Christian Apologetics
15 January 2008 by Gil
So I’m teaching a new course (new to me, that is) called Christian Apologetics this semester and I’ve decided to summarize some of the class material through a series of posts over the course of the semester. My goal is simply to highlight key arguments and questions that are raised in class with the hope of providing a brief, concise account of where I come out on some of the key questions that are often put to Christians. Hopefully I can have some of my blind spots pointed out as well.
In its former incarnation (at least here at Bethany) this class was known as Evidence For Christianity, a title that betrays an understanding of the purpose of apologetics that I am not really interested in. While I am convinced that there is good evidence for much of what qualifies as core Christian belief, I am not approaching this course as if the goal was simply to pile up enough rational ‘proofs’ to make the case for the Christian faith irrefutable. I simply don’t think this is possible.
It seems a better starting point is to freely admit assumptions that Christians take on faith and consider instead whether the Christian worldview, once accepted, provides a coherent and compelling explanation of reality as we experience it (the assumption being the there are more and less compelling options out there). One of my basic convictions is we are all in the same boat in this area: forced to make do with partial and incomplete knowledge that is dependent on unproved assumptions.
The definition of apologetics that I’m working with is borrowed from John Stackhouse’s Humble Apologetics. Stackhouse holds that apologetics is simply “the study and practice of defending and commending the faith,” a definition that I find helpful because it moves beyond seeing the goal of waging a rational holy war against critics of the Christian faith and toward some kind of a demonstration of the positive benefits of Christian belief.
So hopefully this will be a worthwhile effort. I look forward to clarifying some of my own convictions throughout the semester.
One of the things that was foundational for me to realise is the difference between conviction and knowledge. It was in reading CS Lewis (surprise, surprise) that I began to see how important it is for me to draw the line between what I am convinced of vs what I can prove/know.
It’s perfectly fine to be convinced of everything the Bible says, even if I have no ability to know it.
Chris,
Good to hear from you! I agree that this distinction is a critical one. A recognition of the limits of what we can know (simply as a result of being human) is a critical first step I think. Whenever Christians talk too confidently about what they can know for certain concerning the things of God, I think there’s reason to be a bit skeptical. If we take seriously the subject matter (that is, God), it seems like humility would always be the best place to start.