14AR19-46

( - previous issue - )

Apologia Report 20:46 (1,229)

December 31, 2014

Subject: A bizarre, postmodern attack on apologetics itself

In this issue:

MORALITY - secular philosopher observes that "grave moral problems inhere in us all"

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM - perceiving "potential for uniting evangelicals around a firm but flexible understanding of inerrancy"

POSTMODERNISM - just as it falls out of favor in academia, someone appeals to postmodernism as a "mouthpiece for Christian witness"

Apologia Report 20:46 (1,229)

December 31, 2014

MORALITY

The Harpers blog published a brief secular debate, "Are Humans Good or Evil?" (Oct 9 '14) featuring philosophers Clancy Martin (University of Missouri-Kansas City) and Alan Strudler (University of Pennsylvania). Martin, who "sees people as 'mostly good,'" finds that "what is rare - and looks pathological - is to act purely selfishly." For him, "what convinces me, more than anything else, of our innate goodness is the existence of moral progress. ... The fact that human rights are spreading in the world, slowly but undeniably, also strikes me as an undeniable improvement. ...

"'When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall.' Yes, they keep rising up again, too. But when I look at the long, often vicious fight that is human history, it seems to me that the good guys are winning - and that, perhaps more importantly, we really want them to win."

Strudler, on the other hand, observes: "Maybe there is something wrong with our species; maybe there is something wrong with each of us." He adds that "grave moral problems inhere in us all." For example, in spite of our claims of compassion, "Death at a distance leaves us unfazed."

Strudler hurts his cause when he makes unsupported claims like this one: "In some situations, most people will knowingly and voluntarily expose others to death for no good reason. People cannot be trusted."

Yet, Strudler has his moments: "The idea that people are good because they do mostly good things makes sense only on a desperately low standard of goodness. ...

"One must do much good to be good, but doing just a little bad trumps that good.

"Indeed, talk about good and bad seems strangely untethered to empirical facts." Strudler concludes: "When not rooted in facts, moral confidence dulls our senses. We should try to do our best, but that requires taking our evil seriously." <www.ow.ly/GsScT>

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM

Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions, by Craig Blomberg [1] -- this review by Louis Markos (Houston Baptist University) for First Things (Oct 28 '14) includes some interesting observations. For example, "in chapters four and five ... Blomberg's book comes to life and shows its potential for uniting evangelicals around a firm but flexible understanding of inerrancy. Blomberg offers as his definition of inerrancy one penned by Paul Feinberg [of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School]: 'Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.'

"Though some will argue that this definition has too many qualifications, they need to be there to dissuade modern readers from treating the Bible as if it were written yesterday. Too often, Blomberg laments, 'we impose modern standards of accuracy on ancient texts in hopelessly anachronistic fashion.' And this not only holds for things like numbers, physical details, and genealogies. It holds for portions of the Bible that, like the parables of Jesus, are not intended to be taken literally.

"For those who think Frieberg's [sic] definition could open the door to anti-supernaturalist readings of the Bible, Blomberg shows, in his final chapter, that the most cutting-edge scholarly research has actually bolstered the authenticity of the miracles recorded in the Bible. ...

"In building his case for why we can still believe the Bible, Blomberg effectively positions himself between liberal scholars who refuse to acknowledge the firm textual base on which the scriptures stand and ultraconservatives who insist on a rigidly literal reading of the Bible (often in the King James only) in the face of legitimate developments in our understanding of ancient manuscripts and genres. Sadly, the fairness and objectivity he shows in five of his six chapters is cast aside in chapter three when he mounts a defense of gender-neutral Bible translations.

"It would be one thing if Blomberg merely offered his opinion. What he does instead is depict those who oppose such translations as fundamentalists who stubbornly blind themselves to new research. ...

"Blomberg, along with [other] translators, takes it for granted that the convention of using 'man' or 'mankind' to designate the human race is merely cultural. It is not. It is God himself who originally made the designation.... The Hebrew word translated 'Man' at the end of [Genesis 5:1-2] is 'Adam.' God not only refers to our race by the name of the first man that he created, but views all of mankind as being included in Adam." <www.ow.ly/GsTk4>

POSTMODERNISM

The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context, by Myron B. Penner [2] -- "Although postmodernism has largely fallen out of favor in the academic world, Myron B. Penner [PhD, University of Edinburgh] wants wants to exhume the corpse and make it a mouthpiece for Christian witness." This review by Douglas Groothuis (Denver Seminary) "demonstrates that Penner's attempt ... to deny God-given objective truth and rational argument is not only philosophically wrong-headed but also self-refuting." Groothuis calls the book "a broadside against all of contemporary (and historical) apologetics. ... To remove any ambiguity, by 'the end of apologetics,' he means the abolition of apologetics, not the purpose of apologetics. Penner has an audience, since it was given the 2014 'award of merit' in the category of evangelicalism and apologetics by Christianity Today." As Groothuis sees it, "Penner calls for the suicide of apologetics. He sides with Kierkegaard's claim that whoever defends Christianity is 'Judas number two.'"

Groothuis reports that Penner believes apologists "are betraying the very message of Christianity itself. ... Further, Penner lays out a postmodern 'witness' (not apologetic), based largely on the thought of the Christian existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), but which accepts many ideas from postmodern thinkers such as Richard Rorty, Michel Foucault, and others. ...

"Penner disavows the need to give arguments for his stance. ...

"Penner claims that contemporary apologists ... are unconsciously enslaved to a 'modern' method of argumentation that (1) does not 'work' in the postmodern world and (2) is unfaithful to the gospel itself, given its modern and 'secular' assumptions. ... For Penner, the benighted and bewitched apologists claim that belief can be justified through objectively rational means that any honest person has access to. This he takes to be terribly wrong. ...

"Penner caricatures contemporary apologists as denying the subjectivity and individuality of the persons to whom they give arguments." Those whom Penner critiques, on the other hand, "do not believe, like him, that social conditions or language differences render people incapable of knowing objective reality or that reason lacks the power to convince. ...

"Penner condemns the modern apologists for defending Christianity as a set of rationally compelling propositions, rather than as practices such as worship, confession, witness, and so on. ...

"Penner also says that in 'the premodern world' people did not think of holding propositions about things, but rather of 'participating in the world.' But his lack of explanation does not restrain him from mounting an assault against the appeal to propositions in apologetics."

Penner "charges that using evidence and argument in apologetics is an act of 'violence' because it attempts to coerce people into believing Christianity. This bizarre idea is based on the notion that any appeal to objective truth and the universal reach of reason is supported by the dominant ideology of the culture in which it operates. Thus, Christian apologists are unwittingly enslaved to a secular ideology that fails to recognize the value of persons, dialogue, and the deeply personal nature of Christian faith and devotion. This accusation is wildly wrong."

Groothuis concludes that "the book is philosophically wrong-headed and corrosive to Christian witness, since it denies the very meat of apologetic mission: God-given objective truth and rational argument sufficient to justify Christian belief to the watching world." Christian Research Journal, 37:5 - 2014, pp50-55. [3]

-------

SOURCES: Monographs

1 - Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions, by Craig Blomberg (Brazos, 2014, paperback, 304 pages) <www.ow.ly/FQAAY>

2 - The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context, by Myron B. Penner (Baker, 2013, paperback, 192 pages) <www.ow.ly/GsSqg>

--------

( - next issue - )