I am going to offer advice to a field of ministry that I am both a part of and respect very much. This advice is to apologists of all Christian traditions (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox). It first takes the form of a criticism that is very hard to articulate, but is vital to understanding the advice. I pray that my thoughts are clear and that my advice is given in a spirit of respect realizing that I need this advice more than any other.
My Criticism: As apologists (those who defend the faith), we can often produce more difficulties than we solve due to harsh and imbalanced polemics.
All systems of thought have an inherent weakness that is common to all areas where beliefs are passionately held. All traditions characteristically misunderstand what the other side is saying and cement the opposing view in categories that are nuanced according to traditionally held polemics and apologetics. It seems that we do this because we feel that we have to justify our separation, schism, and/or lack of compromise. This causes a hardening of the categories of our beliefs and produces ill-will that is almost impossible to overcome. Once this is done, the difficulty multiplies as ones own position becomes defined only by what it is not. In other words, people begin to define themselves according to the emphasis and abuses of the opposition.
My Advice:Â
Apologetics and polemics must be introduced to a time of rest and relief so that a new perspective can be gained. My wife and I often have arguments. These argument have from time to time been severe to the point of us saying to ourselves “Who is this person I married?” Even minor petty, stupid arguments can become something ridiculously traumatic.
I remember one time in 2001 my wife and I were driving from Dallas to Colorado Springs for the ETS conference. There was a sign that said “50 Miles to Colorado Springs.” She said that we were almost there. I said, “No, not really. The sign does not refer to the city limits, but to the central office within the city.” She said with a surprise and smirk on her face, “No it doesn’t.” I don’t know why, it was just one of those days, but we argued for the next hour about this. The argument became so severe that we did not talk to each other for quite some time (seriously). And you know what? I did not really know if I was right. But her reaction and distrust to my “knowledge” on this issue caused me to defend something that I was not even sure about. Her persistent argumentation gave me resolve to prove my case and somehow turned my uncertainty into absolute certainty. I now had a certain emotionally based belief that I did not have before the argument took place.
Now, as childish and worthless as this argument was, every time we see one of those signs on the road, there is a distinct feeling that resurfaces of an old bitter debate. To this day, I don’t really know who was right or who was wrong. But I could very easily, based upon a commitment of my emotions and time given to this argument that day in 2001, pridefully continue in the same vain without either thinking about the non-importance of the issue or whether I am actually right.
Why do we do this? Because we feel obligated to defend our positions once taken. We don’t like to change. Not only this, but we must defend them in the exact way of the past or we feel that our argumentation then has now been conceded and our belief compromised. The fact is that this argument between my wife and I–this polemic and apologetic–needed time to rest. We needed time to reassess the relative importance of the issue and time to reflect upon our argument, thinking through the issues with balance and humility.
Now let’s up the move to something more significant. My wife and I have also had arguments about more serious matters. We have argued about particulars on how to raise the children, finances, and issues with in-laws. We have even had some fairly severe theological disagreements. We could and–I am ashamed to say, often do–have ongoing disagreements that have not had a chance to rest, mentally and emotionally, from our personal polemics and apologetics concerning the issue. When these things surface, it is like an old wound that is opened and the injury that took place so long ago has not healed in the least. If this occurs, we are less prepared to confront the issues because we have not reflected upon it in a self-critical manner. In fact, we usually harden with regards to the issue.
Hardening is something that has serious consequences. This is true whether it be in marriage or theology. By hardening, we often force the opposing party (who is usually hardened as well) to defend their position in a way that is imbalanced. The opposition’s view becomes defined by your polemic against them and they feel forced to defend their position in a very subjective manner. Did you get that? Let me say it again: The opposition’s view becomes defined by your polemic against them and they feel forced to defend their position in a very subjective manner. They find themselves representing an interpretation of their position that you have provided and into which you have forced them to harden.
Now, lets apply this directly to the current issue on our blog: Catholics and Evangelicals. (And please know that I am not arguing that all the differences between Catholics and Evangelicals are misrepresented or unimportant). Catholics elevated tradition to the point of ultimate authority. Protestants, seeing the abuse of this authority, rejected its elevated status and replaced it with Scripture. Catholics responded and said that if you do this, people will interpret the Scripture in a way that is outside the tradition of the historic Christian faith. Protestants said better this than being forced to hold to distortions propagated by an abusive authority. As this debate between Tradition and private interpretation raged, imbalance and misrepresentation became the norm. Hardening began to set in. Protestants became more and more defined, from the inside and out, as those who only rely upon and submit to their “personal relationship with Christ.” Why? Because Catholics set the agenda for us. We were backed into a corner and let the opposition define what we were all about and began defending a position that we did not actually hold. Therefore, we defended this imbalanced representation and passed it on to those after us. Catholics on the other hand were defined as those who submit only to an outside authority, and this outside authority was not Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ as represented by the visible Church headed by the bishop of Rome. Protestants said Catholics are against personal Bible interpretation and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Therefore, Catholics picked up this ball, shaped by the polemics of the day, and began to defend it and pass it on to those after them.
The problem is that Protestants, historically, are not against outside authorities that shape and guide their theological accountability. They are just against these being the ultimate authority. As well, Catholics, historically, are not against personal Bible interpretation or a personal relationship with Christ, they just seek to balance these with aspects of community and accountability in the visible Body of Christ. Notice, therefore, that it is not the positions themselves that were defined by the opposing side, but the particular imbalanced nuance of the position.
Since we don’t like to allow rest in these issues, since each side’s apologists already have all the answers, since there has been so much time and energy put into this debate, we are now obligated to make the other side focus on a polemic which is imbalanced, misrepresented, and completely dismissive of the other side. We have now hardened into a particular nuance of something we are not. And old wounds like this cannot heal this way.
The point is that sometimes the better the apologist we are–the more we “win” a debate, the more we “fight” for the cause–the more we actually lose because we make the situation worse than before.
Does this mean apologists make things worse in Christianity? No, not necessarily. I am an apologist. This blog post is apologetic and polemical. Apologists are greatly needed in the Church. But we need to be wise apologists with great humility, giving time for rest and reflection. Does this mean that given time, rest, and reflection to issues that all issues will all be solved? Of course not, but at least we will have then acted with humility, gained a fresh perspective, have a better understanding about when compromise can occur, and, therefore, begin to only fight the battles that are truly worth fighting. We will be apologists with tact, humility, and wisdom.
What does this mean? It means that our first goal is to be intellectually honest. We have to represent the opposing side well. But this is not enough. We have to look out for them, knowing that argumentation and debate has the tendency to cause the other side to represent themselves in a imbalanced manner.
We also have to be willing to concede. We have to be willing to change our opinion. This is not easy as we may have to disavow a commitment to our previous blogs, papers, books, debates, and thoughts.
We also have to be willing to let the other side change without requiring them to admit their wrong. It means we don’t get to say “I told you so,” but we humbly accept their change without a conceded attitude of personal victory.
My advice to Christian Apologists is this: We need to be careful that we are not actually making the situation worse, hardening the opposition, causing them to define and defend a position that does not really represent who they are. We need to make sure we are giving the issue time to rest and the wound time to define and heal itself. Only then can we be true defenders of the faith.
Thoughts?
Although I am wrestling with this idea right now, do you think it is possible that the Catholic/Evangelical/Orthodox debates have caused us all to defend a nuanced version of our tradition in an unbalanced and misrepresented way?
40 replies to "Advice to Christian Apologists"
You make VERY good points, Michael. I particularly like “We have to be willing to change our opinion.” My husband is one of those people who has the FACTS while I only have OPINIONS. You can bet this makes for some bad arguments. I get so tired of arguments I just tell him he is right, even when I don’t believe it. He’s smart, though, and knows that is what I am doing and that makes him even angrier. I am to the point that I don’t really even care to make my opinion known. I figure the world will go on without my having made my opinion known. So, that’s my life!
Joanie D.
A couple of points:
1. As to polemics, I do not think a solution is to “do it less” but to “do it with more wisdom.” In general, evangelcals are in retreat because they do not think polemics are “nice.” I agree that those who undertake polemics do little more than whine “neener neener neener” at those with whom they disagree. And, I’d put principled disagreement with other Christians in a different category from polemics.
All that said, my point here is to lament the absence of polemics from proclamation of and defense of the gospel.
2. As to the Catholic/Protestant tensions, considered from the Protestant side …
Most differences between Catholics and Protestants in my experience are about 99 percent reactionary on the Protestant side. In other words, the differences maintained and defended are those which ensure that “we’re not like them Catholics!” These folks suppose the Reformation was mostly an exercise in amputation. The results have been disastrous for Protestants across the board over the past five centures.
I am generally pessimistic that this reactionary posture can be reversed by dialogue, education, and similar approaches. Here’s why …
Take any unnecessary and unwholesome over-reaction to “Catholic-stuff” within Protestantism that you please, and consider that correcting this will involve some sort of movement TOWARD the catholic center of Christianity (note the small “c” in catholic, please).
But, this will immediately provoke all sorts of reactions against the correction. “Why, we can’t do that! That’s what the Catholics do!!” Believe it or not, I encountered this very reaction in a Bible Church when I attempted to introduce responsive reading of Scripture!
I see two areas where this becomes a particular problem.
First, when a person has spent a lot of time and energy coming to a personal approach to things and is being challenged by someone whose level of knowledge on the subject they don’t respect. Regardless of the quality of the argument, if you don’t respect that person’s input on that particular point, you won’t see any reason to re-examine your own ideas. (Joanie, this may strike a chord with your situation).
Second, when a person has become emotionally tied to an approach. This can happen for a variety of reasons, and sometimes it is as small as the “not wanting to admit you could be wrong” emotion on a minor matter, or as major as a political or religious affiliation. People come to take “ownership” of particular position, and with some of the bigger stuff, it becomes part of their self-identity, or like the hometown team they route for.
I see this all the time with various religious debates. And, regardless of how refined their arguments are, I find it telling that most of them are still arguing for the position they grew up with, or started out with, their “inherited” position. They have just become better advocates for what they WANT to be true, whether they know it or not. They go into their studies with a leaning and come out with the same leaning almost every time, just bolstered with better arguments.
Let’s face it, if we were really able to set aside our initial bias and approach a subject entirely objectively, we would not have 95% of us still advocating our initial, unresearched, usually “inherited”, position! If we are advocating for the “team” we grew up with, or were taught initially, then that should be a clue that we should be honest with ourselves about our bias retention level.
There is one word that we all should have posted next to our computer:
HUBRIS
A reminder that we are discussing the ways of God and, while I believe that we are made in the image of God and some of the basic understandings are within the reach of our reason, we are still most likely just doing our best to “translate” glorified issues with mundane language, which can only approximate the truth. So, to then fight vehemently and, worse, DOGMATICALLY, over the fine details when we see through a glass darkly, is the height of hubris.
I will once again quote from NT Wright (or misquote him), but now apply it to all of us:
All of us have about one third of our theology wrong, but we can’t know which third.
Humbleness on such issues is essential.
Michael,
You said:
“All traditions characteristically misunderstand what the other side is saying and cement the opposing view in categories that are nuanced according to traditionally held polemics and apologetics.”
I disagree. There are many within these traditions that genuinely understand what the other side is saying and because of their understanding of the other’s position they reject it. I certainly understand Islam’s position on the uniqueness and transcendence of Allah to the exclusion of any possibility that he could have a Son — it is for this reason that I reject their view. We can apply this to any area of religious debate to include the Catholic-Protestant topic that has been occupying this blog.
I understand your analogy between the arguments/debates that you have had with your wife and while I can see *some* overlap with what’s happening in apologetics/polemics, I can’t say that such is the case with all (or even most) apologists of any faith. You said that your reaction to your wife questioning your knowledge was to defend a position that you were not sure of — honestly I feel that this is disrespectful to the many apologists who are sure of their beliefs/traditions/doctrines and defend them with fervor — in other words, their defense is not an emotional reaction to a perceived ‘distrust’ but rather a reasoned response to any who would question or challenge their faith. This is after all the mandate of 1Peter 3:15.
You also said:
“The opposition’s view becomes defined by your polemic against them and they feel forced to defend their position in a very subjective manner. Did you get that? Let me say it again: The opposition’s view becomes defined by your polemic against them and they feel forced to defend their position in a very subjective manner. They find themselves representing an interpretation of their position that you have provided and into which you have forced them to harden.”
I take issue with this position as this is certainly not a necessary conclusion. It is very easy to simply correct any misrepresentation (hardened category or otherwise) and defend your position as it truly is, not as it is caricatured. When a Jehovah’s Witness accuses me of tri-theism, my Trinitarianism doesn’t become defined by this. I take a few moments to correct the caricature and present my position on the Trinity not in response to the charge of tri-theism, but from the foundation of special revelation (which will necessarily show the falsity of such a charge).
I don’t think that apologists do more harm than good (well, at least not all apologists) — but I certainly believe that we should pay more attention to the latter half of 1Pet. 3:15 and defend our faith with gentleness and respect.
B”H
Fr. Bill,
I think you are right that some churches cannot change, but I would think that most could. First of all, semper reformanda is a major part of the Reformation. We are always reforming. We need to be reminded of that. The Reformers, while held in high esteem, did not set everything in stone and they are not our infallible magisterial authority.
Another thing to think about is that the emerging church has exhibited a ethos that is ready to change. Now, I am not part of the emerging church, but I think their attitude of frustration toward ALL dogmatics no matter what tradition you are from that pridefully think they have it figured out is infective and will spread.
Sure, there will always be those who dig their heals in the ground and make camp for life, but this is an attitude that can be overcome.
Great comments Vance.
This is a great point. All sides need to recognize that seeing in a mirror darkly is biblical and the way things are.
Having wrong views or a lack of perspective is not always sinful in and of its self, but a result of the sinful condition.
Nick,
You said: “There are many within these traditions that genuinely understand what the other side is saying and because of their understanding of the other’s position they reject it.” Yes, I agree. What I said was that they “characteristically” misunderstand. I agree that we most certainly can understand what the other side is saying and represent them fairly in disagreement.
You said: “Honestly I feel that this is disrespectful to the many apologists who are sure of their beliefs/traditions/doctrines and defend them with fervor — in other words, their defense is not an emotional reaction to a perceived ‘distrust’ but rather a reasoned response to any who would question or challenge their faith. This is after all the mandate of 1Peter 3:15.”
I hope that this came only as advice, but not accusatory of anyone in particular. I do see this abuse and tendency even in myself. I don’t see it as disrespectful to warn people of pitfalls and dangers. We all need to continually examine ourselves with great fear that WE may be the one who is wrong.
You said: “I take issue with this position as this is certainly not a necessary conclusion.” Again Nick, this is NOT the necessary conclusion. You are right. I hope that this blog, if nothing else, says we CAN do things right.
Thanks for your comments my friend.
Fr. Bill,
What’s so bad about a reactionary position? This is exactly the kind of position that gave us the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Symbol of Chalcedon. It seems to me that “orthodoxy” (note the small ‘o’) was a reactionary movement.
Any thoughts?
B”H
Michael,
I don’t know that I would call my comment ‘accusatory’ but from my reading (and I admit that I may have misread) of what you were saying it seemed that you were trying to intimate that many of these polemics are the result of not wanting to be wrong even if one is unsure of the point they are arguing (I took it as a generalization). If you only meant this as a warning of a ‘pitfall’ or ‘danger’ based on a personal observation then I would like to retract my statement — in that case I understand.
My point was that there are always those who are sure (or at least as sure as anyone can be this side of glory) of their beliefs and whose ultimate goal is arriving at the truth and defending that truth once they reach it. At this point it is truly about honoring God and not about pride and being able to say “I won the debate” or “I told you so” — Thanks for your feedback.
B”H
Thanks Nick, I agree with what you have said.
It is true that I have seen this tendency to harden the categories in apologetics circles. I would also say that it is becoming more difficult, from my perspective, to see apologists work with humility in their area of expertise. I don’t think humility evidences a lack of commitment, but it does separate emotional commitment from intellectual commitment (and there is a big difference between the two).
This was VERY badly worded by me “I hope that this came only as advice, but not accusatory of anyone in particular.” What I meant to say was this: “I hope that my blog came across as advice to Christian apologists, but no accusatory of any apologist in particular.” In other words, I did not at all suspect you of accusing me in this case. 🙂 Sorry for the bad wording.
Hmmm…OK. No more polemics, we’ll just back off and cool down. Got it. (I’ve made the appropriate changes in my Bible–I scratched out “earnestly contend for the faith” and replaced it with “casually embrace any doctrine” and then I added, “I’m ok, you’re ok!” in the margin)
I’ve emailed your anti-polemic article to the Apostle Paul, and will await his repentance for most of his letters…sadly, he hasn’t returned any of my emails. (granted, my sarcasm is laid on pretty heavy, but I was beside myself reading this post)
CMP, you wrote:
“As well, Catholics, historically, are not against personal Bible interpretation or a personal relationship with Christ, they just seek to balance these with aspects of community and accountability in the visible Body of Christ.”
Huh, “are not against personal Bible interpretation?” apparently you haven’t been exposed to a catholic apologist’s understanding of 2 Peter 1:20. Truly odd how you attribute rationality and balance to Catholics with a broad brush, and by so doing, impugn evangelicals by your silence.
Fr. Bill, you wrote: (putting words in the protestant mouth) “Why, we can’t do that! That’s what the Catholics do!!†You’re right sir, it’s called “idolatry” (regardless of whatever Latria/Dulia label gets attached to it) and yes, that’s what Catholics do (gasp!). Sorry, that sounded a bit reactionary, didn’t it.
Should we not be “reactionary” or “polemic” with Muslims? (Nick, thanks for bringing up Islam) Should this non-polemic attitude only be taken among those who say the name of Jesus? What about Mormons, or JW’s? Where would you propose this line be drawn?
CMP: If you’re an apologist, what do you defend? Is there any absolute truth we can know? If so, what is it and how can we know it? If we say we know it, are we being arrogant and bull-headed? At what point should we as believers put on the whole armor of God and take to the battlefield? Should we believe the notion that a third of what we believe is incorrect, would it be best to stay home?
Your thoughts?
Nick,
We’d disagree that the Nicean Fathers were reactionary. I’d deny the notion that they were reactionary at all.
I use the term “reactionary” to mean an agenda to identify one’s self almost exclusively in opposition to something which you are not. If you understand your Protestantism as “not Roman Catholic,” then any and all things that are commonly supposed to be identified with Roman Catholicism is exactly what you will reject and oppose.
For all his opposition to the *errors* of the Catholicism of the late Middle Ages, for example, Luther retained so much of catholic (note the small “c”) worship that modern evangelicals recoil from his faithful heirs (e.g. Missouri Synod Lutherans) as “too, too Catholic.” They have the same reaction to modern, orthodox heirs of the English Reformation (I can testify to this, of course). It’s simply not sufficient to conceive Protestantism as follows: “we don’t have a Pope” and “our worship isn’t liturgical” and “we don’t use incense” and “our ministers don’t wear funny clothes in worship” and so forth and so on.
If that is how you construe Protestantism, it is understandable that *positively* Protestantism is all over the map theologically, culturally, liturgically, and every other way you can think of. If Protestantism means “I’m not at all like those Catholics,” then ANYTHING that is not like those Catholics will be legitimate Protestanism — sawdust trail revivalism, snake-handling Pentecostalism, goody-two-shoes social gospelism, cartwheeling in the aisles charismatics, starched underwear Presbyterians, or whatever else you please.
The Nicene Fathers opposed Arius and his ilk because they confessed, taught, and defended what they eventually also codified in the Nicene Creed. They most definately were NOT defining themselves over against Arianism. They were, instead, identifying Arias and his ilk as teaching false doctrine. To do this, they must have already known and embraced Biblical doctrine. Thus, they were not reactionary.
Nick, I guess my point is that on most points dealing with theology, “as sure as anyone can be this side of glory” is really not very sure at all. To my thinking, definitely not sure enough to be stating things dogmatically in regards to all but the most basic concepts.
I think the idea that people are defending a truth “once they reach it” is where the problem lies. I think we all must keep at the forefront of our mind that we almost assuredly HAVEN’T reached it, at least not with certainty on most issues.
Understanding the ways of God, the nature of God, the processes of salvation and grace and faith, etc, are like ancient Romans trying to discuss the workings of the internet. They might be able to grasp the most basic idea of what happens, but the way they explain it will be VERY imprecise. And, they will almost assuredly use tropes and phrases and concepts that are not accurate at all, but are helpful in getting the idea across to his fellow ancient Romans.
They would create phrases and labels and concepts that help, and that is fine. But would it not be silly for them to then go further and argue about the fine details of those necessarily flawed concepts?
I think God described what we need to know, in very basic form, in Scripture. These are “through a glass darkly” explanations that work, that accurately convey what we need to know, but are limited by human language and ability to understand. In fact, he allowed different writers to explain some of the same stuff in slightly different, and even seemingly conflicting, ways so that we could get a “rounder” picture of what was really going on, even if still not complete.
I think it is eminently worthwhile to pursue these matters to get as close as we can to a clear picture, and we grow and develop in the process. But, ultimately, we will never really get it absolutely right, and we need to keep that in mind at all times.
Fr. Bill,
To a certain extent I do think that some of the responses to Arius et al, were reactionary. I think that in some cases, folks like Arius raised issues that had not been fully thought out and conceptualized. I believe that Christology in the first and early second century, for example, was probably all over the board, and it took someone folks taking a more extreme stand to force the leadership to say “hey, that doesn’t sound quite right” and then delving into the concepts and developing an “orthodox” position. (maybe overstated a bit, but maybe not). Or maybe they had a general concept that they then were forced to refine and finesse and “codify”.
I sense that this is starting to move off topic 🙂
Vance,
In compliance with Michael’s admonition, I’ll not say anything further beyond this note: your notion concerning the development of Christological doctrine doesn’t square with the profession of the ante-Nicene Fathers. They weren’t the least bit fuzzy, nor was the opposition to Arius the least bit tentative, as if those who were “going to become orthodox” hadn’t quite figured it out yet.
This latter point (the very non-tentative opposition to Arius from the git-go) is exactly to the point of this current blog of Michael’s. The Nicene Fathers were both apologetical (in codifying Christilogical doctrine), and they were polemical (to oppose and condemn Christological heresy when Arius began to propound it). Their apologetics and their polemics were aggressive and immediate.
My point originally (above) is to lament that today’s Christians seem to be neither effectively apologetic for the faith, nor confidently polemical against the many winds of doctrine coursing through the Church.
What did you expect? 🙂
Hey, at least I posted one more on-topic post before hopping on a rabbit trail I spotted!
OK, back on topic:
My theses:
Michael is right, we need to be careful, and that is because we don’t know as much as we think we do. Discuss.
🙂
Seven,
Thanks much for engaging in this issue in such a way. You bring up some very valid issues. Let me try to answer each one with where I am at at this point.
You said:
“Hmmm…OK. No more polemics, we’ll just back off and cool down. Got it. (I’ve made the appropriate changes in my Bible–I scratched out “earnestly contend for the faith†and replaced it with “casually embrace any doctrine†and then I added, “I’m ok, you’re ok!†in the margin)”
I did not say no more polemics (although I do see how the tone of the blog post could have suggested this). I think polemics are valuable. When we “fight” with our spouse, and go to a counselor, they will tell you that fighting is a good thing if done right. But there IS a wrong way to fight. As well, the fighting needs to have time to relieve itself, otherwise each side hardens unnecessarily. My contention is that it is the same with theological issues. Fighting is necessary, but we have to do so with humility and tact, giving the issues time to rest and evolve rather than solidifying them in the context in which they were first proposed. Do you agree?
You said:
“I’ve emailed your anti-polemic article to the Apostle Paul, and will await his repentance for most of his letters…sadly, he hasn’t returned any of my emails. (granted, my sarcasm is laid on pretty heavy, but I was beside myself reading this post)”
Funny! Thanks for keeping some humor. I would say, however, that their are three vital issues that make Paul and us different:
1. He was an Apostle who carried the authority of an Apostle. This included infallibility in certain areas. Both of these you and I don’t have.
2. He did not always handle things polemically. In other words, I would not make his descriptive encounters prescriptive with the way we should go about our apologetics, especially since he give us prescriptive advice:
Colossians 4:2-6 2 ¶ Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving; 3 praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned; 4 that I may make it clear in the way I ought to speak. 5 ¶ Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
Notice the “so that.” If you do not speak with grace, Paul seems to suggest that you are not qualified to know how to respond to each situation. Grace gives us clarity of mind. It is not unlike Christ’s admonishment to remove the log from our own eye so that we will be able to see clearly enough to remove the speak from another’s. The basic idea here is that without grace we cannot understand the issues. Emotions will rule and harsh polemics will be counter productive.
3. We also must recognize this: When Paul was polemical, from what I can tell, it was to those who were under his authority. In other words, it was pastoral. He did so with the Galatian and Corinthians precisely because he had expressed authority as their leader. Most of the people who apologists engage are not under their authority in the same way. Therefore, a better model is how Paul handled the Athenians on Mars Hill in Acts 17. It was gracious, understanding, and intent on building bridges. He could not approach them the same way he did the others. Therefore, we need to employ discernment and tact.
You wrote
“Huh, “are not against personal Bible interpretation?†apparently you haven’t been exposed to a catholic apologist’s understanding of 2 Peter 1:20. Truly odd how you attribute rationality and balance to Catholics with a broad brush, and by so doing, impugn evangelicals by your silence.”
Yes, like I said, I believe our apologetic has forced them into representing a position that they don’t actually believe. There has been much freedom in recent years given the Catholic scholarship and laity concerning personal Bible study.
You said:
“Should we not be “reactionary†or “polemic†with Muslims? (Nick, thanks for bringing up Islam) Should this non-polemic attitude only be taken among those who say the name of Jesus? What about Mormons, or JW’s? Where would you propose this line be drawn?”
Depends on the circumstances. We are not afraid of divergent beliefs. We understand that it is part of the human condition. We need to act in each situation with tact.
You said:
“CMP: If you’re an apologist, what do you defend? Is there any absolute truth we can know? If so, what is it and how can we know it? If we say we know it, are we being arrogant and bull-headed? At what point should we as believers put on the whole armor of God and take to the battlefield? Should we believe the notion that a third of what we believe is incorrect, would it be best to stay home?”
I defend the Christian faith. The resurrection or Christ, the reliability of Scripture, the existence of God, and historic Protestant Reformed confession. Look through the blog and you will see.
I am not in any sense of relativist as your question seems to suggest. I deal primarily with issues of Prolegomena, that is where my passion lie.
We should always have the whole armor of God on, but your are interpreting its implications much differently than I.
I think that most of what I believe is correct or I would not believe it 🙂 But there are many things that are more obscure than others. We need to be careful and willing to learn. This is the essence of semper reformanda (“always reforming”).
Following up on Michael’s post above, I would like to clarify my possibly oversimplified statement. I am also not a relativist. I think there are things we can definitely know for sure. And I am not in the least wishy-washy about them, and defend them regularly. But . . .
I don’t think we should treat all of our positions the same. We should not present them all with the same degree of certainty or even hold them with the same degree of certainty. I am sorry, but I hold to the concept that Jesus is God at a MUCH higher degree of certainty than I do any concepts regarding the process of sanctification or the inter-workings of grace and faith.
Yet, too often we use the same polemical tone and “certainty” regarding both basic truths and extremely fine and narrow points which are debated honestly by Spirit-filled Christians.
What I want to add to this discussion is that we need to be self-reflective of the “degree of certainty” we do hold each position, and the degree we SHOULD hold them. Are we being dogmatic when we should be, say, 80% certain about our position? How should that effect how we approach the discussion and treat others’ opinions?
When it is 100%, we should act and react accordingly. But it is not ALL 100%, and we should not act as if it is.
Vance, great comment and clarification. For those of you who don’t know, Parchment and Pen is a ministry of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. Our central ministry is The Theology Program. It is offered for free to view and download from the site and it is also offered on a more formal basis each semester.
The Theology Program essentially teaches people to think, rather than dogmatically assert certain issues. We are confident that if you teach people to think properly, they will be better equipped to come to the right conclusion on theological matters and better discern between essential and non-essentials as well as understand the issue of degrees of certainty that Vance just spoke of.
While I myself am a Reformed Calvinist, The Theology Program and all of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is best described as Protestant Evangelical. It is our hope to engage in all these issues with fairness and balance.
You can find The Theology Program here
Seven comments:
If you’re an apologist, what do you defend? Is there any absolute truth we can know? If so, what is it and how can we know it? If we say we know it, are we being arrogant and bull-headed? At what point should we as believers put on the whole armor of God and take to the battlefield? Should we believe the notion that a third of what we believe is incorrect, would it be best to stay home?
But this response to CMP’s post just seems confused. Why should we construe Patton’s encouragement to exercise wisdom in polemics as some sort of relativism? There is nothing his exhortation I can see that entails some notion of there being no (absolute) truth.
The suspicion, I think, betrays an all too common tendency to think that humility is really a sort of weakness. But the meek shall inherit the earth! It also confuses the thesis “there is absolute truthâ€, an ontological claim, for “what I know is absolutely trueâ€, an epistemic one. But that there is absolute truth is no guarantee that I know it. At the very least, the things we know, even if we suppose them absolutely true (like the creedal confessions in the Apostles Creed), what is the harm in being tactful as we communicate them? The armor Paul speaks of isn’t an excuse to “go Medieval†(I couldn’t think of a better term) on someone, Catholic or otherwise–it’s pretty easy to do that. It is (primarily) defensive, to withstand our unseen Enemy–that is the more difficult task.
I have found that the more you are willing to show the exact degree of certainty/uncertainty you have regarding a given point, the more credible you become to your listener, and the more credence they will give your arguments when it comes to those areas in which you have a higher degree of certainty.
If I am dogmatic about an area that not worthy of dogmatism, then I simply undermine my credibility in those areas where dogmatism is called for.
[…] to theology and his is more of a polemic (confrontational)Â approach. As I said in my blog Advise to Christian Apologists last night, there is a definite place for polemics. I appreciate James’ passion even if I […]
Vance said, “So, to then fight vehemently and, worse, DOGMATICALLY, over the fine details when we see through a glass darkly, is the height of hubris.”
I agree, Vance. There are things we will surely defend, perhaps even with our lives. There are other things that are “not worth” alienating folks who are seeking the truth of God’s love for them by insisting on minor theological matters.
Joanie D.
Fr. Bill,
I don’t believe that the theology that stands behind the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Symbol of Chalcedon was reactionary — but the creeds themselves were. There was a preferred belief (although not yet defined as ‘orthodox’ [note the small ‘o’]) that Arius and the pneumatomachii opposed and in response to their heterodox (although not yet defined as heterodox [I guess no matter what the ‘h’ will be small so no need to note it] =)~ ) positions. Reaction to aberrant views is what brought about official definitions of ‘orthodox’ (again with the small ‘o’) doctrine/theology. That was my point.
…positions [the Creeds were drafted].
Great article. I think the apostle Paul should have taken your advice since he “produced more difficulties” and “hardened his opposition.” Not too mention that the apostle was “unbalanced” in his unwavering commitment to the gospel; and he should not have been so consistent in his argumentation since he felt the need to “defend them in the exact way of the past.”
If only the apostle Paul was not so dogmatic and narrow-minded about the gospel.
Thanks Alan, although I do sense the tongue-in-cheek tone!
Can you give Scripture references to what you just posted?
I guess you did not catch the big picture of the post that Polemics are necessary if the time is right. Wouldn’t you agree that Christian’s need to use tact in our apologetics? Wouldn’t you agree that different times and different cultural situations call for shrewdness?
Have you ever taken a course in Missiology? Here you will find that there are different ways to go about our presentation of the same Gospel depending on the situation of the audience.
What do you make of the passage where Paul says:
Colossians 4:5-6: 5 Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
Does this not relate to apologetics? How do we “make the most of the oppertunity? Don’t you think that the “wisdom” that Paul calls for says that their are different ways to go about presenting the Gospel depending on the situation? If not, what does it mean?
Do you really think that I am abandoning the Gospel (as your response implies)?
Thanks for your time to respond. I know that this post is hard and different than the way most people think, but at the very least, even if you don’t agree, it is important to wrestle with.
A few points on Paul.
We are not Paul. I would not presume to be Paul. In fact, NO ONE is Paul today.
Two, Paul was flexible in his approach, and chose his battles. There is a place for dogmatism, and assurance, but too many apologists these days treat all of their positions as equally certain.
Three, Paul was not incorrect in his doctrine and his positions, at least in those documents we have from Him (since those ones in particular are the ones in which God chose to speak through Paul). We, on the other hand, definitely ARE wrong on some of our doctrine and positions. No one here seems willing to acknowledge this fact.
Everyone must start with the humbling realization that there are many aspects of our doctrine and theology that are simply wrong. This applies to every single one of us. You may have something right that I have wrong, and I may have something right that you have wrong, and one of us may have more right than the other, but the bottom line is still the same: we all have SOMETHING, and almost assuredly a number of things, that are just plain wrong in our thinking about these issues.
And, what is worse, we don’t know for sure which those incorrect positions are. If we did, we would change them. So, with that in mind, the best we can do is be self-reflective and intellectually honest about how certain we actually are of each doctrine, and then only present it with that level of certainty and no more (and no less, of course).
And, if you find yourself thinking that you are 100% certain, or close to it, on all of your theological positions, then you have a problem, without doubt.
I know this is difficult, because our instinct when debating any point is to present it as strongly and assuredly as possible. Acknowledge a degree of certainty is to admit a weakness, and you might “lose”. But this is not winning or losing, it is about everyone collectively moving closer to the true picture (while acknowledging that we will never get entirely there).
Great response Vance.
You said:
“And, if you find yourself thinking that you are 100% certain, or close to it, on all of your theological positions, then you have a problem, without doubt.”
You are absolutely right. It is this type of attitude that is not only intellectually dishonest, but very naive. In fact, this attitude ironically displays more insecurity than it does security.
Having an unwavering commitment to the gospel does not translate into not having “shrewdness.” Indeed, in our pomo world those goals are not popular.
Michael, I am not a neophyte when it comes to apologetics. Obviously I am going to approach a Muslim differently than I would a JW. However, I will be conistent in articulating _truth-claims_ with both groups. If that is not a goal in apologetics (or a secondary issue) then the gospel has been compromised.
Vance, with all due respect this is a naive response: “We are not Paul. I would not presume to be Paul. In fact, NO ONE is Paul today.”
So was Paul wrong when he told us to _imitate_ him, and that the truth of the gospel was to _remain_ with the churches, not just the apostles.
“Paul was flexible in his approach, and chose his battles.”
Where do you see that in Paul responding to those who wanted to add to what Christ has done?
“but too many apologists these days treat all of their positions as equally certain.”
Could you name one? Further, on the gospel, are we still able to say, “I have the true gospel, and that one over there is false”?
“And, if you find yourself thinking that you are 100% certain, or close to it, on all of your theological positions…”
Could you name a single apologist who thinks this?
Thanks,
Oh, I see people on this forum every day present their doctrinal positions without the slightest hint that they acknowledge that they could be wrong on that point. People will present their defense of, say, predestination with the same level of certainty that they would that Jesus is God.
We should imitate Paul, yes, but that has to be tempered with the knowledge that we can not possibly speak with the same degree of certainty or dogmatism on as many matters as he did. Well, maybe you can, but I certainly can’t. When it comes to matters essential for salvation, and the core doctrines of Christian belief, then I feel fine being dogmatic and even polemic.
But, I see people all the time treating issues like transubstantiation or a flavor of election, or a aspect of grace, with the same polemic and dogmatism as they would the truth of the resurrection. When someone says that an Arminian is a heretic (as was stated in another thread), that is a pretty dogmatic statement on a subject one can not possibly be 100% certain about.
And, yes, of course we are able to say that the Scripture contains the true Gospel, and that anyone claiming a path to salvation other than that described in that Gospel is preaching a false Gospel. But when you start adding particular and debatable elements to that Gospel message, and asserting them AS Gospel, that is where things start to get dicey.
Michael does a good job in his Theology Program setting out what are the essentials of the Christian message, those basic, core, creedal aspects that we can all be dogmatic about. Beyond those, we should approach each doctrine with care and a realization that our particular position could be wrong.
That alone should help to ensure that our attitude and approach are intellectually honest, and ultimately more effective in our presentation.
The following was sent to me today in response to this controversy and my comments on my webcast on Tuesday. Chesterton nailed this one (note how I don’t think every Roman Catholic is wrong about every single thing):
“What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert—himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt—the Divine Reason . . . We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.” (Orthodoxy, p. 31f.)
One does not have to believe they are infallible about every single jot and tittle of the whole of theology to believe they have the gospel right.
I will be addressing all of these issues—or, at least, attempting to do so within the strictures of an hour’s worth of airtime—this evening, 7pm EDT, 4pm PDT, on the Dividing Line. http://www.aomin.org to listen, 877-753-3341 to participate.
James>>>
So, which theological doctrinal concepts fall under “Man, himself” and which fall under “Divine Reason”?
That is the real question here. If I am convinced that my belief is, indeed, Divine Reason, without doubt, then I have no reason to be humble about it, and am not.
It is not about being humble about presenting the Truth of God, but being humble about what very well may be just my understanding of the Truth of God. And, if that is the case, then I had better be humble.
I think Chesterton does, indeed, get it right: too many people are NOT modest or doubtful ENOUGH about those things which are Man, including our own concepts and understandings of theological issues.
James, would you like me to call in? Hopefully we could clarify some of this stuff and have some good dialogue.
Vance:
Galatians 2:5 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
Has something changed since Paul penned these words so that the truth of the gospel no longer abides (remains) with God’s people? Are you of the view that while Paul could tell who “false brothers” were then, we can’t any longer?
Does a claim to be able to define the gospel entail a claim to personal infallibility on all matters of theology? If so, please explain.
Michael: yes, that would be fine. We’ll extend the program to a full 80 minutes to accommodate you. I will try to complete my replies to what has appeared here since Tuesday by 7:45pm EDT, so we can have at least a full half hour; if you could call 30 minutes in (or earlier, if you like…you can listen on the phone if you want), that would be great.
James>>>
Well, again, there is a difference between the basics of the Gospel message (see the new thread on orthodoxy) and more finessed doctrinal matters. You are knocking down a straw man, and that does not make for good debate. You did not answer my first question:
So, which theological doctrinal concepts fall under “Man, himself†and which fall under “Divine Reason�
I agree with you completely that we should defend with vigor and without “humbleness” the “Gospel”, but that requires a definition the Gospel, which would then define a false Gospel. There is a huge difference between how we preach that Jesus died for our sins and Mankind is in need of redemption on the one hand, and the doctrine of double predestination on the other. I would hope you would agree that you should not be equally polemic on all of these.
Here is a quick question for you then. Let’s take something as basic as the 5 points of Calvinism. If you are a Calvinist, to what degree of certainty do you hold to each one? You can just list them out and give a percentage. If you are not, then you can list the degree to which you think they are NOT correct.
My thoughts are going to echo those of Nick and Joanie. I feel the degree of defense of a particular issue should be commensurate with the degree of certainty on the issue. And, it is just not realistic to believe every doctrine 100%. There are many doctrines that are open to interpretation. When I hear people defending every position dogmatically, I tend to think they are not being honest, and are defending a position for the sake of it. This leads to alienation and ultimately stunts our growth as Christians. If God wanted us to believe everything equally, He would have presented every doctrine with equal clarity. But, He has not. This leads me to believe that God wants us to each bring our perspective to the table. The fact that not all Christians have the same truth should lead us to believe that maybe the truth lies somewhere in between Catholiscism and Protestantism (or any other denomination). In order for us to be “one” as we are instructed, it is important to allow for some diversity.
Sometimes this carriers over into our views of the non-essentials. Often we as Christians, so desperately think we are correct, yet often times not fully evaluating all sides of the premise. This is why its imperative to discuss these issues openly within a community setting (not Solo Scripture initiative).
I am not saying we do not make definitive statements, but readily admit we are prone to mistakes, and what we view as facts are an interpretation of the evidences. Anything else would be an assertion, although assertions are not necessarily always incorrect based upon a priori.
I’m still trying to overcome my own fundamentalist background….ironically, the Lord has placed a Roman Catholic man in my life (who I believe is a born-again Christian) to model Christian charity, grace, wisdom, and humility.
It takes humility to recognize wisdom in others…..seems to me that humility, wisdom, and grace are linked together such that they cannot be separated….