Some folks in Emergent church could be "anti-apologetic"...
That was how a RZIM speaker described it when I asked her opinion. (which says a lot considering the fact that her job IS an apologist!)
While that comment is not entirely groundless, folks like Dan Kimball do see apologetics as useful *WHEN OUR FRIENDS ASK*
Apologetics should NOT be used with the motive to prove people wrong, as bullets to shoot down people, like "we are lawyers in an episode of Law & order".
It's a really fantastic article I'd recommend... Though the same virtues Kimball sees as needed modifications to reach a post-Christian generation I pick up from an ALPHA course
(Minus the Holy Spirit weekend and spiritual warfare parts, Nicky Gumbel stands very much alongside Josh McDowell)
And I do chuckle at the idea of 'flipping out the 4 spiritual laws' now... And sometimes i felt that McDowell's arguments back in the 80's could be greatly improved... but overall, he and 4SL have served their generation well.
A few comments on Dan's article though...
1) Josh McDowell first warned me the danger of "win the argument but lose the soul" ages before I even heard of 'postmodernism'
2) It's wrong to use knowledge in a proud, belittling, narrow-minded way. But being ready with an 'answer' is a good thing. As a 'hired gun', I know that kids today ask the darnest thing. The problem is how you use the 'answers', not the answers.
(A friend asked why the universe can't go on an infinite regress while eating "paper wrapped chicken" in Sri Kembangan... Boy, am I glad to be prepared!)
3) Are 'people like Josh' Mr.Know-It-Alls? I absolutely love small paperbacks that tackle big topics esp. RC Sproul's booklet "Reasons to Believe".
Not because they tell you everything, but they give beginners something to work with. Btw Sproul's answer to the chapter on origin of evil - "I dunno".
We should not be afraid of bona fide mysteries. But we should not use "It's a mystery" as a softpillow answer that covers a multitude of ignorance.
While all illogical nonsense are mysterious, not all mysteries are nonsensical. Apologists 'like Josh' want us to know the difference.
4) We'd not dream of 'protecting' the sovereignty of God... He needs no protection from us.
But His flock - people, who under God, have no protection against tricky heresies need gifted teachers like Saint Paul. Augustine. Anselm. Athanasius. Justin Martyr. Aquinas.
So I dun get freaked out by what Kimball called "absolute truth sensationalism"... Postmodernism may be complex, but "relativistic sensationalism" is surely ONE area that needs to be addressed by EC with equal zeal.
5) Do people still flock to hear some debate on the faith? Yes. People dun wanna hear a one-sided 'preachy' story. They like the sense of fairplay in a two-way debate.
Also, in Malaysia, Christians are not known as intellectual bullies who shoot down people. We are more famous for being the whipping boys who get shot down, see?
So if McLaren or Moreland could turn the tables, we can easily pack the biggest hall in University Islam Antarabangsa with a debate.
People will make a bee-line to ask you, "Which day was Jesus resurrected? Is God one or three? How can God become man? etc"
In that context, we'd better not say, "I dunno. It's a mystery" more than 5 times.
It may not be the best method to reach out. But it sure is better than booking Stadium Merdeka for Carlos Annacondia or Benny Hinn.
That was how a RZIM speaker described it when I asked her opinion. (which says a lot considering the fact that her job IS an apologist!)
While that comment is not entirely groundless, folks like Dan Kimball do see apologetics as useful *WHEN OUR FRIENDS ASK*
Apologetics should NOT be used with the motive to prove people wrong, as bullets to shoot down people, like "we are lawyers in an episode of Law & order".
It's a really fantastic article I'd recommend... Though the same virtues Kimball sees as needed modifications to reach a post-Christian generation I pick up from an ALPHA course
(Minus the Holy Spirit weekend and spiritual warfare parts, Nicky Gumbel stands very much alongside Josh McDowell)
And I do chuckle at the idea of 'flipping out the 4 spiritual laws' now... And sometimes i felt that McDowell's arguments back in the 80's could be greatly improved... but overall, he and 4SL have served their generation well.
A few comments on Dan's article though...
1) Josh McDowell first warned me the danger of "win the argument but lose the soul" ages before I even heard of 'postmodernism'
2) It's wrong to use knowledge in a proud, belittling, narrow-minded way. But being ready with an 'answer' is a good thing. As a 'hired gun', I know that kids today ask the darnest thing. The problem is how you use the 'answers', not the answers.
(A friend asked why the universe can't go on an infinite regress while eating "paper wrapped chicken" in Sri Kembangan... Boy, am I glad to be prepared!)
3) Are 'people like Josh' Mr.Know-It-Alls? I absolutely love small paperbacks that tackle big topics esp. RC Sproul's booklet "Reasons to Believe".
Not because they tell you everything, but they give beginners something to work with. Btw Sproul's answer to the chapter on origin of evil - "I dunno".
We should not be afraid of bona fide mysteries. But we should not use "It's a mystery" as a softpillow answer that covers a multitude of ignorance.
While all illogical nonsense are mysterious, not all mysteries are nonsensical. Apologists 'like Josh' want us to know the difference.
4) We'd not dream of 'protecting' the sovereignty of God... He needs no protection from us.
But His flock - people, who under God, have no protection against tricky heresies need gifted teachers like Saint Paul. Augustine. Anselm. Athanasius. Justin Martyr. Aquinas.
So I dun get freaked out by what Kimball called "absolute truth sensationalism"... Postmodernism may be complex, but "relativistic sensationalism" is surely ONE area that needs to be addressed by EC with equal zeal.
5) Do people still flock to hear some debate on the faith? Yes. People dun wanna hear a one-sided 'preachy' story. They like the sense of fairplay in a two-way debate.
Also, in Malaysia, Christians are not known as intellectual bullies who shoot down people. We are more famous for being the whipping boys who get shot down, see?
So if McLaren or Moreland could turn the tables, we can easily pack the biggest hall in University Islam Antarabangsa with a debate.
People will make a bee-line to ask you, "Which day was Jesus resurrected? Is God one or three? How can God become man? etc"
In that context, we'd better not say, "I dunno. It's a mystery" more than 5 times.
It may not be the best method to reach out. But it sure is better than booking Stadium Merdeka for Carlos Annacondia or Benny Hinn.
Comments
Do people still flock to hear some debate on the faith? Yes. People dun wanna hear a one-sided 'preachy' story. They like the sense of fairplay in a two-way debate.
That was the kind of feedback my cousin sis gave after the da vinci code forum. No matter how convincing the arguments, she still wants to hear from the other side to be more satisfied.
It may not be the best method to reach out. But it sure is better than booking Stadium Merdeka for Carlos Annacondia or Benny Hinn.
AMEN. And i'm still looking out for McDowell vs Deedat's debates.
The problem with having an opponent on DVC though, is the fact that even folks like Pagels, Karen King, Dominic CROSSAN think it's nonsense hehehehe....
So it'd gonna be quite a challenge to find someone credible to defend Dan Brown in public! hahaha....
The CDs are out... hehehe... Mari, Mari, mari... Da Vinci Code II sudah keluar, clear punya... Before the first movie comes out, the sequel is out in the market!
1. I think Brian McLaren's "Finding Faith" is a good "apologetic" book for our times. I still think many are tempted to super-impose their "frameworks" on people whom operate within the "emergent" conversation and assume and presume too much.
2. Reading 1 Peter 3:8-22 in context (where a key verse 3:15 .. giving defense (NRSV) is mentioned) reminded me to convey a closer connection between what I call the "apologetic of words" with "apologetics of suffering" and "apologetics of good works". And even 3:16 already immediately mentions "gentleness" and "reverance". Of course, behind my mind is what Newbigin calles the "apologetic of community" - the church!
3. In line with discordant dude, I agree that people want to hear at least two sides or even three sides of the reasoning. I'd like to add introducing one or two extra perspectives would also help ... e.g. even in the DVC novel, apart from the so called pseudo-historical research and claims there's also the reality of the financial gain in the publishing industry and the sociological climate of our times.
4. As for booking stadiums ... hmmm... that;s another story.
I've given away McLaren's book to two friends so far as a practitioner's experiment... but I get more reaction (positive and negative) when they read Mere Christianity, Case for Christ or Left Behind! Sigh...
IMHO, the emergent conversation is still 'undefined' or fuzzy... it's a network of so diverse a group that when people like Carson throws a stone, he can't possibly hit EVERYBODY ... (so complaints that he didn't really understand them)
But I'd like to add: Precisely bcos EC is so fuzzy, when carson throws a stone, he's bound to HIT SOMEBODY... hehehe...
For me, the different apologetics collapse to this - *being* an ambassador for Christ in all of life. As I mention to Yew Khuen this morning, I'm all for constructing 'plausibility structures' for faith... Let's go about doing it! (enuff complaints about existing forms of churches)
If we read 1 Peter 3:15-16
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But DO THIS with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Gentleness and respect is the attitude we should have in 'doing this' - giving a reason for the hope that we have.
So unless God needs a reason for the hope that we have, I think this refers to giving a reason for those who ask! hehehe...
Elemental, Mr Watson...