An Apology for Apologetics

Communication is hard—for many reasons, one being that the same word sometimes has quite different meanings. Apology is one such word, and I invite you to think with me a bit about the meaning, and value, of apology and apologetics.

My Lifelong Interest in Apologetics

An apology often means an expression of regret or remorse for something a person has said or done. But there is another, technical meaning of that same word. Apology can also be legitimately used to mean the verbal or written defense of one’s basic beliefs.

There is a long history of apology being used in the latter sense with regards to the Christian faith, beginning with these New Testament words: “Always be ready to make your defense [ἀπολογίαν, apologian] to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

One of the important Christian books of the second century CE is First Apology of Justin Martyr (c.156), and his Second Apology was written shortly after the first one.

As a third-year college student, I became deeply interested in Christian apologetics, the religious discipline of defending Christian beliefs through rational discourse.

Philosophers/theologians such as Pascal and Kierkegaard were the Christian “apologists” I was most interested in at first and through graduate school, although I also read and wrote papers by lesser-known thinkers such as German theologian Karl Heim and Hungarian philosopher Michael Polanyi.**

A Good Book on Apologetics

This article was prompted by my recent reading of Randal Rauser’s 2020 book, Conversations with My Inner Atheist: A Christian Apologist Explores Questions that Keep People Up at Night.

Rather than writing more about that book in this article, I invite you to see here for a brief review of that intriguing work by Rauser (b. 1973), a Canadian Baptist seminary professor. 

A Different Type of Apologetics

Even though I maintained my initial interest in apologetics, long ago I began to shift my emphasis from apologetics by rational argument to what I sometimes refer to as “apology by life.”^##

That shift was prompted by my growing awareness that the main reason so many Japanese students in my classes at Seinan Gakuin University rejected Christianity was not because of intellectual issues but because of ethical problems.

The bulk of the students in my Christian Studies classes did not have as much problem, I gradually began to see, with Christian doctrines as with Christian actions.

Rejection of Christianity was based far more on what they had learned in high school world history classes about the Crusades, for example, or what they had seen on television about racism in the United States, which they generally thought was a “Christian nation.”

With that awareness, I began to read and think less about traditional apologetics and more and more about Christian social ethics. Thus, I began thinking more about apology by life rather than apology by rational discourse.

Rauser hardly deals with this matter in his book, although the 20^th chapter begins with Mia saying, “It’s often been said that the biggest objection to Christianity is the life of Christians.” That is probably true.

Although I was unable to find the source, I have often heard these or similar words that Nietzsche reportedly said to Christians: “Show me that you are redeemed, and I will believe in your Redeemer.”

For a long time now, Christians have needed to say less about their beliefs and to act much more deliberately and lovingly for peace and justice, that is, for the basic well-being of all people.

_____

** My last essay published by The Seinan Theological Review in Japan was in March 2004, and it was largely on the thought of Karl Heim. It is available for viewing/reading here.

^## In footnote 16 of the above article, I wrote, “I have long wanted to write an essay on ‘Apology by Life.’ Apologetics has long been one of my strongest interests, but long ago I realized that the best apologetics may well be done by loving action rather than by words.”

Disclosure: The review I wrote of Rauser’s book and my mentioning of Rauser and his book in this blog article is partly because of receiving the book for review from Mike Morrell and his Speakeasy book review network.

Do Preachers Promise Too Much?

In the last few years, Fred Heeren has become a good friend of mine, although we don’t spend a lot of time together. When we do have time to talk, though--as we did during lunch after church on April 28--we always have interesting, meaningful talks. This article was sparked by a comment Fred made during that 4/28 lunchtime chat.

Introducing Fred

Fred grew up in and initially embraced the theology of conservative evangelical churches--just as I did. Perhaps he was in that camp for a little longer than I was, but he and I have both grown into a much broader understanding of God and of what it means to be a Christian in the contemporary world.

Fred is especially interested in the relationship between belief in God and science. On his website, he introduces himself as a science journalist. He is currently working hard on another book about science and religion. The revised edition of his Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God was published in 2004.

Fred is the president of Day Star Ministries (see here), whose first purpose is “Breaking down barriers — especially those that keep un-churched people and the gospel message apart.”

That clear concern for Christian apologetics is one reason Fred and I have enjoyed having deep discussions, for that has been a life-long concern of mine.

Quoting Fred

As we were talking on April 28, Fred said, “You know, I think sometimes we promise too much.”

When I wrote him an email asking about that comment, Fred responded, “Seems to me there’s a great gap between what most preachers (and Sunday School teachers) lead us to expect and what the Christian life actually entails. Some of my friends became atheists when their prayers seemed ineffective.”

Fred’s statement is an accurate one, I think.  

The main promise is of eternal life, of course--and that is surely a legitimate promise. But what about the promise of “health and wealth” in the world now? What about the “name it and claim it” emphasis of some churches, which has spawned the growth of “prosperity gospel” churches in this country and especially in Africa and South America?

Sharing Fred’s Concerns 

Promising health, wealth, and happiness is, quite surely, one reason for the flourishing of many conservative evangelical and/or Pentecostal churches. But those promises have also caused many people to leave not just those churches but Christianity altogether.

It is easy to measure the attendance or membership of large, thriving churches. It is not so easy to ascertain the number of people who have ceased attending and who have no connection to those churches even though their names may still be on the church membership rolls.

Fred is the main leader of a “Meetup” group known as “Provocateurs and Peacemakers.” The vast majority of those who attend their regular meetings are now agnostics or atheists. Many of them, though, grew up attending church services and hearing sermons regularly.

Many of them, also, likely felt a problem when heartfelt prayers were not answered. Some were likely told they didn’t have enough faith. For various reasons they experienced doubt and disillusionment--and then departure from the church.

In this connection, I recommend reading “If you’re sad about Rachel Held Evans (and other un-answered prayers),” a recent article by Mike Morrell (and found here).

Mike quotes a friend, who wrote after Rachel’s death: “. . . whatever faith I had left in prayer is gone. She had so many people praying for her. What’s the f#$%ing [sic] point?”

Mike’s friend, as well as many of Fred’s friends, likely heard preachers, and other Christians, who promised too much.

In Praise of Pascal

Many years ago I made a list of the top ten modern (since 1500) theologians and/or philosophers by whom my thinking had been most influenced. The first name on that chronological list was, and remains, Blaise Pascal. That French genius, who died 355 years ago in 1662, was a man whose ideas are certainly praiseworthy still.

Pascal’s Precocity 

There is no question that Pascal (b. 1623) was a precocious child. He reputedly discovered for himself the first 32 of Euclid’s propositions while still a boy, and as a teenager he invented the first calculating machine.

In his twenties, Pascal confirmed the existence of the vacuum and instigated the development of calculus. His expertise as a physicist is such that “pascal” became the name for “a unit of pressure in the meter-kilogram-second system equivalent to one newton per square meter.”

Later, “Pascal” became the name for “a structured computer programming language developed from Algol and designed to process both numerical and textual data.”

There is no question that Pascal from an early age excelled as a mathematician, physicist, and inventor. However, it is because of his deep religious experience and then because of his keen thinking as a Christian philosopher that I find him most worthy of praise.

Pascal’s Profundity 

Pascal’s great contribution as a Christian thinker came after a profound religious experience in November 1654, when he was 31 years old. At that time he wrote, and then carried with him until the time of his death, the following testimony of that mystic experience:

Fire!
"God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob," not of philosophers and scholars.
Certainty, certainty, heartfelt, joy, peace.
God of Jesus Christ. . . .
Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.

Following that “night of fire,” Pascal abandoned his pursuit of science until just before his death and decided to write a book for the vindication of the Christian faith. But, alas, he died at the young age of 39 before the book was published and even before his copious notes were organized.   

By 1670, though, Pascal’s thoughts were published, without much organization, under the name Pensées—and the book is still published in various translations and editions, including more than one on Kindle. 

While some of Blaise’s thoughts may seem a little blasé, many are quite profound. Of particular import are these contentions:

The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing: . . . (423)

It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason. (424)

(Pascal’s quoted words are all from A.J. Krailsheimer’s 1966 translation of Pensées.) 

Pascal’s Paradoxicality  

It is particularly Pascal’s dual emphasis on opposites that I have found most helpful. For example, concerning reason: 

If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous. (273)

Pascal’s paradoxical view of human nature is of great significance. “Man is only a reed, but he is a thinking reed.” (200)

He repeatedly wrote about both the wretchedness and the greatness of humans.

Pascal also averred, “There are only two kinds of men: the righteous who think they are sinners and the sinners who think they are righteous.” (562)

Wikipedia interestingly, and correctly, summarizes Pascal’s paradoxicality in these words: “In the Pensées, Pascal surveys several philosophical paradoxes: infinity and nothing, faith and reason, soul and matter, death and life, meaning and vanity—seemingly arriving at no definitive conclusions besides humility, ignorance, and grace.”

Many of Pascal’s “thoughts” are praiseworthy and unquestionably worth thinking about—perhaps especially in the present day.