Missiology: Contemporary Apologetics (Russell Rook and Mark Knight)
Discussion Point #1
Mark Knight looks at apologetics as a means by which we communicate 'good' in the light of 'evil' through:-
- Conveying the hope of the story in which we find ourselves (i.e. the gospel).
- Respecting people enough to explain how the gospel might meaningfully be described as good news in a bad news world.
- Treating theodicy as the best language we can find in the face of evil, not a final and definitive solution.
posted by ETLnetwork at 5:57 AM
8 Comments:
Apologetics in history are often depicted as against the established Church but Mark’s comments made me realise that we are all apologetics and have to tell our story with integrity – openly admitting that we don’t have all the answers. As well as saying witnessing that God is really empathising and suffering with man in this world of evil and that there is hope and inner peace through it all. The recent witness and testimony of Anthony’s Mum on the 1st Anniversary of 7/7 gives strong evidence of that.
Penny PT
Discussion 1 Contemporary apologetics
My understanding of this subject is that apologetics seek to illuminate the truth by offering some clarification and meaning without having all of the answers ourselves. The apologetic's role is almost to facilitate others to discover truths without giving all the answers themselves.
I believe this approach works in post-modern Britain as many folk want to be guided but not told what is the truth . Self discovery in education has transformed schools and colleges. There are dangers however, if we allow heresies and untruths to emerge as truths. We need to shine a light on absolute truths which are fundamental to our belief.
Chris Hall
My understanding of Christian apologetics is that it is all about the reasoned explanation/defence of our faith. It is about proofs for Christianity, or evidence for faith. It is giving answers to questions such as why does God allow suffering, why does evil exist, don’t all religions lead to God?
Mark Knight gave me food for thought when he commented that he is now of the opinion that contemporary apologetics is less about clear answers to questions and more about trying to think through our theology in relation to the questions that arise for us as we live and experience the culture that is around us.
The place of apologetics within our understanding of Mission is that as we engage in Mission, we, through the way we live and speak, want to provoke interest and questions. Also, as we share the story of the good news of the gospel and kingdom we do so within a world that experiences the occurrence of many dreadful things. And whilst the gospel brings hope into such situations nevertheless if we are going to engage authentically with people and get involved in their lives then some of the questions we will probably encounter will be about evil and suffering and the seeming contradiction of this where there is a God of love. Although we may feel our answers are inadequate and inept Christian integrity demands that we should attempt to address these very real questions that those with no knowledge of the Christian faith may have. Christian integrity also demands that we have considered and tried to answer these questions ourselves before attempting to explain them to others. I also believe that we can have all the answers of the day but as Christians we need to back up our answers with deeds, people need to see God working through us as part of the answer to evil and suffering otherwise our apologetics ring hollow.
I would tend to agree with Mark Knight’s implication that our answers with regard to evil need not be final or definitive. I do not think our answers can be because as humans our capacity for understanding is limited. Also, the truth is that ultimately for humanity we remain in the presence of great mystery with regard to the whole question of evil and suffering and without final explanation whilst here on earth.
Yvonne
I think the importance of dialogue can not be underestimated - people rarely listen to those whom give the impression as having all the answers. How we work thaht out in terms of apologetics is interesting. Apologetics has always been about haveing an answer for everything - how we communicate truth in a way that people listen is a challenge
'Having the answer for everything'- can this be possible? Even the most learned person can not claim full knowledge, for to do that must be setting themselves equal with God.
In this post-modern age where people no longer look to the 'minister' to give all the answers, but instead want to use their own intellect to consider possible truths as they search. This also gives good opportunities for discussions and to be able to 'tell our stories'in todays context and firmly rooted from Scripture.
I understand that our answers may not be final but yet, there must be a fine line regarding the Truths of Sccripture and these must not be watered down.
I think Mark Knight makes contemporary apologetics far more complicated than needs be! His use of 'thinking theology in the context of today'- makes me feel totally inadequate!
C S Lewis writes, "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world". Stephen Gaukroger defends this statement by stating, "So suffering is used by God to act as a global conscience, focusing our attention on life's vital issues".
I think suffering and evil may be easier for the Christian to accept than for a non believer and with that in mind, never can I try to tell the mother who lost her whole family in the Tsunami that God was trying to get our attention!!!
Nevertheless, as Yvonne suggests a personal understanding of suffering and evil is necessary before we try to engage with others on this subject.
I agree with many of the previous comments made: apologetics is about explaining and giving reasons for the hope that we have. I think that we have to be honest to acknowledge that we don't have all the answers - as Carol rightly says - who can know all the answers? I believe that postmodern people are a race that need to find answers for themselves. They will not accept an answer 'handed to them on a plate'. Also, if we claim to have all the answers this is more likely to come across as arrogant. Although we need to show confidence when speaking about our faith I believe that people are more likely to listen if we show some humbleness.
I used to think that apologetics was about confirming, rejecting, and defending certain doctrines. Somehow I thought of people who were well educated, theologically equipped.
With this lecture about contemporary apologetics I realised that every Christian is called to listen to the other one and express Gods mercy, truth and beauty in an authentic way. This gave me a broader perspective on the subject. I certainly agree this has an important place in mission, as mission always determines the heart of every church-aspect. It is fairly right to say that apologetics brings together mission, theology and questions.
I certainly agree our answers need not to be final or definitive. As we are human beings, we may wonder, doubt, change our minds and most important: grow in our knowledge and faith. That implies that our answers of today may be different from the answers we give next year.
A conversation between someone and no-one can not take place.
This quote is from Sake Stoppels, a dutch professor in practical theology. It sounds quite cryptic, but it means that your own identity is vital for a meaningful conversation with someone else.
Apologetics have undergone a few changes in history. From the absolute truths that were just proclaimed via trying to justify a faith system to being abandoned as a method by a large proportion of the christian world, specifically in the post-modern western world.
I believe that their is room for apologetics new style, like Mark proposed. People are interested in each others identity, want to know what makes them tick. Authenticity and integrity are keywords in that matter.
Chick Yuill says it as follows in his book "Others"
We will give greater place to courteous dialogue, in which we listen as much as speak, than to a dogmatic presentation of doctrinal propositions.
Post a Comment
<< Home