If it is true that Christianity doesn't fit into the cateories of mathematical or scientific "bomb-proof certainty", then what kind of proof can we speak of for basic tenets of Christianity?
We have, in this country, a longstanding legal tradition that says that cases can be settled on the principle of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". We do not require that matters be settled with absolute certainty, which is not humanly possible for your average court case. What we require is that a case be made which establishes something in such a way that to doubt a particular conclusion would be unreasonable.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Is Evidential Apologetics Dead? - Part 2
In all the conversations I have seen regarding whether evidential apologetics are no longer useful, something strikes me as odd. One reason evidential apologetics seems under attack is because the notion of "bomb-proof certainty" has been abandoned. It is often stated that certainty is one of those enlightenment ideas that should be given up in favor of epistemological modesty and an embrace of mystery and ambiguity.
Part of the reason for this is criticism from skeptics who insist many of the traditional "proofs" of this or that are not adequate. But I tend to think there is a bit of category confusion going on here. There is a lack of definition of what is meant by the term "proof".
I tend to think of proof in terms of three types - mathematical, scientific and legal.
Part of the reason for this is criticism from skeptics who insist many of the traditional "proofs" of this or that are not adequate. But I tend to think there is a bit of category confusion going on here. There is a lack of definition of what is meant by the term "proof".
I tend to think of proof in terms of three types - mathematical, scientific and legal.
Is Evedential Apologetics Dead? Part 1
The late Robert Webber coined a phrase in "The Younger Evangelicals" which has caught on in Emerging Church circles - "embodied apologetics". He means, if I read him correctly, that because we live in a postmodern age where young people are skeptical about the triumph of the scientific method, they are not receptive to the old apologetics approach of "evidence that demands a verdict", but do respond to a "proof is in the pudding" approach where seeing Christianity lived well is compelling.
I generally have liked Robert Webber. He does not seem to travel the path of others who are sensitive to postmodern cultural shifts - that is, though he recognizes that many enlightenment ideas art now seen as discredited in the culture at large and are considered naive by postmoderns, he does not seem to buy all of the tenets of the postmodern epistemology uncritically. Webber tends to speak in measured tones - not overstating his case, not trashing all things modern, not treating postmodern notions as the latest and greatest thing. He seems a bit more cautious than others in this regard.
So when Webber says "embodied apologetic", guys like me tend to listen and not react like we do when hearing the more provocative spokesmen of EC make their pronouncements. He seems to be saying "we need to understand the culture without succumbing to it." We don't have to accept everything in PoMo epistemology, but we do need to deal with it. If the folks we are trying to convince of the truth of Christianity don't warm to rational proofs, then we are foolish to take rational proofs as a starting point. If they do respond to genuine community, then by all means, having goals of establishing and maintaining communities that are genuine makes sense. One does not have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I generally have liked Robert Webber. He does not seem to travel the path of others who are sensitive to postmodern cultural shifts - that is, though he recognizes that many enlightenment ideas art now seen as discredited in the culture at large and are considered naive by postmoderns, he does not seem to buy all of the tenets of the postmodern epistemology uncritically. Webber tends to speak in measured tones - not overstating his case, not trashing all things modern, not treating postmodern notions as the latest and greatest thing. He seems a bit more cautious than others in this regard.
So when Webber says "embodied apologetic", guys like me tend to listen and not react like we do when hearing the more provocative spokesmen of EC make their pronouncements. He seems to be saying "we need to understand the culture without succumbing to it." We don't have to accept everything in PoMo epistemology, but we do need to deal with it. If the folks we are trying to convince of the truth of Christianity don't warm to rational proofs, then we are foolish to take rational proofs as a starting point. If they do respond to genuine community, then by all means, having goals of establishing and maintaining communities that are genuine makes sense. One does not have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
The Glocal Church
I was challenged by the CT article about Bob Roberts. His revolutionary ideas about using laypeople as missionaries globally is really intriguing. He seems to be saying the true mission of the church is to the whole man in the whole world, in a way that building houses and digging wells is a part of the total mission of the church. So "making converts" is a narrow vision. "Making disciples" implies transforming whole lives, not just changing theological beliefs. It has some deep implications I like, but will have a hard time imitating.
But the part of the article that struck me was this passage. Roberts had apparently attempted a church plant, and it was going nowhere. He found himself questioning himself and God.
But the part of the article that struck me was this passage. Roberts had apparently attempted a church plant, and it was going nowhere. He found himself questioning himself and God.
Christian Teens and Sex
Disturbing article in World about teen sexuality. The article deals with a book Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers by Mark Regnerus. The telling statistics...
"...evangelical teens tend to have sex first at a younger age, 16.3, compared to liberal Protestants, who tend to lose their virginity at 16.7. And young evangelicals are far more likely to have had three or more sexual partners (13.7 percent) than non-evangelicals (8.9 percent)."
Apparently, Regnerus offers no pat answers, but the article asks a couple of hard questions regarding the cause of this concern.
"We can blame the culture. Regnerus gives evidence that correlates the sexual activity in the schools that Christian kids go to with their own behavior. Peer pressure is real, and Christian teenagers are not immune.
"But might we also blame the culture of the church? Not only because so many of today's evangelical churches follow the path of cultural conformity as a way to grow bigger and bigger. It goes deeper than that.
"...evangelical teens tend to have sex first at a younger age, 16.3, compared to liberal Protestants, who tend to lose their virginity at 16.7. And young evangelicals are far more likely to have had three or more sexual partners (13.7 percent) than non-evangelicals (8.9 percent)."
Apparently, Regnerus offers no pat answers, but the article asks a couple of hard questions regarding the cause of this concern.
"We can blame the culture. Regnerus gives evidence that correlates the sexual activity in the schools that Christian kids go to with their own behavior. Peer pressure is real, and Christian teenagers are not immune.
"But might we also blame the culture of the church? Not only because so many of today's evangelical churches follow the path of cultural conformity as a way to grow bigger and bigger. It goes deeper than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)