This is an interesting article by C Michael Patton.
I love apologetics. It often hurts my head and is beyond my pay grade as far as brain power (especially when I get into all the science stuff—I just don’t know who to trust, and it is often simply no one), but I find myself excited about apologetics in general. That said, apologetics is a very personal issue for me. Normally, it is not the case of a “seeker” or a “skeptic” asking me a question, prompting me to run to the apologetics section of my library at Credo House to research the answer. Rather, it is me asking the questions. It is me defending the faith to myself.
As a result, I find that I am much more critical than others who are involved in apologetics. While I greatly appreciate what Christian apologists do, nevertheless, there are times when I discover some aspect of their apologetic perspective that bothers me. I can’t always put my finger on the specific thing that troubles me. More to the point, when I do identify the problem, I am too much of a “fan-boy” to confront someone on “my own team” and/or criticise their game plan. The issue boils down to me as simply a matter of honesty. I don’t find very many apologists who are transparent in their approach. I don’t find very many apologists who will readily admit their viewpoint may have weaknesses. Many are adverse to “playing the game fairly”. I find that too many apologists are simply there to defend their prejudices, ignoring honest and, sometimes, well-founded questions. In essence, they are long on “apology”, but short on scholarship.
Notwithstanding my reservations about apologetics and apologists, I am fully aware that this is not always the case. Last weekend, I spend a lot of time with Dr. Gary Habermas. If you don’t know who he is, shame on you! Gary Habermas is one of the greatest apologists I have ever met. We spent two nights (just him and me) in his hotel room talking theology. Initially, we had some fun with the “Calvinist/Arminian” thing for a while. (He said he was neither. . .Rather, he was comfortable in just being a Baptist.) Then, we dived into the subject of “apologetics”. Having read several of Habermas’ works, I already had deep respect for him. But the one-on-one encounter for two consecutive nights was truly a gift in getting to better understand the underpinnings of his perspective on apologetics. For example, we played a game, where I was the atheist/agnostic and he was the one trying to win me to the faith. For two hours I role played and did surprisingly well, if I do say so myself. In point of fact, I surprised even myself in what a “good agnostic” I made. But Habermas proved that he was a much better Christian apologist. With tenderness and incredible wisdom (not just knowledge), he navigated me to the point where I felt that I no longer had a legitimate excuse for being an “agnostic”. What a valuable experience this was! I sincerely wish we could have recorded it. The experience most certainly increased my faith, since I was entirely free to unload on him all the doubts that sometimes stirred in my brain, when no one was looking. However, what I appreciated most was Dr. Habermas’ honesty. I could tell that he “had been there”, so to speak. It was his testimony that he had been a Christian turned “skeptic” and doubter for ten years, before his faith was restored. The depth of his responses to my skeptical objections revealed that he was truly a scholar/apologist. How encouraging!
I have been reading through Craig Keener’s Miracles book, recently. Although I don’t think Keener would ever call himself an apologist, this book is, nonetheless, an apologetics jewel. Why? Well, for one thing, Keener has already established himself as a critical scholar. Being such, he is truly worried about getting things right, and dealing with problems with honesty. When he wrote this book, I was curious about what might come from it, since Keener is a charismatic. Was he writing to confirm his prejudice relative to his charismatic leanings? Thus far, I have not found this to have been the case. He, as I expected, is very critical of the data he has uncovered concerning the miracles documented by him. On many occasions, his conclusions are very tentative. However, the scholarship he provides, in addition to the accompanying critique he provided, has won me over. In short, I am becoming convinced that I am far too “western” in my thinking and that the worldview to which I subconsciously hold is not shared by the majority of the world. Moreover, I am convinced that the positions it asserts are not sustainable when one truly looks at the evidence.
First comes the “Truth”, followed closely by the defense of that “Truth”. It is no exaggeration to say that the transition from “Truth” to “Defense of the Truth” is a difficult move to make. Too often, many of the “internet atheists” who previously wore the label of “Former Christian Apologists” have apparently chosen to follow a different course of action: That is, defend what you already believe. The result is not only found to be wanting from a humanly rational point of view, but this approach inevitably produces an unstable foundation of illogical presuppositions. From a Christian perspective this approach cannot be pleasing to the Lord. We are in pursuit of truth first. Our defense of the faith comes out of this pursuit, and is dictated by it. Our personal struggle with the intel, our ability to admit weaknesses, and our freedom to discover can be dangerous, yet so very much essential to our apologetic endeavours.
To read on, click here:
THINKAPOLOGETICS.COM 