City to City Blog

How the Gospel Changes our Apologetics, Part 2

24 Jul 2012 by Tim Keller

In my last post, I made an argument for why we still need apologetics. Believing has both a head and a heart aspect, so while some non-Christians will need more help with one than the other, we can’t ignore either one.

So what can we say when we are called upon to present the reasons why we believe?

First, I try to show that it takes faith to doubt Christianity, because any worldview (including secularism or skepticism) is based on assumptions. For example, the person who says, “I can only believe in something if it can be rationally or empirically proven” must realize that that in itself is a statement of faith. This “verification principle” cannot actually be proven rationally or empirically, making it an assertion or a claim, not an argument. Furthermore, there are all sorts of things you can’t prove rationally or empirically. You can’t prove to me that you’re not really a butterfly dreaming you’re a person. (Haven’t you seen The Matrix?) You can't prove most of the things you believe, so at least recognize that you have faith.

I normally make this point by considering an objection to Christianity, to show that at the heart of it is some sort of faith assumption. Let’s take the example of suffering; someone will say, “I can’t believe in God, because how could a good God allow such suffering?”

Put another way, they are saying, “I know for a fact that there can’t be any good reason that a good God would allow this specific thing to happen.” Really? There could be all sorts of good reasons why God allowed something to happen that caused suffering, despite our inability to think of them. If you’ve got an infinite God big enough to be mad at for the suffering in the world, then you also have an infinite God big enough to have reasons for it that you can’t think of.

You have to show people that it takes faith to doubt Christianity. C. S. Lewis’ pre-conversion argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But then he asked himself, “But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?  …Atheism turns out to be too simple” (Mere Christianity, Book 2, Part 1). In the natural world the strong eat the weak, and there’s nothing wrong with violence. Where do you get the standard that says the human world shouldn't work like that, that says the natural world is wrong? You can only judge suffering as wrong if you’re using a standard higher than this world, a supernatural standard. If there’s no God, you have no reason to be upset at the suffering in this world. That’s just the way it is. It takes faith to get mad at this world.

You see, a gospel-shaped apologetic starts not with telling people what to believe, but by showing them their real problem. In this case we are showing secular people that they have less warrant for their faith assumptions than we do for ours. We need to show that it takes faith even to doubt.

British critic and former atheist A.N. Wilson wrote about losing his faith as a young man, influenced by British intellectual society, which had all but accepted that only stupid people actually believe in Christianity. "As a matter of fact however,” he argues, “it is materialist atheism that is not merely an arid creed but totally irrational. Materialist atheism says we are just a collection of chemicals, and it has no answer whatsoever to the question of how we should be capable of love, or heroism, or poetry if we are simply animated pieces of meat.”

A campus evangelist I once heard during the Vietnam protests pushed atheist students to recognize the clash between their moral relativism in regards to sex, and their moral absolutism with regards to international genocide. They had no answers.  If there’s no God, everything is permitted. Without God we’re left with no basis for all that is most important to our lives: human dignity, compassion, justice. We have a problem.

Which brings us to the final point, the solution to our problem. At some point you need tell the Christian story in a way that addresses the things that people most want for their own lives, the things that they are trying to find outside of Christianity, and show how Christianity can give it to them. Alasdair MacIntyre said this about narratival apologetics: “That narrative prevails over its rivals which is able to include its rivals within it, not only to retell their stories as episodes within its story, but to tell the story of the telling of their stories as such episodes.” Read that sentence again.

There is a way of telling the gospel that makes people say, “I don’t believe it’s true, but I wish it were.” You have to get to the beauty of it, and then go back to the reasons for it. Only then, when you show that it takes more faith to doubt it than to believe it; when the things you see out there in the world are better explained by the Christian account of things than the secular account of things; and when they experience a community in which they actually do see Christianity embodied, in healthy Christian lives and solid Christian community, that many will believe.

Comments
25 Jul 2012

by graham_s

Wow, the quote by Alasdair MacIntyre is amazing. A profound challenge to all Christian's, urging them to examine if they actually understand the stories of those to whom they want to witness the gospel. We may have libraries on how to exegete scripture but what use are they if we cannot listen and learn the stories of our neighbours in order to show them how their life makes sense when seen in the light of the gospel. Does anyone have any recommended reading on Alasdair MacIntyre and or narratival apologetics?

26 Jul 2012

by benjamin

Tim - Excellent post as always! You mention using the things they are searching for in life to show how the Gospel addresses these needs. Would you say there is a place for creating new categories of need they didn't realize they had as we share the Gospel with them and what place does this have in relation to addressing felt needs? For example, a modern secular relativist who is seeking for meaningful relationships in life might easily be attracted by the idea of God's unconditional love, but have no "felt need" for forgiveness of sin since he denies the existence of that category. Would it be best to stick with presenting the Gospel in light of his felt needs or take the time to create that category of sin/forgiveness in his understanding to present the Gospel as the solution? Should one be approached through the other, such as first presenting Christ as the only true Lover and then sin/forgiveness as functions of relational trust and reconciliation? @graham_s - If by narritival apologetics you mean pre-suppositionalist, you could always check out Van Til, though I personally find Newbigin to present the ideas in a way that is more compelling. If you're looking for something to further explain the false facts/faith dichotomy that western society has bought into wholesale, check out Newbigin's "Proper Confidence". He does a very thorough job in tracing the history of this false dichotomy and then deconstructing it.

29 Jul 2012

by Peter Leavitt

Graham, MacIntyre's After Virtue is an excellent read. Personally, premising one's religion or fundamental world view on some sort of "narrative" seems weak. The best approach is to make the impressive biblical case for both the incarnation and resurrection. Further, following Lewis, that Jesus was either a madman or for real places the unbeliever in a position of having to make the case that He was a madman.

02 Aug 2012

by workman

As in Tim's article above, the "kindness instinct"and the "justice instinct" are often cited as clues to inherent moral standards that can only come from the divine. However, this may simply be evidence that we've evolved differently from the rest of the animal kingdom. When people practice kindness and unselfishness, they tend to be healthier in both mind and body; societies flourish, and therefore the survival of the species is better assured. If this is the case, 'Good' and 'Evil' can only be defined in terms of whatever does or doesn't contribute to the survival of the species. "Kindness" should become the goal of this stage of our evolutionary development, since it most promotes the species. "Justice" or 'force' are also needed, otherwise the "kind" ones just get eaten up. If the above points are true, then the principles of Christianity (Kindness and Justice) represent, in fact, the pinnacle of evolutionary development. However, these principles only work properly when you worship God. Because if my life ultimately revolves around me, then selfishness will always in some degree infect my attempts at kindness and justice. But if my life revolves around another (the God of the Bible) then the selfishness element is removed, and love can be properly experienced, balanced and expressed.