Postmodern Apologetics: Evidence that Demands a Kingdom
March 18, 2008 - 3:08pm by ThomasThis is the fourth entry in the Postmodern Apologetics series David (Through a Glass Darkly) and I are writing.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder.
"You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" (James 2)
Saved. Acknowledged. Accepted. Invited. Reasoned. Converted.
All these words, and many more like them, are the rationale of apologetics. They are fixed words, past tense verbs, describing a turning point, a switching of sides, a jumping off the ship into (baptismal?) water. We argue with people, we give evidence, we give cases, we give power points and data, all in hope that we can so bombard a person with Excel spreadsheets of Christian data that they relent to the pressure of the obvious and believe in our wonderfully delivered four spiritual laws. This is reasonable.
Reason is a synonym for belief in the modern apologetics context. Videos, TV shows, sermons, books, an Australian pseudo-scientist---these are the tools we use to convince others that God is real.
Well really, why do we need to convince people that God is real with raw data and rhetorical wizardry? Even the demons know God exists, so if someone doesn't believe they are either fooling themselves or have worked against that conviction (see Romans 1).
So why waste all of our time proving, arguing, and convincing people to make a shift to faith, and leave out the deeds? What foolish men demand a verdict in a man's mind, a shifting of a personal philosophy and theology, without calling a person into the very work and wonder of such a belief.
Modern apologetics is a defense of Christianity. It is not a defense of Christ or his Kingdom.
This crucial difference is because modern apologetics is an either/or conundrum, full of brackets that divide atheism/theism, Catholicism/Protestantism, secular/sacred, and on and on. Modern apologetics, like modern salvation, calls a person to make a decision, to draw a line in time, and never considers that belief must become a way of life. A postmodern apologetics is desperately needed because little is being done to defend Christ or his Kingdom, the True Life and the True Way.
James' answer to the question posed in the quote that began this discussion is this:
Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
The defense of our faith is not faith, as the modern apologists claim; it is a defense of faith and actions working together. A postmodern apologetics is not concerned with saved, acknowledged, accepted, invited, reasoned, converted, it instead deeply concerned with saving, acknowledging, accepting, inviting, reasoning, and converting. We do not posses evidence that demands a verdict, which is a judge's one-time ruling on the matter. We possess evidence that demands a Kingdom, and this kingdom will stand whether all the judges of this world want it to or not. The defense we should give anyone who is to become a disciple of Christ, and not just an acknowledger or accepter of Christ is what Christ told us to do: "teach them to obey everything I have commanded you." What Christ taught, as he himself confessed, could be summed up in this:
‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Matthew 22)
Our postmodern apologetics is an apologetics not of knowledge but of love, not of verdicts but of a kingdom that stands on faith and action. When we stop giving out data and just start living like Christ, then not just PhDs can be apologists, we all can. We are all called to be disciples, which is just a postmodern synonym for apologist.
You can find parts one, two, and three of the Postmodern Apologetics series by following the respective links.
Comments
I am curious whether your theology of "doing" would include signs and wonders, and not just human good deeds. After all, the entire book of Acts has signs and wonders interspersed throughout. Of course, that might be just too "Pentecostally".....LOL.
I think my "theology of 'doing'" would certainly include signs and wonders, though they would have to encompass some sort of "action" and not just be evidential. As an example, tongues in some Pentecostal circles is a badge of salvation, that if you do not speak in tongues you have not received salvation, which really turns a sign into reason and becomes an argument of evidence instead of a spiritual expression. Not everyone needs to speak in tongues or perform miracles. I would add that throughout the gospels and Acts of the apostles the signs and wonders are evangelistic, and not knowledge to puff oneself up with. Interestingly, the people who asked for Jesus to perform miracles were the Pharisees and scribes, who needed evidence to prop up the little faith they had. We should seek signs and miracles as wonders that build the kingdom, not evidence and data to replace faith.
I didn't say anything about tongues. Frankly, I don't see where Jesus spoke in tongues, although He might have privately....who knows. And, the Pharisees might have needed signs and wonders BUT Jesus still performed them, maninly for the common folk, although at times for the wealthy too. My concern about the current social gospel movement in some sections of the evangelical church is what do the works come out of? A human fleshly work? Or as the Spirit directs and empowers? You are right that the social gospel should be IN Christianity, but IMO it HAS to follow a good foundation of understanding the concepts of jutification and sanctification by the congregation, or the works just fall apart. I know what I am talking about, believe me, having grown up in a liberal Protestant church where the works turned into a kind of "vapor."
This is so on the mark. I was raised in a modernist Christian culture where we were trained every single day in ways to "defend your beliefs." They instructed us in the finest literature so we would sound intelligent when arguing. They trained us relentlessly in the laws of logic, reason, argumentation, and persuasion so that we might sway our opponents. We were versed in the absolute latest and most technical of sciences so that we might use them to prove our own points....
I've used these skills countless times to argue or debate with those who claim there is no God, but never... NEVER has one of them ever expressed interest in learning more about what I believe. Nobody is impressed with a Christian who can out-debate or out-reason them.
On the contrary, the few times I have ventured to simply love someone and show them kindness and compassion for no reason apparent to them... those are the times, every time, that I have been able to answer sincere questions about the hope that is in me.