Apologetic Approaches
In my last post, Extreme Apologetic Approaches, I began to explore how much neutral ground Christians and non-Christians have. After reading more, I think putting Van Til as an extreme was incorrect. Chuck Beem’s comment really challenged me to explore this, and I found Colin Brown’s view of Van Til not wrong in as much as unbalanced. Van Til did believe a Christian apologist could, and should use extrabiblical evidence. I would like to explore two apologists, Francis Schaeffer and John Frame, who may provide better approaches than natural theology or Barth.
Much could be said (and has been said) about Francis Schaeffer, but I will limit myself to a few ideas of his. Francis Schaeffer believed that God and nature must not be divorced when discussing apologetics. He saw this as the problem with natural theology and supernaturalism. Natural theology holds to nature and seems to unduly elevate philosophy and reason. Furthermore, the God proven in this system of thought is quite impersonal. However the use of only the supernatural seems to deny God’s immanence (His closeness, interaction with, and presence in creation) and leaves no place to dialog with the nonbeliever. Schaeffer’s approach may be summarized as a series of hypotheses from the Bible, the observable world, and a sufficient explanation of the world. These hypotheses form Schaeffer’s Christian worldview.
Schaeffer believed God is necessary as a basis for morality, law, and truth, but common ground exists for the Christian and Non-Christian. The non-Christian will always have some flaw in their worldview. It may be that their worldview does not provide a sufficient explanation of a given issue, or it may be that the worldview flatly contradicts itself. This is because all truth is a part of God. Thus to try to explain the world without God is to argue without a basis for truth. Non-Christians can experience things like love and beauty, thanks to the common grace of God. Non-Christians also understand the tenets of logic. The non-Christian and the Christian can cheerfully dialogue on such topics, because of a shared understanding.
I have been reading John Frame’s book Apologetics to the Glory of God. In the area of neutrality, Frame argues that an apologist “may use extrabiblical data in apologetics, but not as independent criteria to which Scripture must measure up” (21). Furthermore, Frame says
“the use of extrascriptural evidence…may be seen as part of a godly use of Scripture itself. It is an obedient response to Scripture’s own view of the world. In Scripture’s teaching, nature points to God; so the obedient Christian apologist will show the unbeliever the various ways in which nature reveals God, without claiming neutrality and without allowing the use of non-Christian criteria of truth” (25).
Frame believes the apologist should argue from agreed upon presuppositions, but should not be limited by them. Frame believes that the non-Christian has a flawed view of nature.
To ask anyone to step outside of his or her worldview and defend their worldview is an impossibility. Would an empiricist ask a rationalist to empirically prove rationalism? The idea is absurd. I cannot step outside of my presuppositions, but I can focus on the presuppositions where a Christian worldview and another worldview agree. On of the foremost goals of any two distinct worldviews should be first to find commonality on which they can interact.
Suggested Reading:
Apologetics to the Glory of God by John Frame
The God Who is There by Francis Schaeffer
Posts
I was waiting for Schaeffer to pop up, because I have seen his name around here a few times. He was a great apologist because of his ability to use the Scripture like a giant microscope, slowly peeling away layer after layer of untruth of secular worldviews. I just read The God Who is There for the first time this summer, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
My wife made fun of me last Christmas when I asked for ‘How Should We Then Live’ on DVD, but hey, whata nerd wouldn’y love hours of Big Francis on the T.V.? His pants kill me.
I watched “How Should We Then Live” on DVD at the beginning of the summer. I only got half-way through before leaving for L’Abri, but I liked it for the most part. A lot of sentences he gives could be a thesis for a dissertation, but when I thought they tended to be accurate.
Josh,
I just commented on Brad’s most recent post. I touched on this in that comment, but I’m a Catholic who is interested in reading and discussing Schaeffer’ s (and others’) writings on “worldview.”
I don’t agree with everything that Schaeffer says in HSWTL, though I am enjoying reading it, and looking up information on the topics he discusses.
This will be an odyssey of sorts to explore and try to understand how these authors view the world and reflect on what they say. In the process, I would like to be able to grasp the exact difference between the Catholic and Protestant way of looking at life. I am of the opinion that both Catholics and Protestants have a Christian worldview. But at the same time Catholics and Protestants do not view the world in the same way. But I’m having trouble putting my finger on it. Obviously, Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura and sola fide and (most) Protestants don’t believe in the communion of the saints, transubstantiation etc. But there is more to it than that.
At this stage in the game, I am just trying to learn. As I reflect on Schaeffer et al., I will also reflect upon my own ideas (not that they are worlds apart), and perhaps bring some of them into better focus.
I wish that Protestants viewed Catholics as their separated brethren, but I know that many think the Pope is the antichrist, and the Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon” etc. So if anyone wants to have an opportunity to talk to a Catholic who has an open mind, here is your golden opportunity. I want to learn.
I would love to discuss these books and ideas with people who are interested them. I started a blog in hopes of creating a forum to discuss various issues of personal interest (worldview has become an interest in the past couple of weeks), but I’m just as happy to discuss the topic here on your blog.
Would you all be open to that? If not, do you reccomend any bloggers who would be interested in such a discussion?
Civis,
We would ABSOLUTELY be open to that. We all live in St. Louis, and as you may or may not know, it is a very Catholic city. We are always eager to learn about ANY worldview and certainly welcome your own.
Let us over here at COAS put our heads together and see if we can come up with some kind of format or topical approach that would do justice to your idea. I’m thinking it may be good to have one of us take the lead and present our collective worldview to maintain some semblance of coherence and intelligibility through the dialog…
Wheels are turnin’ bro… we will get back to you shortly!
Whatever format you guys think is good is fine with me. Like I said, I’m reading a list of books so it could follow the books. I do have a lot of random questions, so I would hope that would fit in.
I’m on a business trip for a couple of days, but I’ll be able to chat more in a couple days.
One question that is bugging me right now is that I don’t understand what Schaeffer is getting at with the “nature-grace” “problem”. More specifically, in what way did Aristotle and Aquinas fall victim to it? In theory I get what he is saying, but then when I consider his examples, I think maybe I missed the point.
I hope to wrap up HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE tonight and hope to start THE UNIVERSE NEXT DOOR tomorrow. I am still looking for the best title by Kuyper, so if you have a recommendation….. After TUND, I’ll do either THE GOD WHO IS THERE or HOW NOW SHOULD WE LIVE. After that I plan to read a book called BLAH BLAH BLAH. Don’t know if you’ve heard of that one.
“Let us over here at COAS put our heads together and see if we can come up with some kind of format or topical approach that would do justice to your idea. I’m thinking it may be good to have one of us take the lead and present our collective worldview to maintain some semblance of coherence and intelligibility through the dialog…”
What did you come up with?
Civis-
Make sure you get the most recent edition of “The Universe Next Door.” Sire recently revised his definition of “worldview,” and many new worldviews have arisen in the last 31 years! He has written a new book called “Naming the Elephant” because he changed his definition of worldview.
I have the 3rd Edition. Is that the most recent edition? I have heard the name Kuyper come up a few times. Do you what title by him deals with worldview?
Josh and Brad,
What did you come up with? Have you lost interest in discussing “worldview studies”?
Civis,
Absolutely not! I have been reading much of what you are writing on you website, and have been thinking a lot about some of the things you are writing on.
Particularly, I have been thinking about your argument leading up to the following culminating statement (on your blog):
“So, I am thinking, maybe these worldviews are merely a façade. Maybe they are a façade even for some who have a “biblical” worldview.”
I think that, would these statements by Schaeffer, Kuyper, and Sire be taken exclusively or in a vacuum, I would probably agree with you. But I feel like the inconsistencies you rightly notice between practice and theory can be easily reconciled with a “both/and” analysis. Noone has a 100% “pure worldview.” For example, my own worldview is made up up several different ones such as:
- Suburban American
- Christian
- Deist (not anymore, but the first 2 decades of my life)
- Male
- Husband
- The Son of Divorced Parents
- Resident of a fallen world
- Sinner
And that is just a few off the top of my head. Our subjective perception cannot be packaged neatly in a box. There are many that I am not even aware of that affect me, and other people’s worldviews are also constantly at work shaping and influencing my own. Conversely, worldviews I don’t hold to anymore have still shaped and affected me where I am today. It is impossible to categorize someone by just one worldview, or even several of them.
Schaeffer in particular, is not necessarily trying to define a person’s perspective, so much as he is trying to create a model with which to evaluate the impact of our unique and shaping experiences. Schaeffer LOVED culture, and he was successful in communicating the Christian faith because he understood how it fit the specific and general worldviews of people, as well as the image of God they bear as a mark of His creation.
In saying this, I have 2 questions for you:
1.) Do I understand your argument correctly? I want to make sure I am even answering the question/problem you are asking.
2.) Does this reconcile the disparagement and inconsistency that you very rightly point out?
Brad,
I guess I would say that I don’t have an argument/position. I haven’t made up my mind really. I’m just kind of pondering. “There is wisdom in the counsel of many,” so I’m trying to pick other people’s brains. My ponderings have kind of multiplied, and I think maybe things are starting to come into focus a little, but I’m still a long way from finding the answers I’m looking for. That’s why I’m asking so many questions. I think I’ll write a new post on “Politics Sex and Religion” and recap what I’m pondering, and let people know what I’m thinking.
I have a tendency to be overly enthusiastic and ask a lot of questions. I really identify with: 1) what C.S. Lewis said about how it is best to confront doubts and questions, lay them out on the examination table, make them is big and ugly as they can be 2) How (I’m told) Jewish families encourage children to ask questions, raise concerns, objections etc 3) The way St. Thomas Aquinas would ask a question, list every objections to the corrects answer that is out there, then go back and show the problem with each objection 4) Socratic dialogs. And I like to play the Devil’s advocate. I think this is a good way to learn. But I know not everyone likes this approach, and it makes some people defensive (not you gentlement, but some), so maybe I need to recap where I am and where I’m going. Also, maybe if I say what I think for a change rather than analyzing what Sire and Schaeffer say so much, it will get people talking more.
I’ll try to get the post up by mid-week. If you want I’ll copy and paste it here. I’m not trying to promote my blog, so I don’t really care if I talk about things on my blog or on someone else’s; I just want to talk about the stuff. On the other hand, you may find it irritating to talk about all of this on your blog—I don’t know. I can see how a person might be irritated if I am just copying and pasting comments from my blog onto theirs. I do copy and pates portions from time to time because I need to say basically the same thing in more than one place.
BTW, I was just telling someone else: I don’t do that much surfing of blogs, but if you write a post that you think I would be interested in or that you’d like me to comment on send me an e-mail or, better yet, post a comment on whatever is my latest post at the time (that way you can tell other people about it too) and tell me about it–it doesn’t matter to me if it has anything to do with whatever I’m posting on.
Just to share a little bit about myself and why I’m interested in talking about this stuff with you: I think American education is the pits. I’m finished with my formal education, but I have to be honest: I don’t have much of an education. Probably few of us have the education that the AVERAGE college graduate had a century ago. So I want to try to grow. The problem is that this is difficult without fellow travelers. It’s good to have people to bounce things off of, to get explanations and insights, to be critical of the insights I think I have found, or maybe to build on them and to learn from and build on other people’s insights. Best of all, talking about the things I am studying refreshes my brain and makes me eager to hit the books again.
You talked about your influences. Here are some of mine:
Like yours, my parents are divorced. That has a pretty big impact on a person. More than we realize. If you’re interested I can send you an interesting article on this topic, it is, IMHO, the absolute best argument for why people should not get divorced and why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.
Probably the single biggest influence on my life is the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible. In it’s simplest form, my philosophy of life can be summed up by that book especially the following passages: 1) “A man can do no better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his labor.” 2) “Fear God and keep the commandments for this is the whole duty of man.” 3) “It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other” 4) “He who watches the skies will never plant.”
Other things that have had a big impact (I would say “live changing events”):
ORTHODOXY by G.K. Chesterton
TILL WE HAVE FACES by C.S. Lewis
LEISURE THE BASIS OF CULTURE by Joseph Pieper
LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY by Pope John Paul II
WHY HUMANE VITAE WAS RIGHT edited by Janet Smith
NEIGHBOR ROSICKY by Willa Cather
Growing up during the Cold War (not a book, but an experience).
Civis,
“I haven’t made up my mind really. I’m just kind of pondering. ”
Gotcha. Even those of us who have should be open to pondering and changing minds, so I greatly identify with that.
“I have a tendency to be overly enthusiastic and ask a lot of questions.”
Brother, you are in GOOD company! We do not mind questions, ponderings, or anything else of the sort. That’s why we started this, so we appreciate all of the above!
“I’ll try to get the post up by mid-week. If you want I’ll copy and paste it here.”
Once you have it written, send me an email (go to the “contact us” page at the top) with the post, and I will post it on here for discussion. Then we can all weigh in on it and build on your foundation. Sound good?
“I think American education is the pits.” - Ditto. Google “St. Louis City Public School System” sometime. It will probably only depress you though.
Dude, we’re all excited to continue this awesome discussion. With your next post/review post, we will start a foundation to work from, and start off a little more organized. I’m looking forward to it!
Civis-
I just finished “Naming the Elephant” by Sire (its his redefinition of worldview). It was great, and I would highly recommend it to you. It deals in part with the question: “why study worldview at all?” I think one of his best answers is the simplest. Everyone has a worldview, whether it is right or wrong, consistent or inconstant. By studying worldview we are able to evaluate and critique our own worldview.
This does not mean that worldview thinking must be relativistic. In fact Sire argues that if worldview thinking were relativistic he would be opposed to it.
Anyway, I feel that I have a good understanding of what a worldview is from that book, and I am now ready to explore various worldviews. I will be starting “Universe Next Door” this week. I look forward to talking with you about it.
Civis-
Ecclesiastes was how I really started exploring thought. It is one of my favorite books in the Bible. I have struggled with Nihilism and this book has been a great place of encouragement that tells me that without God we must conclude life is meaningless (hence the term “under the sun” used by Solomon). But I love the last paragraph of the book:
“The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.”
I think we have a lot in common, and keep asking those good questions. I just want to make sure I take time to think about them so that I don’t respond in ignorance.
Brad,
That sounds good. I’ll send it to you via e-mail. Ditto RE “excited to continue this awesome discussion.”
Josh,
RE: Ecclesiastes
You can look at my Bible from across the street and see where Ecclesiastes is, because it’s worn our, crinkled and brown from dirt that has rubbed off my fingers. That book really keeps me grounded. I remebered another passage that sums up my philosophy of life: “What is crooked cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted.” We can’t make this world perfect. Under this thought I have two little mottoes (I wish I had made them up, but I didn’t): “God does not call me to be successful; he calls me to be faithful” and “What you cannot make perfect make as little imperfect as possible.” The last one may require some explanation. Since you all are seminarians (right?), I’ll use the local church as an example. The local church, being made up of human beings will be imperfect. You can only take them so far. Let’s say, given the society we live in and the people involved, the local church has the potential to improve 20%. It is better to move the ball forward 20% than to try to make the church perfect, frustrate everyone, and make no progress whatsoever.
I would be interested in hearing more about where you have come from RE Nihilism.
RE: “I just want to make sure I take time to think about them so that I don’t respond in ignorance.”
Maybe you need to fire questions at me and keep me busy so I don’t have so much time to come up with questions! Ha. I probably should think more and talk less—more organization and less stream of consciousness. I guess I have had it in my head that I’ll try to be more precise when it comes to conclusions, but as far as the discussion goes, I’d rather put a thought out there and have it shot down and learn something. That’s in keeping with my temperament/ personality. It has advantages and disadvantages, but your way is probably the better way, particularly in light of your profession: people will look to you for answers, wisdom, guidance, stability etc. It might undermine their confidence in you if you were all over the place like I am.
As I said on PSR:
Guess I’ll have to add NAMING THE ELEPHANT to my list! It sounds like my study would be incomplete without it and you have piqued my interest.
I’m glad someone will be reading NTE and THE UNIVERSE NEXT DOOR at roughly the same time as I.
What do you mean by “This does not mean that worldview thinking must be relativistic.”
Ditto on looking forward to discussing WV.