6 The tapestry of faith: theology and apologetics
The tapestry of faith: theology and apologetics
One of my more enjoyable and rewarding professional responsibilities is teaching a course on the great changes in thinking about ecclesiology – the doctrine of the Church – that have taken place since the Second World War. Traditional ecclesiologies tended to see the identity and function of the Church primarily in terms of teaching, worship, pastoral care and social engagement. This rather static idea of the Church as ‘chaplain’ to a specific nation, community or interest group was gradually displaced by understandings which emphasized the importance of outreach to society, and argued that this is an integral element of the Church’s identity.1 It is perhaps significant that this aspect was particularly stressed by theologians such as Stephen Neill (1900–84) and Lesslie Newbigin (1909–98), both of whom served as bishops in India. Faced with the challenges of Christian life and witness in a non-Christian culture, Neill and Newbigin were concerned that the Church should recover a sense of the vital part it has to play in the mission of God to the world.2
In an increasingly secular West, we might now take such insights as self-evidently true. Yet the predominance of ‘chaplaincy’ models of Church in the West until relatively recently has impoverished our understanding of the critical impact of mission upon Christian theology, and theology upon Christian mission. The German Lutheran theologian Martin Kähler (1835–1912) is today remembered especially for his short volume, The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ. Yet many would argue that his best work is a neglected essay, published in 1908, on whether mission is an indispensable aspect of Christianity. Kähler argued that mission became the ‘mother of theology’ in the early Church.3 The first theologians ‘wrote within the context of an “emergency situation” of a church which, because of its missionary encounter with the world, was forced to theologize’.4 Far from being something the Church undertook from a position of leisure or power, theology was integral to the Church’s task as it reached out into new cultural situations.
Apologetics and evangelism
Today, the outreach of the Church in the West could be loosely organized under two headings: apologetics (which we looked at briefly in Chapter 2) and evangelism. Briefly, apologetics can be seen as an attempt to demonstrate that the Christian faith is able to provide meaningful answers to the ‘ultimate questions’, such as, ‘Where is God in the suffering of the world?’ or ‘Is faith in God reasonable?’ Evangelism, on the other hand, moves beyond this concern with clearing the ground for faith in Christ and invites people to respond to the gospel. Apologetics aims to secure consent; evangelism aims to secure commitment. David Bosch’s influential definition of evangelism makes this point well:5
Evangelism is the proclamation of salvation in Christ to those who do not believe in him, calling them to repentance and conversion, announcing forgiveness of sins, and inviting them to become living members of Christ’s earthly community and to begin a life of service to others in the power of the Holy Spirit.
While the dividing line between apologetics and evangelism is fuzzy, the distinction between them is helpful. Apologetics is conversational; evangelism is invitational.6
Theology and apologetics
Where does theology come into apologetics? I want to suggest that theology has two significant contributions to make to responsible Christian apologetics. First, it insists that we set apologetics in its proper context; second, it allows us to appreciate the richness of the gospel and identify what the best ‘point of contact’ might be for the gospel in relation to a given audience – in other words, to form an apologetic vision. We shall consider each of these points separately.
1. Setting apologetics in context
First, a proper understanding of Christian theology gives us a mental map which allows us to locate the resources and tasks of apologetics. Apologetics is often presented simply as a technique for winning arguments. Avery Dulles is one of many influential writers to express concern about such theologically deficient approaches, noting their ‘neglect of grace, of prayer, and of the life-giving power of the Word of God’.7 Yet a right understanding of apologetics, resting on a secure theological foundation, insists that God is involved in the apologetic enterprise. It is unthinkable to dissociate the grace of God from the undertaking of commending God. To think of apologetics in terms solely of human techniques and arguments is to run the risk of lapsing into some form of Pelagianism,8 which neglects, perhaps even denies, God’s presence, power and persuasion in the task of apologetics.
Furthermore, the apologetic task cannot be limited to developing arguments. In some way, we must realize that apologetics involves enabling people to glimpse something of the glory and beauty of God. It is these, not slick arguments, that will ultimately convert and hold people. True apologetics engages not only the mind but also the heart and the imagination, and we impoverish the gospel if we neglect the impact it has on all of our God-given faculties. The great eighteenth-century American Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703–58) remains one of the most significant critics of a purely rationalist approach. He believed that rational argument has a valuable and important place in Christian apologetics, but it is not the sole, and perhaps not even the chief, resource of the apologist.9
Great use may be made of external arguments, they are not to be neglected, but highly prized and valued; for they may be greatly serviceable to awaken unbelievers, and bring them to serious consideration, and to confirm the faith of true saints … [Yet] there is no spiritual conviction of the judgment, but what arises from an apprehension of the spiritual beauty and glory of divine things.
Arguments do not convert. They may remove obstacles to conversion and support the faith of believers, but in and of themselves they do not possess the capacity to transform humanity. For Edwards, true conversion rests on an encounter with a glorious and gracious God. This insight is liberating, in that it reaffirms that apologetics is not about developing manipulative human techniques, but about recognizing and coming to rely upon the grace and glory of God. However, it also raises the question of how we can appreciate the wonder and joy of the gospel – a point to which we now turn.
2. Appreciating the richness of the gospel
This brings us to the second theological dimension of apologetics – the need to appreciate the richness of the Christian gospel, and reflect on how best to communicate this to a given audience. The task of the apologist is to know both gospel and audience, and be able to identify the best means of translating the great themes of Christian faith into a specific cultural vernacular. Or to put it another way, good apologetics rests on two essential responsibilities:
1
Theological reflection on the gospel, to ensure that we have appreciated it in all its fullness;
2
Cultural reflection on the audience, initially so we may select those aspects of the gospel that will resonate most strongly, and subsequently to consider how best to articulate these aspects.
Reflecting theologically on the gospel
Theological reflection on the gospel proclamation affirms its unity, while at the same time revealing its complexity. We earlier considered the idea of the Christian faith as a tapestry in which a series of threads are woven together to yield a richer, more complex whole. Appreciation of the ‘big picture’ has always been a fundamental theme of Christian apologetics, and many find such grand narratives deeply attractive, not least because they enable us to find our place within them and to make sense of things.
Let us dwell for a moment on some of the individual components that make up the overall pattern of our ‘tapestry’. Several threads in this fabric of faith concern the Christian understanding of human nature. These threads are both ontological, speaking of the identity of human nature, and teleological, its ultimate goal and purpose. We have been created to relate to God, and fail to achieve our true goal until we do so. God has ‘planted eternity in our hearts’ (Ecclesiastes 3.11), so that our heart’s true desire lies with God. This is famously summed up in the well-known theological prayer of Augustine of Hippo: ‘You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in you.’10 A theological understanding of human identity may lead to the uncovering of secret longings and help people to consciously articulate their hopes and fears or name their heart’s true desire. Augustine, Blaise Pascal, and C. S. Lewis all believed that the Christian faith itself brought human nature into sharp focus, thus allowing them to identify apologetic approaches tailored to the realities of our situation.11
Another thread in this tapestry of the faith is the notion that the cross and resurrection of Christ free us from the fear of death.12 Christ has been raised from the dead, and those who have faith will one day share in that resurrection, and be with him for ever. Socrates may have shown us how to die with dignity; Christ enables us to die in hope. This great message will speak to most people, in different ways, but it has a special relevance and resonance to those who wake up in the middle of the night, frightened by the thought of dying.
Or consider another thread, the great theme of the cross: forgiveness. Through the death of Christ, real forgiveness of our real sins is possible. Redemption is indeed a precious and costly matter, something that we must mull over in our minds as we ponder the privileges of faith. Yet this aspect of the cross will also speak with particular force and power to a particular group of people: those who feel that they can hardly continue living on account of the guilt that burdens them. They can be assured that those sins can be forgiven and their guilt taken away.
Theological analysis leads to an enhanced appreciation of the richness and glory of the gospel, and hence to the identification of apologetic possibilities. It inspires us and equips us for the apologetic task. On the one hand it excites our minds and imaginations, and generates a passionate desire to share the richness of our faith; on the other it helps us work out how best to do this. Once we have conducted a theological analysis of the gospel and identified which of its many aspects to draw out, we may thus move on to the second core element of the apologetic task.
Reflecting culturally on ways of proclaiming the gospel
Apologetics is audience-specific. It deals with particular concerns arising from the experiences of real people, and uses arguments, illustrations and ways of speaking appropriate to local situations.13 To illustrate this point, we may consider some of the classic speeches in the Acts of the Apostles, each of which show a clear and principled statement or defence of the gospel in terms adapted to the cultural situation of their respective audiences.
Peter to the Jews (Acts 2)
An excellent example of an apologetic address aimed at a Jewish audience is provided by Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2.14–36).14 Peter cites an authority which carries weight with those he is addressing – the Old Testament. He demonstrates that Jesus meets the specific expectations of Israel by appealing to prophetic passages, while using language and terminology his audience would readily have accepted and understood. Note in particular his reference to Jesus as ‘Lord and Christ’. No explanation is offered, nor was it necessary.
Paul to the Greeks (Acts 17)
Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost contrasts sharply with Paul’s apologetic address at Athens – the famous ‘Areopagus speech’. This Greek audience had no knowledge of the Old Testament, nor would they see it as carrying any cultural weight. Paul thus opens his address to the Athenians with a gradual introduction of the theme of the living God, allowing the religious and philosophical curiosity of the Athenians to shape the contours of his theological exposition.15 The ‘sense of divinity’ present in each individual is here used as an apologetic device. What the Greeks held to be unknown, possibly unknowable, Paul proclaims to have been revealed through the resurrection of Christ.
Paul to the Romans (Acts 24)
Finally, we may note an apologetic address to a Roman audience. The most important speeches in Acts to deal with Christianity in the eyes of the Roman authorities are found in chapters 24–26. Recent studies have stressed the way in which these speeches conform to patterns which were well known in the legal proceedings of the period.16 In his point-by-point refutation of his accusers in Acts 24.10–21, Paul follows the ‘rules of engagement’ laid down by Roman legal custom. Paul thus argues along lines that carried cultural weight and intellectual plausibility in the minds of his listeners. He knew how to present evidence most effectively to his audience, following the legal conventions with which they were familiar.
These early apologetic speeches and sermons point to the need to relate the same gospel to different audiences, who will have different ways of thinking, different core cultural values and beliefs, different criteria of evidence and rationality and different aspirations. The challenge we face is to correlate the gospel with these cultural realities, faithfully and effectively. How do we present evidence? What authorities should we cite in securing a cultural hearing? What are the points of contact between the gospel and our culture? In all these things, answers can be found through a close reading of the apologetic addresses of the Acts of the Apostles.
The reasonableness of faith
This cultural analysis of the audience must also extend to include reflection on what individuals and communities might find compelling, attractive or persuasive about the Christian faith. It is always difficult to defend ideas that seem counter- cultural, going against the grain of dominant cultural ways of thinking. Yet it needs to be done. We cannot assume that people will automatically appreciate the truth and relevance of ideas that are being culturally sidelined in many parts of Western culture. We need to help people to see the power and potential of the Christian faith.
We can learn something here from the apologetic approach of C. S. Lewis. Commenting on Lewis’s approach, the Oxford theologian and New Testament scholar Austin Farrer suggested that his success was partly due to his ability to offer ‘a positive exhibition of the force of Christian ideas, morally, imaginatively, and rationally’. If Christian faith cannot make possible a vision of reality which exceeds those offered by its secular and religious alternatives in its truth, beauty and goodness, Christianity cannot hope to prosper. Yet it possesses all these characteristics; our task as apologists is to enable the rational, imaginative and moral vitality of the Christian vision of reality to be seen and appreciated within our culture.
We are thus called upon to demonstrate and embody – not to create or invent – the truth, beauty and goodness of faith.17 Yet while Farrer acknowledged the importance of all these dimensions of faith, he was particularly concerned to point out how demonstrating the reasonableness of faith was important for its cultural acceptance.18
Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.
To demonstrate the reasonableness of faith does not mean proving every article of faith. Rather, it means showing that there are good grounds for believing that these are trustworthy and reliable.19 It also means showing that the Christian faith makes sense of what we observe and experience.
This point was emphasized by French philosopher and social activist Simone Weil, who discovered that faith in God illuminates reality in a far better way than its secular alternatives.20
If I light an electric torch at night out of doors I don’t judge its power by looking at the bulb, but by seeing how many objects it lights up. The brightness of a source of light is appreciated by the illumination it projects upon non-luminous objects. The value of a religious or, more generally, a spiritual way of life is appreciated by the amount of illumination thrown upon the things of this world.
The ability of a theory to illuminate reality and bring it into sharp focus is itself an important measure of its reliability. We see here a core theme of Christian apologetics: there are good reasons for believing that Christianity is true, and one of them is the extent to which it makes sense of what we see around us and within us.
We must, however, avoid thinking that our task is simply to win arguments, or to set out the rational credentials of faith. The Enlightenment has had an enduring impact on Western culture, especially in generating demands for proofs for beliefs. As a result, Christian apologetics has often been presented simply in terms of developing effective arguments, designed to persuade people that the Christian faith was true. Yet this can all too easily end up making Christianity seem like a list of dull facts and abstract ideas. There are three especially troubling difficulties with this approach.
First, it is not well grounded in the Christian Bible. A rationalist notion of ‘truth’ has here displaced the biblical idea of truth as a relational concept. Truth, especially for the Old Testament, primarily designates reliability and trustworthiness. The apologetic issue is that God is a secure base, a place of safety on which to build the life of faith. The ‘true God’ is not merely a God who exists, but a God who may be relied upon.
Second, the appeal of the Christian faith cannot be limited to the rationality of its beliefs. As the writings of C. S. Lewis indicate, Christianity also makes a powerful appeal to the imagination. As a young man, Lewis found himself yearning for a world of passion, beauty and meaning which he had come to believe did not and could not exist. ‘Nearly all that I loved I believed to be imaginary; nearly all that I believed to be real I thought grim and meaningless.’21 His imagination told him there was a better world; his reason told him that this was nonsense. He therefore believed that he had no option other than to confront the bleakness of a senseless world and his pointless existence.
In the end, Lewis discovered the rational force of the Christian faith. Yet his attraction to the gospel was based on his perception that it offered meaning, rather than propositional correctness. As Lewis later commented, ‘reason is the natural organ of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning’.22 Others locate the appeal of the Christian faith in the beauty of its worship, its capacity to engage the human emotions, or its ethical outcomes.
And third, this rationalist approach is deeply embedded in a modernist worldview. Yet throughout most of Western culture today, this has been displaced by postmodernity, which inverts many of modernity’s core beliefs. An appeal to the intrinsic rationality of faith works well in a modern context, but in other contexts an apologetic approach based on argument and reasoning will fail to connect up with cultural aspirations and prejudices. Postmodernity’s interest in narratives, rather than arguments, offers new possibilities for biblically based apologetics, given the predominance of narrative forms within Scripture.23
It remains of vital importance to assert and affirm the reasonableness of faith, without limiting faith to what reason can prove with certainty. The really big questions of life go far beyond what human reason is able to demonstrate. These are questions such as:24 Who am I? Do I really matter? Why am I here? Can I make a difference? Neither science nor human reason can answer these questions. Yet unless they are answered, life is potentially meaningless. As apologists, we need to show that the Christian faith offers answers to life’s big questions which are reasonable on the one hand, and which work in practice on the other. There are times when it is just as important to show that Christianity is real as it is to show that it is true.
Conclusion
Theological analysis is only one aspect of good apologetics; it requires supplementation by analysis of cultural criteria of acceptability and attractiveness. There can be no doubt of the importance of both tasks. Theological reflection helps us grasp the richness, splendour and joy of the gospel; cultural discernment enables us to anchor this proclamation in the everyday life of our audiences. Both are an integral part of the mission of the Church. The urgent needs of our situation must not be allowed to lead to a shallow apologetic pragmatism, or still worse, to a loss of apologetic nerve. Now, more than ever, we need to proclaim and display the tapestry of faith, so that both its pattern and its rich component threads can be recognized and appreciated.