Peter Enns and Concerns About Apologetics
I came across an interesting blog post titled “the best defense of the Christian faith is…” written by Peter Enns. I both agreed and disagreed with what he said.
I strongly agree with Enns when he talks about apologetics including how we treat others, a view towards our global community and an understanding of our focus on non-members. No problems there.
As I look to what I disagree with, I must make clear that Enns states this is his feeling toward Christian apologetics. Of course he has the right to his opinions and I can’t accuse him of having wrong feelings.
Having said that, there are the statements that stuck out for me. Enns states that Christian apologetics “presumes that the intellect is the primary place of engaging the truth of Christianity.” While some apologists may feel that way, there is nothing in the definition of Christian apologetics that requires that. Apologetics is simply the giving of the reason for the hope that is within us. Those reasons can include the intellect but are not limited to it. Certainly Francis Schaefer did his apologetics with a wider aim than what Enns describes.
Enns’ main argument seems to be concern about the relationship between belief and intellect. He argues that Christian apologetics puts intellect first when it should be belief and then intellect.
First, Christian apologetics is not limited to evangelism. Enns seems to see apologetics in the “argue them into heaven” model. For many, including myself, apologetics is just as much about discipleship as it is about evangelism. I often follow Enns’ order by helping people who already believe to become more confident in their faith.
But what about all those apologists who put forth apologetic arguments to people who have not yet believed? Is that so bad? There are so many people who seem interested in God, who look to be sincere seekers, but who are struggling with intellectual questions. I was an extreme skeptic in much of my spiritual journey and I wish I had encountered Christian apologetics (I did not even know it existed at the time). Such people deserve to have their questions answered. We can not dismiss their questions by telling them to just believe and we will work with the intellect later.
I don’t want to put words into Enns’ mouth (or blog) but he seems to be assuming that people outside the church are just looking for love and relationships. Many are but there are still others who struggle intellectually with the Christian faith. Christian apologetics exists for such as these.
I don’t claim that apologetics is the Church’s silver bullet. Christian apologetics is just one tool among many, but it is important nonetheless.
I agree with you Stephen.
Enns writes:
“I’ve never seen an argument for why Christianity is true that can’t be met by some alternative argument.”
If by this he means that an argument is invalidated, or at least weakened, by the mere presence of a counterargument, then that would put his own views in peril. He holds, one presumes, to his viewpoint on certain various OT issues on the basis of arguments that support his position. But other scholars have counterarguments to his arguments. Thus, by his reasoning, we, not to mention he, should have a dim view of his position based on the presence of these counterarguments.