A friend of mine was working on some apologetic topics and told me what they were. My observation, which I only mentioned in passing, was that what he was most concerned about was not what bugged my students. That is, problems shift and so apologetics shifts and that means that each generation, and perhaps more than once during a generation, brings forth new issues that Christian apologetics needs to address.
By common consent we live in postmodernity and above all that means that “truth is stranger than it used to be.” That means that knowledge and truth have shifted from an empirical basis toward a more subjective orientation. The shift means there is less attention to the object and more on the subject.
This series will examine a new book edited by Dallas Willard (not pictured), and we need sometimes to remember that he is a professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California. The book is called: A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life’s Hardest Questions
This series will take up their topics, summarize some of what the lecturers said, and then sometimes take issue with them in order to foster some conversation here about the topic itself.
Apologetics, to begin with, has acquired a bad name for some. Why? Because it is often limited to and foisted upon rationalism and upon arguments and upon reason and upon logic — and that’s fine and apologetics concerns these items. But genuine apologetics goes beyond this, as Alister McGrath makes clear in his new book (The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind
The book by Willard, A Place for Truth, begins with the question of truth, and there are three lectures by three well-known apologists: Richard John Neuhaus, Os Guinness and Tim Keller.
Each of these lecturers knows there’s a problem with truth and truth claims in our world; none of them sketches the whole of the problem or offers a whole solution – who could in one lecture? Neuhaus focuses on “ironic liberalism” and “debonair nihilism.” In other words, he drives it to the bottom of despair and finds the likes of Nietzsche. Fair enough, but I didn’t see enough discussion of why postmodernists say what they say. Guinness says there is “no solid core today.” Well, fair enough … but a massive generalization that really doesn’t help us. It would be more accurate to say the core is under threat and lacks confidence.
Each of them knows that there is truth, that truth can be known, and that the truth is Jesus Christ. All three say this in eloquent ways.
But I find both Neuhaus and Guinness unacceptably dismissive of the nature of the postmodern struggle with truth. At times there’s almost ridicule here, as if in saying “postmodern” there was a snarl. My contention is not that the radical postmodernist — Richard Rorty (pictured) for instance — is right but that the postmodernist is not naive. Dismissive approaches compound the problem, they don’t resolve the issues.
Truth is an issue because of the collapse of metanarratives, the all-embracing and colonizing force of an empirical approach to knowledge, the belief/hope/commitment to that approach as something that will lead both to universal consent and to unlocking the meanings of life, and the force of the hermeneutical element to all of life. Language, so it is said, goes all the way down. The issue of hermeneutics doesn’t even emerge for Neuhaus or Guinness but it does surface indirectly in Keller.
But instead of posturing for arguments that are rooted in a kind of critical realism, which is found in such thinkers as Lesslie Newbigin (and others), where there is a humble respect for the hermeneutical problem and the truth claim-problem, both Neuhaus and Guinness seem to offer a robust assertion of a traditionalist posture about truth. They seem to make their case by insulting postmodernism. That won’t work. The problem I have with them is that they really don’t think the problem is a problem.
But what I found in Tim Keller was both a proper sensitivity and a proper confidence; his concern is the inevitable exclusivity in truth claims and that no matter what happens, exclusivity is claimed by all who propose truth.
Keller doesn’t back down, but he knows what he’s facing. So he begins by showing that postures against truth claims are fading away: you can’t hope it will go away (secularization theory is discredited), you can’t outlaw it (China’s Christianity proves that, you can’t explain it away (evolutionary biologists can’t because they create distrust in their own theories because they need to trust their own brains, the same brain that seems hard-wired to believe in God), you can’t argue it away (by saying all religions the same; but Christianity claims it is superior to other religions; if it is, it is; if it isn’t, then it is an inferior religion) … it’s not narrow, Keller says, to make an exclusive truth claim because everyone does that, even if it is the colonizing secularist who thinks no religion is true. And you can’t privatize it away because no matter where you go, you find we are all committed to transcendent beliefs.
Keller proposes that we distinguish privileged secularism from procedural secularism. The first says we can only argue on the basis of an enlightenment worldview; the second that the State can’t interfere and that everyone can argue in the public square on the basis of her or his beliefs. He then moves into the performance narrative vs. the grace narrative. The former prefers self-advancement and power; the second depends on Christ and weakness and that is the Christian truth.
We’re all fundamentalists, but the issue is what our fundamental is. The Christian fundamental is a Man dying on a cross for his enemies. There’s the truth.
Tim Keller is high on the list of people I would most like to meet and talk with. This sounds like a very useful book.
What is the core question of this section?
RJS,
It doesn’t appear to me that the Veritas Forum asked one question but gave a topic: Truth. If I had to put the three into a question it would be:
Truth, can we know it?
My problem with classic apologetics has always been that every deconvert I’ve met starts the conversation with “I used to be really into apologetics.” The idolatry of reason and the lack of humility in truth claims was out of control before the postmodern turn.
That said, I’m still somewhat surprised by people that dismiss Postmodernism completely. Keller is right in that the most extreme forms of it have been dying off. Yeah, most of us under the age of 35 have a period of struggling with the idea of absolute truth, but few of us remain in a place where we believe there is none at all. We just sit comfortably in a place where we doubt our ability to know it absolutely this side of death. This is not nearly as threatening as some would have us believe.
I’m really looking forward to this one.
Thank you for the careful review of this book. I have wanted to read it, but have hesitated because of the long list of books in front of it and because I wasn’t sure that I was up to it intellectually. With your help I can get a good look at it – it would be a shame to let such a fine collection of contributors, not to mention Professor Willard, escape my study. Thanks again.
What a joy to read a thoughtful discussion of the “problem of truth” rather than backing away from it or bashing those who initiate it. This is what I like about you Scot. Have you read anything about performatism? I used that theory (my shallow understanding of it) to examine the shift away from postmodernity (and its endless recursive deconstructions) to performance theory (the idea that within the narrative frames of each of our lives, our subjectivity can choose to “perform” or “live” our truths without having to justify them on a scientific, objectivist basis – something like that ).
This was especially helpful to me since I had become enamored with skepticism of truth claims due to postmodernism’s critique of objectivism. Once I could see myself standing in a narrative (humbly recognizing my own limits to “know absolutely”), I could then embrace the narrative and even enjoy its ideals, claims and powers to shape my life. My skepticism receded.
In fact, since you included me in your book about those who walked away from faith, I’ve found myself walking back in… just through a very different door.
–Julie
I’m looking forward to this discussion as A Place for Truth recently arrived for my review. I have not started reading it yet, but recently completed Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence which seems to be another essay that would compliment the theme of PfT… I always enjoy Dr. Keller’s insight; the post-modern discussion is a topic I can still learn much from. Thanks for the topic here.
I echo rjs’ estimation of Tim Keller.
The video from Keller’s Veritas talk is on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9fmKSwuoDE
I just happened to be watching it this weekend.
I have not read “A Place for Truth” but I am sad to read that such great thinkers like Neuhaus and Guinness would not be generous in their engagement of postmodernity on the topic of truth. I am currently reading James K.A. Smith’s “Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism” and it seems evident from his proposal that we at least need to engage Derrida, Loytard, and Foucault. Or the ubiquity of interpretation, the incredulity to modern sceintific metanarrative that has morphed among the masses into all metanarratives, and the reality that power is knowledge are the bare minimum that need to be engaged. From your review, it seems that Keller’s lecture is the only one that has the humility to begin to recognize the real challenge that these present to “objective truth” in its many forms.
In all honesty I think apologetics needs to be reclaimed. I think a lot of people connecting with the science of proving God’s existence. This is neither possible (to prove in a scientific sense), nor is it helpful. What God has asked is that we be able to reasonably explain to individuals why we hold the beliefs we do. They might not agree with our explanation, nor find it convincing, but at least they will have a clearer understanding of our belief system.
http://www.studyyourbibleonline.com/apologetics
Thanks for highlighting this book and discussion, Scot. One of Keller’s strengths as a pastoral apologist is his ability to enter in, understand, and winsomely articulate a position he disagrees with, often better the proponents themselves.
When Keller and others point out that postmodernism is not the “next thing,” they are observing that very few people live as consistent postmodernists, particularly in ethics. I’d agree that we’re in a post-postmodern cultural situation, for many people. Eg, today’s college students are often very ethical and cause-driven. While they espouse some relativistic claims about religion and truth in general, they do not live this way when it comes to issues such as climate change. They are fierce moralists on things like this.
Keller’s approach (which is pastorally presuppositional) seeks to demonstrate that people may profess one thing, but functionally live and believe something else, something which reflects & depends on God, often a Christian God. And I think that’s one reason the approach resonates with so many, both Christians seeking to share their faith, and non-Christians asking these questions.
Steve #10-
“One of Keller’s strengths as a pastoral apologist is his ability to enter in, understand, and winsomely articulate a position he disagrees with, often better the proponents themselves.”
I had thought the same thing. With Guiness not being a pastor, and with Neuhaus possibly backing down on his pastoral duties in the last 10 or so years of his life(?), I wonder if they were too removed from that setting.
I am closer to Keller on this, but not quite sure I am with him all the way. I think THE main apologetic question for this post modern generation is: How can one believe in Truth and not become oppressive and hegemonic? Can truth ever be humble in the face of untruth? And if untruth is seen as dangerous is it not in the interest of those holding to truth to fight it, in principle if not physically if needed? That is the (seeming?) contradiction between Humility and Truth that postmodernity is up against. The post modern answer is give up truth if you want to be humble, but of course as Keller points out that answer is unsatisfactory. I think this is where the history of Christian nonviolence comes into play. The practitioners of nonviolence have discovered a way of recognizing untruth and fighting it without becoming the oppressor. And it is totally grounded in the Gospels. The turn of phrase I use with my students is Nonviolence recognizes evil — it understands there ARE enemies. But it does not end up oppressing others because it applies the power of God’s love not violence. Its methodology is built on humility. Reformed theology has a history of treating nonviolence as a form of relativism. It need not be so, though some are nonviolent because they do not believe in evil. But Christian nonviolence DOES believe in evil and is out to destroy it by “Heaping coals of fire” on it. So the post modern dilemma is answered by the method of holding truth. What is then needed is an exposition of how it has been applied and how it has worked and how it might be applied in the future…
I agree with this assessment. Over the past few years, I’ve had several opportunities to hear Os Guinness speak. I’ve gone in with great expectations (I absolutely love this man’s writing!). But each time, I’ve been very disappointed in his scoffing dismissal of postmodernism (as you say, “At times there’s almost ridicule here, as if in saying ‘postmodern’ there was a snarl”).
“Dismissive approaches compound the problem, they don’t resolve the issues.”
Amen!
I’ve grown to become a fan of Keller’s approach. He seeks to understand all sides and deal with the real issues. Not an easy task, and he doesn’t always nail it, but at least he is modeling the best mode of operation.
#12 Bob, thank you for this: “The practitioners of nonviolence have discovered a way of recognizing untruth and fighting it without becoming the oppressor. And it is totally grounded in the Gospels. The turn of phrase I use with my students is Nonviolence recognizes evil — it understands there ARE enemies. But it does not end up oppressing others because it applies the power of God’s love not violence. Its methodology is built on humility. ”
I love this comparison and it does a terrific job of highlighting how humility functions wrt truth.
Could another piece be that truth is multi-faceted and we only understand, feature, embrace, act on parts of it at a time? If we hold the “truths” that we claim as incomplete (real, yet not necessarily the whole story), I think humility is more possible than if we hold our “truths” as absolute (the completed, finished story that we adequately comprehend and can then use to measure others).
Hi Steve #10: I agree with you about Keller’s pastoral sensitivity. It reminds me of our fellow Pennsylvanian, Francis Schaeffer, who pioneered this kind of apologetics during the 50′s and 60′s. With his great intellect, he could masterfully point out the inconsistencies between what skeptics believed and how they lived. But never with a sense of glee. He always maintained a great deal of empathy for agnostics and those who lived in doubt, because he had honestly wrestled with those things himself. When he observed conservative Christians, he found a huge disconnect between what they claimed to believe and how they actually lived. This disconnect was so great that, shortly after he moved to Switzerland, his intellectual honesty forced him to return to agnosticism and re-examine all the basic tenets of the Christian faith. He emerged from this personal crisis with a firm belief in the authority of Scripture combined with a great empathy for those who doubt. I wonder if it possible to become a great apologist without having any serious personal encounters with doubt.
(or perhaps incompletely understood/apprehended/mastered/appropriated…) to take it one step further.
Thanks for walking through this book, Scot – I got it as a mailer with it recently and have been part of the work of Veritas at Northwestern University.
The main issue with postmoderns as I’ve experienced it (how’s that for a post-modern approach) is that context and presentation matter as much as content. The questions we ask of a post-modern audience are as important as the information we share – because postmoderns must have their context understood first before they are willing to hear “truth” from outside of their world. This is why pastoring is necessary in a postmodern context for apologetics, and why Tim Keller is so much more well received than someone like Josh McDowell.
To put it more in football speak, apologetics function as the offensive line does in a football game. It can create the hole for the ball carrier, but it cannot carry the ball itself.
It appears that Christian apologetics is realizing that postmodern culture is not interested in mind games…finessed intellectual answers to the burning issues of the human dilemma, but is more interested in matters of the heart and imagination, relationships and suffering. I once was told that anyone who believes because of an intellectual argument is always vulnerable to a better argument. (And I am not being dismissive of great intellectual minds, e.g., Dallas Willard et al. They are very needed.) But there is more, like the welding of pastoral passion to apologetics. Spot on.
A good example of an attempt at postmodern apologetics is the first few sections of N.T. Wright’s book Simply Christian (although he does not expressly identify this as a postmodern approach). There, he talks about The whispers of a voice — beauty, justice, etc. — that we all sense are there, although they are always just out of reach and we can’t seem to grasp, and the fact that they are pointing us somewhere. And I agree very strongly with Bob Hunter about the importance of the nonviolence of the Cross; this is like the epistemology of love that Wright often talks about. Even in our postmodern world, the truth of love, beauty, justice are understood, and these are the basis for claims to truth that can effectively be used as a starting points for apologetics in a postmodern world. There are reasons Mother Theresa caried a lot weight in our world.
I have to disagree with Bob Hunter (#12) that the postmodern approach is to “give up truth.” Perhaps that is the approach of the most extreme forms of it, but many forms of postmodernism is that there are no truly “objective” viewpoints; we are all influenced by context and our backgrounds. We can do our best to evaluate truth claims, but need to be humble about our ability to reach absolute knowledge based on purely objective methods. And, of course, foundationalism is out the window, with good reason. It may leave us with a less certain world, but perhaps certainty is an idol that we were never entitled to.
EricG
Well said.
Of course, Jesus told us that He is the truth…
I am, admittedly, a child of postmodernism. Recently I’ve been reading a lot of Kierkegaard and Peter Rollins, both of whom do a lot of teaching through parable. I decided to take on this task and came up with a parable focused on the issues of truth and apologetics, as these are issues that cause frustration between people of my generation and older generations. Here is a link if anybody is interested in reading it:
http://joeyspiegel.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/the-good-apologist/
Thanks for reviewing this book. I find Tim Keller very helpful as well. One interesting thing he has brought up in various talks is how postmodernism is not necessarily as universal as people say and may be losing ground. His congregation in NYC is full of 20-somethings and yet his congregation is pretty equally split between what he calls traditionalists (who are younger but non-Western), modernists and post-modernist (predominately the art crowd). Its very interesting to hear him talk about the necessity of the church to continue to communicate to all without leaving anyone behind. I really appreciate Keller because he stays relevant yet understands the nuances of real people don’t always fit in our latest categories. You can get his CD’s on that here. http://store.gordonconwell.edu/category_s/6.htm
@Scot and #9: I think this is an age thing (and not necessarily physical age). Some people are steeped in an earlier approach to the question of truth and find the postmodern approach totally incomprehensible, to the point of not being able to be civil to those pursuing it. I confess I am like that (even though I am younger (not much) than Scot. But it’s one reason why I don’t engage in discussions with post-modernists — it would be pointless and contribut to strife more than to harmony.
#23 As Christians though should not our goal be to communicate with both mindsets. Paul speaking to those in the synagogue was different, than him speaking to those at Athens, however his goal was to communicate with them. I think that should be our goal as well. I do not think we abandon the old way of apologetics (I still practice those), but I think we also embrace ways to reach to postmoderns (still learning, but incorporating). All in the hopes of claiming all thoughts for Christ.
http://www.studyyourbibleonline.com/apologetics
Forgive me for sounding like a 27 year old po-mo, but I think the embodiment of truth is a greater apologetic to folks who are my age, or of a similar mindset.
I think books like A Case For Christ have their place, and for some people are genuinely effective for conversion, but times have changed. We have been so inundated with logical presentations through church, advertisements, salespeople, etc. that we have grown cynical of the entire approach. We’ve learned that no person’s logic or perspective is without flaw, removed from context, or large enough to encapsulate the fullness of what is true and many of us would rather seek the little pieces of truth we find all around us and form a collage that shifts and adapts as we learn/experience more than propose that our perspective is irrefutable. I understand that this makes many people uncomfortable. It isn’t concrete and doesn’t often allow for the familiar, which we all crave. But it keeps us on our toes, it teaches us not to idolize our own ideas or the ideas that we agree with (we fail here a lot though), and I really believe that it gives us a greater chance at a renewed ecumenicism.
Joey, you bring up an interesting point. We recently had back-to-back weeks of Gary Bates (creation resources international) and Lee Strobel at our church preaching. Gary’s impact was quite a bit different from Lee’s. Gary’s focus was definitely on a modernistic mindset while Lee bridged everyone pretty well. Lee was very “experiential” in his approach to how he first was drawn to Christ (his wife’s authentic Xianity) and how he went about discovering evidence (personal search through his own personal journalistic means). Pretty interesting to note that Lee’s approach was a very personal embodiment of truth while Gary probably had personal experiences to share, but only shared “data” and “truth.”
Thanks for sharing that, Matt. I probably shouldn’t have referenced Strobel’s book as I haven’t actually read it. I’m glad to know that his “case” is grounded in embodiment.
Scot, curious about characterizing Guinness as speaking with a “snarl.” That comes as great surprise, actually, as he is such a gracious speaker.
Christine, yes, I’ve heard Os and like to hear him. But there is too much dismissiveness about postmodernism in his piece and not enough description of the issues that gave rise to postmodernity … so it comes off as just debunking by saying the words.
Thanks, Scot. Look forward to reading the book.