Jude
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 58, No. 1 – Fall 2015
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
By Myron Bradley Penner. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. 192 pages. Paperback, $19.95.
Are modern methods of apologetics the correct method? This question is the focal issue of Myron Penner’s The End of Apologetics. Penner claims that apologetics, like philosophy, has been fragmented and fallen into disagreements due to the Christian community accepting the Enlightenment notion of independent and secure reasoning. This is why apologetics largely is unsuccessful both within and external to Christianity making it a curse in its current form. We are faced either with accepting Nietzsche and his nihilistic descent away from modernity, returning to Aristotle and his premodern use of reason, or going with Kierkegaard and his middle ground approach which affirms reason but rejects the modern notion of reason (6–12).
Following the Kierkegaardian approach, Penner proposes a new form of apologetics. Christianity is not some sort of positivism that can be believed only if it is rationally proven (44). According to Penner, reason always takes place within a perspective and a community; therefore, reason is not a neutral, universal vantage point. It cannot provide final truth or a firm ground for belief (53–55). Thus, modern apologetics is wrong because it grounds the faith on the individual and his use of reason rather than the revelation of God (58). Under the Kierkegaardian approach, faith is more about truly becoming/living than truly believing a set of propositions. Epistemology (is it true and justified?) is replaced with hermeneutics (is it intelligible and meaningful?). Hermeneutics starts with the revealed word of God, not human reason, applying the found meaning to the world that is encountered (66–70). Faith is not about possessing truth but about being possessed by truth; in finding the quality of life that the faith claims to deliver. If something edifies and builds up then it is true. This experience of the truth guides the believer allowing him to interpret his life fruitfully and meaningfully so that he has a more authentic understanding of himself (74–76, 110). Thus, the hermeneutical approach leaves one rooted more firmly in the community and in God than the reason approach.
As a result, apologetic witness is a kind of confession where people confess their faith and proclaim their beliefs inviting others to examine the confessor’s life and how it has been edified so that they may decide if the faith is true and will edify them (103). According to Penner, truth telling is agnostic. It is an uncertain process of attesting to our convictions and disclosing God through a performance that edifies and builds up (127). If a piece of communication is not edifying it is not the truth. Objective truths cannot be used to tear down others. Like speech actions, arguments are ethical entities with moral consequences (140–43). Rational coercion puts people in a position where they do not wish to be, and accepting beliefs they do not believe contributes to their alienating themselves. Christian witness that attempts to coerce one’s neighbor rationally demonstrates a lack of love for that neighbor (145–48). Christianity needs to return to an apologetics of witness and edification, not rational argumentation.
Penner makes two penetrating points. First, current apologetic methods can exalt human reason making the need for faith or the grace of God superfluous. We can figure it out on our own. Second, the witness of a Christian lifestyle is sorely lacking in the apologetic mindset. Current apologetics have a tendency towards coercive argumentation than speaking the truth in love. Penner is right to call Christian apologetics back from these failings.
However, Penner’s apologetic method is ultimately flawed in many ways. First, Penner is incorrect in his claim that reason is the perspective of a community. Rational truths, such as modus ponens or the law of non-contradiction, are not determined by the community. They are universally true. Second, Christianity is more than just a feeling of edification or a lifestyle. It requires one to assent to the propositional claims that Jesus is the incarnate Lord and the only means of salvation. One is not allowed to believe otherwise. Quality of life is a consequence of faith and obedience, not the source of it.
Third, reducing truth to edification is faulty. Edification can only be attested to by emotions and feelings, which are not valid grounds for truth. If it were, how would Christians respond to Buddhists who are edified by Buddhism or atheists who are not edified by Christianity? Would we not have reason to accept the claims of Buddhism or suspect the truth of Christianity? Fourth, the interests and desires of the individual are ultimately inconsequential to the truth of the gospel. The gospel cannot be sugar-coated or watered down so that the individual may find it acceptable to him. God’s call requires change in our lives, which is often unappealing and contrary to our interests.
Sixth, Penner’s position is ultimately incoherent. Penner asserts that the modern method of rational argumentation and proof must be abandoned as faulty. However, Penner’s entire book is a rational argument that claims to prove his position is correct. If Penner is not out to prove his position is rationally correct, then the modern method of apologetics is undefeated and may continue to be used. Thus, Penner’s position is superfluous. Whichever way Penner’s position turns, it defeats itself. As a result, Penner’s method of apologetics is inadequate.
