«
»

whose apologetics?

This has been on my mind for a couple weeks now, it was something that Becky and I talked about during one of our somewhat famous Taco Mac conversations (ok, they’re really not that famous, but we love them anyways, if anyone ever wants to join in just tell us, seriously, we’re starved for good conversation at times). We were talking about the upcoming “Truth Project” thing, as well as the previous apologetics lesson we had sat through, and she interposed something that severely bothered me (she has a tendency to do such things).

She stated, essentially, that to grasp a “true” apologetics course, then all sides should be discussed. I think we, at the time, were mostly discussing evolution, so this has some pretty deep ramifications. It would require those hosting said forum on apologetics acknowledge both sides of the argument, at least in their core, legitimate, which either side seems loathe to do.

We were not addressing, by the way, the issue of an atheistic perspective of evolution, but a wholly God inspired vision of evolution.

The question in my mind remains, is it really possible any sort of apologetics forum to host both sides of this particular issue? Would there be any church willing to legitimate both sides of the argument?

** This will seem kind of disjointed, but I began writing this two days ago, and after thinking about it, I’ve picked it back up. **

After giving it some time, I don’t really think it’s possible to really do this sort of things, at least in the normal church setting. I think within a smaller grouping context, IE a cohort, or house church, then such discussion would be possible, but I would seriously doubt both the willingness of any institutionalized church to do so, or the ability even if the desire was there.

So my question is then, would there be any benefit to this sort of thing? I’m really curious as to everyone’s thoughts on apologetics, so lets have it out.

email2friend

This entry was posted Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm and is filed under Bible, apologetics, church, conversation. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Ah, good man. Did you read The God Delusion? I'm wanting to pick it up eventually, but I've got so much on my plate right now, I don't know when I could get to it. Another blogger, Andrew Martin (www.late-emerger.blogspot.com) did read through it and posted a few thoughts, if you want to check those out.

    I likely would have enjoyed said theological discussion groups quite a lot. Next time you have one, shoot me an e-mail.
  • kyle robinson
    Man, I find it utterly bamboozling that young-earth creationist stuff is passed off as "apologetics," because quite frankly it's pseudoscience and does discredit to real scholars/apologists such as William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, etc., etc... people waste so much time and money learning about how "the earth is only 6,000 years old" when they could be learning about why The God Delusion's arguments are complete bunk, which is far more practical. Personally I find apologetics extremely important, albeit ignored by most churches these days. It's probably my main area of interest in Christianity-related reading.

    You're totally right on the importance of discussing all sides. I don't think there's anything wrong with favoring a certain side, but you have to show the others as well and why yours is right and the other isn't, preferably in a non-strawman generating way. Not always an easy task. Last fall my friend Kenny Haynie and I had several "theological discussion groups" and Starbucks and stuff, where both Christian and non-Christian friends sat around and talked about these sorts of issues. You probably would have enjoyed it. But yeah, most Christians don't seem like they're really interested in this stuff.
  • Veronica
    On Tuesday, May 6 there will be an Areopagus Forum at Mt. Bethel. They will be reviewing the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. There will be a panel discussion and open Q&A. I think thats about as close as you can get to both sides of the issue in a main stream church.
  • Grampa
    There you go! Walk to the game! It was so simple you didn't see it!
  • Jeez, that's tempting, but a bit unfeasible for, I'm saving up my vacation time for an Appalachian trail trip.
  • Grampa
    That game IS in Chicago. And if you want to go, your welcome? I buy everything except for transportation. Your food, your room, and the game? Your call?
    Prescott
    P.S. The real home of baseball with a real team. ?????????? Your call??????
  • Prescott, Preston, these pseudo names are confusing. We're in for a game if you'll have us! But, I was asking if you're gonna get to go to the gum field when y'all are in Chicago.

    You'll have to forgive Andrew, he doesn't understand the game of baseball, poor soul. :)
  • Grampa
    We are indeed! We are trying currently to secure tickets to the Dodgers game on 5/26. If I buy two I can buy four! Be there or be square? Who's Preston?
    signed,
    Prescott
    P.S. What was that other guy talking about? I could find no historical reference to baseball in the whole response? Un less "the God Delusion" a reference to Barry Bonds?
  • Preston/ Gramps- Both Chi-town teams are runnin hot, are you guys going to any games this year over there?

    Andrew- Sorry, I realize how stinkin' disjointed that post really was. An embarrassment to be sure.

    Yeah, I was basically wondering about the feasibility of a church allowing both sides of a point to be discussed and shown. While I likewise disdain the Young Earth theory, I think it deserves a fair shake when creation is being discussed. (And I mean creation in the generalized creation of the world, IE evolution or I.D.)

    You're thought on seeding unhelpful doubts has been bugging me as well, I have a post in the works about it already, so I won't say much here. I do agree that some sensitivity needs to be taken with the issues, but I feel like a more scholastic approach (both sides presented) should be given.
  • eh? what? I confess to being confused.

    In an academic setting, one should always thoroughly understand a point of view before criticizing it. Indeed, it's not uncommon to set students the task of defending a position they themselves disagree with. Insofar as apologetics is an academic kind of activity, I'd expect the same to be true. I could, for example, argue the AiG position on evolution, I think (but only if my life depended on it :-) ).

    I wouldn't, on the other hand, recommend someone new to the church and not well-educated to read "The God Delusion", though I think that anyone ready to think deeply about their faith should indeed encounter such ideas.

    Should that kind of even-handedness happen in the church? Well, that's where it gets interesting: on the one hand, yes; it's all about seeking after truth, and it's better to encounter destructive/disturbing arguments in a supportive environment than an adversarial one. On the other, we run the risk of seeding unhelpful doubts in the minds of some who cannot cope and would never have thought of those issues before. In an ideal world, the latter would not be a problem, but realistically, the one introducing the alternative sides will not necessarily do so perfectly, and the hearers will not necessarily receive them objectively and logically. So some pastoral sensitivity is needed in deciding where to explore such topics.

    I that the sort of thing you were talking about?
  • Grampa
    Apologetics; systematic argumentative discourse in defense { as of a doctrine }. Ok, I'm ready! What about those Cubs!
    Signed,
    Prescott.
blog comments powered by Disqus
ramblings-theology-my thoughts