During coffee with a friend one day I alluded to the idea of where I would like to take the youth-group that I lead at my church in terms of training. I informed him that I aim to train these youth up to be strong and established Christians; this is so that they can be prepared for what the world has for them (cf. Ephesians 6:12) and so they can know how to properly respond (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). However just then an obvious sprit of disapproval came over my friend. I inquired for the reason for his obvious disapproval and he explained that when he was in high-school, there were students at his school who were Christians who represented their Christianity in very wrong ways; they were bent on ‘defending the faith!’. As a Christian himself this irritated him because their negative representation of the Gospel hurt its effectiveness in the lives of unbelieving students. He expressed to me that he sees no reason to defend his faith - he believes that he ought to take Peter’s words literally in 1 Peter 3:15 and just ‘give an answer to anyone who asks him for the reason for the hope that he holds.’ In his understanding there is nothing in that passage that requires getting into academic fights with people over scientific issues such as Darwinian Evolutionism or the age of the earth, etc. or philosophical debates like proofs for the existence of God etc. In his view all he was and is required to do is to answer why he believes and whatever personal answer he gives is sufficient.
A common theme in popular Christian apologetic circles is the encouragement of 1 Peter 3:15. However the second part always seems to get special attention:
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. - 1 Peter 3:15b
As an apologist I have often heard from many apologists, who I admire and listen to stress the idea of ‘being ready to give an answer’ or ‘being ready to defend the faith’, etc. This nuance is all to often accompanied, and seemingly to an exclusion of other aspects with having the knowledge of academic facts: history, science, logic, philosophy, etc.; and the knowledge of how they relate to Christianity. Now contrary to my friend’s view showing how Christianity best explains the facts of reality being true is a must; but it is equally true that knowing the fine-tuning of the universe, logic, how to explain seeming paradoxes like the The Problem of Evil, the human condition, history and all the rest is only one aspect by which all Christians ought to be ready or be prepared for. In context of this verse what is Peter saying:
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, - 1 Peter 3:15b (NIV 1984)
There is a lot to work through regarding this verse so for today’s study I am only going to concentrate on the first part: “[but] in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.” The first and foremost important step in standing up for one’s faith is being prepared to let Jesus be God. Apologetics is not a competition of wits and nor is it an academic showdown. It can be very tempting for both parties - the Christian and the unbeliever - to duke it out, by showing how much they know of subject X, and how they can explain their position. In this context Paul would discourage this as he would refer to it as a stupid argument. He instructs us not to “...have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce [quarrels]” - 2 Timothy 2:23. This is not to say explaining how Christianity best explains reality and letting the unbeliever attempt to refute the claim is engaging in stupidity or foolishness. However the discussion is not a human vs. human argument, but it is God representing himself in the face of evil. (cf. Ephesians 6:12) We humans are ambassadors, who are charged with being the physical face of Christ (cf. 2nd Corinthians 5:20). We are to represent ourselves as followers of Jesus, so to represent Jesus. Where the ‘stupidity’ comes in is in the futility of an argument. Engaging into a battle of academics is futile if God is not running the show (cf. Psalm 127:1a). In sum setting up Christ as Lord in one’s heart is not merely good advice, it’s the first step - don’t do this, don’t bother following onto the second step.
As sinful human beings we cannot represent Jesus; we need the transforming power of God to do this. Ergo treating apologetics like a study in smarts is useless, as no amount of proof can convince the sinful heart. The nature of the sinful heart is disabled from understanding truth (cf. John 8:42-47). So why are we to jump through academic hoops if our efforts are going to fall on deaf ears? 1) We are commanded to (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29b). 2) God uses his creation to save it; God uses the truth taught in academic disciplines as tools to bring his chosen to him. So the foundation for a proper representation of Jesus is to let Jesus be God.
So what does this mean? There is a civil war of sorts going on within Christian apologetic circles over which apologetic approach is best. There are 5 apologetic approaches that can be and should be used and they are: Presupositionalism[i], Evidentialism[ii], Accumulative[iii], Classic[iv] and Reformed Epistemological[v].However which one of these approaches should be the Christian’s launching pad? Well, Peter would argue that it would be to presuppose Christianity is true, by setting up Christ as Lord.
One may might argue however that setting Christ as Lord in one’s heart in Peter’s letter refers to motivation, not presentation. The Christian is motivated by Christ to do the good work, but how the good works is played out is subjective to them as a person. Moreover, it has also been argued that the best way to launch a defence of Christianity is not to presuppose its true, but offer evidence that backs up the claim. In sum give other ideas and contrary positions the benefit of the doubt, present the evidence and let the proverbial chips fall where they may. The problem with spring boarding off of the evidential apologetic approach is data is filtered through a worldview and as such the correct filter will reveal truthful results whereas the wrong filter will show flawed results. Contrary to desired belief data does not ‘speak for itself’; the data has to be put through a filter to determine what it is ‘evidence of’, and the filter in this case would be someone’s preconceived worldview.
Lastly it has been suggested to me that drawing dividing lines between Christianity and other worldviews can be offensive and thus doing the Gospel injustice. It is true that people may get offended with the proposition that they are wrong, but ‘who cares’? It is true that we ought to represent Christ with love and respect, however it is important to note that although a Christian can represent Christ in an offensive way and shouldn’t, quite often it is Jesus's nature that is offensive to the unbeliever (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:23).
There is a lot more to be said in our analysis of 1 Peter 3:15; and it will be done so in upcoming discussions; but for now let Christ’s nature offend the sinful person, but as Christians we ought to stand on the word of God proudly and let its words and its author guide us; let us represent God and let God cater to hurt hearts!
______________
[i] Presupositionalism: Presupositionalism argues that the apologist should presuppose a position as truth in order to accurately give an account for reality; in sum Presupositionalism argues that a rational explanation of reality is found in none other than Christianity.
[ii] Evidentialism: Evidentialism argues that the apologist needs to step outside of their preconcieved ideas of reality and assess the data - the evidence - on its own merits. The Evidentialist believes that if the facts of reality are looked at objectively then the truth of reality will come to light and thus show which theological position is true - God: Islam, God: Christianity, God: Hinduism, God: No-God (atheism), etc.
[iii] Accumulative: The accumulative apologetic approach attempts to make an iron-clad case for the position i.e Christianity, by alluding to all aspects of academia. The accumulative apologist will give scientific evidence for God’s existence, historical evidence God’s existence, philosophical evidence for God’s existence and logical evidence for God’s existence. The idea is to make a case that covers all of the basis, thus leaving no place for argument.
[iv] Classical: Classical apologetics concentrates on rational argumentation for God’s existence to make its case; the Classical apologist backs up their logical assertions with evidence.
[v] Reformed Epistemology : Reformed Epistemology argues from personal testimony; the rational is, there is no need for evidence and the evidence is only truly recognized when filtered through clear lenses. As such nobody however thinks clearly due to sin and so even if evidence is offered doesn’t mean that it will be computed. So the Reformed Epistemologist would just resort to offering personal reasons for their beliefs and letting God take it from there.
No comments:
Post a Comment