most common and painful pathologies in humans is the phenomena of peptic ulcers. They inflame the lining of the stomach and often cause bleeding, resulting in painful stomach cramps and bloody vomit. Collective wisdom amongst the medical community always attributed ulcers to stress and psychological wear and tear, leading to an influx of stomach acid that inflamed and lacerated the gastric lining. Patients who were diagnosed with ulcers were often told to see a therapist, or to switch to a less stressful job, or to find a more peaceful place to live.
In the early eighties, a recent med school graduate named Barry Marshall had a surprising amount of patients presenting with bloody peptic ulcers. When the hospital's pathologist told Marshall that many of his patients had a strange bacteria surrounding the lesions in their stomach, also found in patients with gastroenteritis (but never in normal patients), Marshall began to suspect that these spiral-shaped bacteria (helicobacter pylori) were causing the ulcers.
Marshall's hypothesis had some holes - namely, that no bacteria had ever been found capable of long-term survival in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall's experiments and clinical trials convinced him that he was right, even though he had no success cultivating the helicobacter in a petri dish or in an animal subject. The more he promoted his hypothesis, the more his credibility was called into question, and he was unable to subside his doubters with direct evidence. And so he did the extreme - much to the objection of his friends and family, he swallowed a culture of helicobacter that he'd extracted from a patient.
Within a week he was vomiting, cramping, and fighting inflammation. As soon as the diagnosis of pyloric ulcers was confirmed by his colleagues, he took a combination of Bismuth and antibiotics and his symptoms subsided. The gutsy experiment made him famous, but more importantly, it changed people's minds. It is now accepted that helicobacter, transmitted through poor water quality, is the most common form of bacterial infection in the world, particularly in undeveloped countries. A two-week antibiotic treatment completely cures the ailment - no need to switch jobs, or move, or spend time on a therapist's couch.
All of the arguing in the world, all the scientific explanation, all of the hypothesizing - none of it grabbed people's attention until they saw the fruits of the knowledge in action. Before Marshall ingested the bacteria, he was seen as a conspiracy theorist and an obnoxious whiner. After, he was given the Pulitzer Prize.
Popular apologetics make us sound like annoying conspiracy theorists. But in light of our actions, the logic and philosophy of Christianity are a thing of beauty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 23, 2007 17:13:58 GMT -8
Marcus, I like your conclusion. Not much to quibble with there from my perspective. I also think much in popular apologetics is subpar and a whole lot of jaw (especially the inerrency hoo-haw). We both appreciate Lewis. You'd probably appreciate Chesterton a lot, too. I think you'd REALLY like N.T. Wright, my current favorite. When it comes to guys like Hank Hannegraaf and Josh McDowell, well, I guess the only difference between us is that I tend to glean whatever I can out of what they have to offer and you probably would just assume turn the channel. That's cool.
Your illustration really does hit home and it's just that sort of "jumping in" that all us Western Christians need to get doing.
|
|
