Apologetics, Imagination, and Imaginative Apologetics
In earlier posts,
I set the framework for the core material in Imaginative Apologetics, seeking to provide the lay of the land in
contemporary apologetics and the faculty of imagination. Now we are engaging the individual articles
in Andrew Davison’s edited volume, Imaginative
Apologetics: Theology, Philosophy and the Catholic Tradition.[1]
In the last two posts, we examined the
relationship between faith and reason, and apologetics & human imagination. In this post, on to the third of four major
sections of the work. As a reminder, you
can find my full treatment in Trinity
Journal.[2]
Being Imaginative about Christian Apologetics
Section three
(“Being Imaginative about Christian Apologetics”) of Imaginative Apologetics begins with, in
my opinion, the strongest essay of the compilation.
Stephen Bullivant (St.
Mary’s University College) offers a compelling exposition of atheism and
Christian apologetics based upon an exegesis of the Second Vatican Council’s Gaudium et Spes.[3]
Bullivant notes that atheism is diverse, and is often precipitated by the
failings of the Christian Church. He argues that atheism is a feature solely of
Christian (or post-Christian) societies and argues that the atrocities and
social irrelevance of Christians and Churches bring about unbelief.[4] In
such a context, Bullivant argues, the inward aspect of apologetics (“ecclesiology”)
is absolutely essential.[5] Along with a robust
outward-looking evangelistic apologetic, “we must look to ourselves and strive,
individually and collectively, to provide a fitting ‘backdrop’, against which
this proclamation will get a hearing, and seem plausible.”[6]
Chapter seven
contains Craig Hovey’s exposition of “Christian Ethics as Good News.”[7]
Hovey contends for a lived-out Christian apologetic—not proof-apologetics or
evidentialism, but rather a life of joyful faithfulness to Christ. He intends
to demonstrate four theses: (1) the goal of Christian ethics is neither
scholarship nor knowledge, but rather action; (2) Christian ethics restores our
full humanity, taking its cue from the life and person of Christ; (3) the
goodness of Christian morality is not justified extrinsically, by means of
“goods” that the world also appreciates as the better way; and (4) the
Christian moral life does not achieve “well-being in anything like a
straightforward sense”—it does not achieve happiness, but rather joy.[8]
Hovey’s pursuit of his four theses is both admirable and successful—he
demonstrates the necessary connection between a well-lived Christian life and
an apologetic appeal to a seeker or skeptic.
What Hovey says in addition to his
primary theses, however, is neither admirable nor successful. First, Hovey
critiques the apologetics he encountered as a young Protestant: “the
quasi-legal defences of a certain sort of self-confident Protestants who went
around armed with a hundred and one proofs for Jesus rising from the dead.”[9]
Given that the Greek ἀπολογία carries strong legal or courtroom connotations
(and indeed sometimes occur in clearly legal settings), I am unsure why Hovey
would assume and imply that such “quasi-legal defences” are intrinsically
unhelpful. If you remove “Protestants” from the sentence and eliminate the
negative tone of voice, Hovey could very well be describing the apologetics of
the Apostle Paul in the book of Acts.
Second, Hovey
judges such Protestant quasi-legal apologetics (I can only assume he is talking
about a Montgomery-type evidentialism) an utter failure: “It always seemed to
me that the only people this convinced were those who already believed it.”[10]
This critique fails on two fronts. On the one hand, it fails evidentially. Many
skeptics and opponents have,
in fact, been moved towards (or even to)
Christian faith through classical (rational) and evidential apologetics.
William Lane Craig recounts numerous encounters with atheists, agnostics, and
lapsed Christians in his travels and speaking engagements. Many times, Craig
relates, someone who had heretofore been an opponent of the faith, or ignorant
of the rational and evidential basis of and support for Christianity, has been
converted partially on account of Craig’s arguments for the existence of God or
the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.[11]
One encounter in particular is worth relating here:
Many years ago when we were
studying in Germany on a research fellowship, we met a Polish physicist who was
there on a similar fellowship. As we chatted, she mentioned that physics had
destroyed her belief in God and that life had become meaningless to her. “When
I look out at the universe all I see is blackness,” she explained, “and when I
look within myself all I see is blackness.” (What a poignant statement of the
modern predicament!)
Well, at that
point Jan volunteered, “Oh, you should read Bill’s doctoral dissertation. He
uses physics to prove God exists.” So we loaned her my dissertation to read on
the cosmological argument. Over the ensuing days, she became progressively more
excited. When she got to the section on astronomy and astrophysics, she was
positively elated. “I know
these scientists that you are quoting!” she exclaimed in amazement. By the time
she reached the end, her faith had been restored. “Thank you for helping me to
believe that God exists,” she said.
We answered,
“Would you like to know him in a personal way?” Then we made an appointment to
meet her that evening at a restaurant. . . .
When we saw her the next day, her face was
radiant with joy. She told us of how she had gone home and in the privacy of
her room prayed to receive Christ. She then flushed all the wine and
tranquilizers on which she had been relying down the toilet. . . . So it was a
great victory for God. It was one of the most vivid illustrations I’ve seen of
how the Holy Spirit can use arguments and evidence to draw someone to a saving
knowledge of God.[12]
Hovey’s insistence
that apologetic arguments only convince the already-convinced thus fails
evidentially—it neglects stories and experiences such as Craig’s. On the other
hand, Hovey’s critique fails theoretically as well. Apologetics is not just
about convincing or converting the non-Christian. As James Beilby (among others—indeed,
including Bullivant’s article immediately preceding Hovey’s own) helpfully
notes, an inward-turned apologetic is an important ministry within the
Christian church—providing doubting disciples or besieged believers with
reasons to continue believing, giving them reasons and evidence to support the
faith that they are wavering in or holding onto only tenuously.[13]
Given the steady exodus of young Christian adults from the faith, one would
think that Hovey would applaud the success of apologetic ministries that are
affirming and confirming the faith of existing believers, helping them to
remain convinced and committed Christians in the midst of a culture of doubt
and distrust.
Third, Hovey
incorrectly asserts that early church apologetics sought only to “defend the
faith against misunderstanding from their pagan neighbours.”[14] A
balanced reading of passages like Acts 2:29-39, 4:8-12, and 17:1-4, conversely,
suggests that Peter and Paul were not only preventing misinterpretations of
young Christian belief, but were seeking to establish, reason to, and prove the
truthfulness of their Christian faith. Similarly, the examples of Justin Martyr
and other early Christian apologists falsify Hovey’s thesis. In short, Hovey’s
understanding of apologetics seems too small to match historical and
contemporary apologetics.
Fourth, Hovey
insists that “proof-apologetics” is unhelpful: “arguments threaten to take the
place of living in truth and so will surely refute themselves in exact
proportion to their success.”[15]
Hovey does not establish why this is the case; it seems to me that a thorough
Christian apologetic should be able to combine a robust rational argument and a compelling,
winsome Christian lifestyle. For example, William Lane Craig’s classical
apologetic work, Reasonable
Faith, contains strong intellectual proofs/arguments for God’s
existence, but closes with an emphatic declaration that the “ultimate
apologetic” is the apologist’s relationships with God and with other people.[16]
In other words, while proof-apologetics can
result in a dry, lifeless faith (Kierkegaard’s concern, as discussed above), it
need not do so.
Sadly, the
helpfulness of Hovey’s article was, at least for this reader, overshadowed by
his unbalanced and unnecessarily critical assessment of historical and
contemporary rational apologetics.
Ironically, then,
this crucial section on “being imaginative” in our Christian apologetics
included (in my estimation) the strongest and
weakest of the essays in the anthology.
While Bullivant turns a constructively critical eye toward the church
and points to ways forward, Hovey launches a misguided, unbalanced, and
undeserved attack toward many of his apologetic colleagues.
In my next post,
we will complete our survey of Imaginative
Apologetics—I hope the jaunt has been helpful to you!
[1]
Andrew Davison, ed. Imaginative Apologetics:
Theology, Philosophy and the Catholic Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012. 169 pp. $25.00.
[2] Tawa J.
Anderson, “Apologetics, Imagination, and Imaginative
Apologetics,” in Trinity Journal
34 (2013): 229-51.
[3]
Stephen Bullivant, “Atheism, Apologetics and Ecclesiology: Gaudium et Spes and
Contemporary Unbelief,” in Imaginative
Apologetics, 81-97.
[4]
Bullivant, “Atheism, Apologetics and Ecclesiology,” 85-90.
[5]
Bullivant, “Atheism, Apologetics and Ecclesiology,” 91-95.
[6]
Bullivant, “Atheism, Apologetics and Ecclesiology,” 96.
[8]
Craig Hovey, “Christian Ethics as Good News,” 101-09.
[9]
Craig Hovey, “Christian Ethics as Good News,” 98.
[10]
Craig Hovey, “Christian Ethics as Good News,” 98.
[11]
William Lane Craig, Reasonable
Faith, (3rd ed.; Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 59, 86-87,
189-96, 240-41, 278-81, 399.
[13] “It might be
surprising that believers are listed as a potential audience of apologetics,
for it is commonly assumed that apologetics typically takes place only with
agnostics or skeptics. Such an assumption tends to downplay the significance of
the questions Christians have about the faith. Left unanswered, these can
become toxic to continued vital faith. . . . This type of apologetics is called
internal apologetics
because it takes place with those inside of or internal to Christianity.”
Beilby, Thinking About
Christian Apologetics, 27.
[14]
Hovey, “Christian Ethics as Good News,” 98.
[15]
Hovey, “Christian Ethics as Good News,” 110.
