Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World: Conference Report
On November 15-17, I had the wonderful opportunity to attend an apologetics conference in San Diego called “Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World.” Three days (two nights and a Saturday)… more outstanding scholars than you can shake a stick at… and an all-around great experience. Here’s my idiosyncratic walk through the 2007 Apologetics Conference.
Thursday, Nov. 15
Thursday night was a “kickoff event” with Lee Strobel, author of The Case for Christ, as the plenary speaker. His investigative-journalism approach to apologetics questions has made rational argument for the Christian faith accessible to and compelling for the average person. I have quite a bit in common with Strobel: like him, I had been an atheist (or agnostic if you caught me in a mellow state of mind) and had often been aggressively derogatory of Christians. And like him, I became a Christian when I became convinced that the Christian claim was objectively true, after doing a full-scale research project. (He was an investigative reporter, and I am an academic, but we have in common the ability to do research.)
One of the most interesting parts of Strobel’s presentation was his view of the future of apologetics going in the future. He sees apologetics becoming less intellectual and more story-driven; less about debate and more about dialogue; more focused on our lives as the first line of apologetics; and more based on local churches rather than para-church organizations.
On the idea of apologetics now being more effectively presented through personal stories rather than reasoned argument, I have two reactions. One is to note that the story approach was worse than useless for me personally: in my case, the intellectual approach was exactly what I needed. However, I have come to realize that I am atypical in many ways… and it that my own conversion story is something that God may be using for others’ benefit.
On the second and third points, I found myself nodding firmly in assent. Why did I want to have the “God conversation” in the first place? Because I had a Christian friend whose life was a stunning witness to something good. If this person, whom I respected and admired, and who was clearly a sharp, clear-minded, well-informed thinker, believed in the truth of Christianity… well, maybe, just maybe, there was something it that I’d missed. And when that conversation started, my friend respected my point of view and engaged in discussion, not argument. He didn’t try to “get me” or “win me over” or “trip me up,” but he challenged me to think things through.
More than just being interesting, though, Strobel’s presentation made me ask: What is the Lord calling me to do? He didn’t give me a new life for me to say “thanks, but no thanks” when it came to doing His work. He gave me gifts so that I could use them in His service… and more than anything else, I want to do that.
After the plenary session on Thursday night, we split up into breakout sessions. I went to JP Moreland’s talk on the “Argument from Consciousness.” That was an easy choice: Moreland’s contribution to the book Does God Exist? was hugely important in my conversion.
In his talk, Moreland developed some of the ideas he mentions in his (excellent) book Love Your God With All Your Mind, namely the idea of states of consciousness (sensation, thought, belief, desire, and volition) being separate and distinct from the physical state of the brain. Moreland’s argument is that consciousness provides an apologetic argument for a Creator: because mind cannot form from matter, there must have been an agent self prior to creation in order to create both matter and consciousness. Does this work as an apologetic? I think it does, but not quite in the way that Moreland was presenting it. Looking at it from my former atheistic perspective, the point that “the mind is not identical to the brain” doesn’t necessarily suggest a Creator. What it does is to be what Moreland calls a “recalcitrant fact”: consciousness is not adequately explainable by naturalistic theories, thus helping to show that naturalism is not a completely consistent and workable worldview. The question then becomes, what other worldview explains the facts consistently and more effectively? That’s where the argument for theism and Christianity comes in.
Friday, Nov. 16
Friday’s plenary speaker was James Sinclair, on “God, Science, & the Cosmos.” I was already familiar with both the kalam cosmological argument and the cosmological fine-tuning argument, so I was hoping for a presentation that would push forward a bit on these topics. Unfortunately, this was the weakest of any of the presentations I saw. As a professional educator, I could tell that Sinclair really, really knows his material, but doesn’t know how to effectively convey that information to an audience who isn’t equally familiar with it. For instance, I doubt a single person in the audience actually got anything useful from the segment on the “Boltzmann brain paradox,” which is a shame: five minutes of online research gave me a basic understanding of the concept, and now I’m actually interested in hearing someone discuss it in an apologetics context.
However, the real concern I had with Sinclair’s lecture had to do with a general attitude toward the “unbeliever,” and it’s something I’ve noted fairly frequently in evangelism (but fortunately not very much at this conference, actually).
Parts of Sinclair’s presentation seemed to take the approach of “do whatever it takes to nail the unbeliever.” For instance, he said that a Christian could use the cosmological argument even without believing that the Big Bang occurred. It is enough, Sinclair argued, to know that the unbeliever believes it, and that the Christian can use the cosmological apologetics to poke holes in the unbeliever’s worldview.
I find that approach to be troubling. I became a Christian because I believed in truth and I discovered that Christianity is true. My commitment to the truth is now a commitment to Christ, who tells us to go out and spread the good news. I am committed to obeying Him. but I don’t think I could in good conscience share His truth with an argument that I did not, myself, believe to be true, no matter how effective that argument might be.
But even apart from that, I think the “let’s bag us some unbelievers!” attitude is genuinely counterproductive. As a teacher, I know that confrontation rarely brings change: instead, it hardens existing positions. Those who have been raised Christian, or who have been Christian all their lives, perhaps do not realize how much of a radical change is required to go from a naturalistic to a Christian worldview. It is difficult, it is frightening, it requires letting go of attitudes and ideas that may have served as a lifelong support for a well-developed worldview… without a clear idea of exactly what’s going to take its place. Scoring points off of an unbeliever may be gratifying in the short term, but I don’t think it builds a bridge into the Kingdom.
The best, most impressive, and most meaningful apologetics presentations at the conference took the approach of “let us discover and share the truth”: ultimately I think that is the right approach. As an atheist, I encountered many varieties of evangelism, ranging from “felt needs” to the “Jesus loves you” to the “you’ll burn in hell” to “you atheists are so close-minded.” All of them made me push harder against Christianity, until I finally met up with an apologetic approach that was respectful of me as a person and that challenged me without being confrontational.
I suspect I’m not the only one to recognize this problem in evangelism, because one of the breakout sessions for Friday was “Smash-mouth Apologetics vs. Grace-Filled Persuasion.” I didn’t go to that one (too many interesting sessions!) but I can certainly underline the need for the latter.
The Friday breakout session I attended was Ben Witherington’s “Knowing the History of Jesus,” which turned out to be a knockout. It would have been better titled “The Christology of Jesus,” because Witherington explored the way in which Jesus’ identity is revealed through the titles applied to Him, most notably in the “Son of Man” title. It was immediately clear that Witherington is an exceptional scholar and teacher; for instance, at the start of the lecture he carefully unpacked the meaning of Jesus’ revelation of Himself as Messiah in Mark’s gospel, highlighting details such as the significance of the location, the pagan city of Caesaria Philippi. (I admit I also got a kick out of hearing Witherington reference the theologian NT Wright, whose work I admire.) I left the lecture feeling more confident about what I’ve been studying, because several key points that Witherington made in response to audience questions were ideas that I had already taken in through my own research and by hearing them in sermons at my church.
I also wrote down one significant quote from Witherington’s lecture that I think ought to be highlighted and underlined in our our culture: “Jesus did not come to meet our expectations; He came to meet our needs.”
Saturday, Nov. 17
The morning plenary, “To Everyone an Answer,” was delivered by Craig Hazen, the director of Biola’s MA Program in Christian Apologetics. After being the genial host and announcer for the previous two days, Hazen finally got a chance to have the podium for himself.
I found Hazen’s presentation to be, like Stroebel’s, very inspirational. It was exciting to hear the Christian claim so confidently set forth: he reminded us that Christianity is something quite different from what we usually call “religion,” in that it makes a specific, verifiable truth claim upon which the faith stands or falls. As someone deeply interested in the intersection of Christianity and popular culture, and especially in the way Christianity’s truth claim gets heard (or not) in our postmodern society, I found Hazen’s argument to be extremely engaging. For one thing, Hazen highlighted specific details from Scripture to underscore the fact that Christianity is, and always has been, a knowledge tradition: Jesus wants us to know the truth, to be in no doubt as to the reality of His identity and authority.
One area of postmodern culture that I have noticed, but not explored in depth, is the rising tide of New Age and Eastern-influenced philosophies. Hazen pointed out that Christianity uniquely integrates the spiritual with reason and the objective reality of daily life, in contrast to the way that the rejection of logic Eastern/New Age philosophy is irreconcilable with the necessity for using reason in day-to-day living. The two can’t be reconciled, so they must be compartmentalized. And really, that’s what goes on in our whole culture’s approach to religion: “spiritual things” are kept in a subjective/emotional category that is separate from and unrelated to the “rational thinking” and “reality” category.
The result? Fuzzy thinking across the board; rampant subjectivism and relativism; a mess.
One of the humbling things I have realized lately is the way that the Holy Spirit can and does bring people to faith by varying means – including, I have to admit, through the emotional appeals. However, even when someone accepts Christ as Savior, that doesn’t mean that they understand the reasons for their faith – and that’s where I think apologetics has an essential role to play within the Body of Christ as well as outside it.
A great deal of the day to day working out of the Christian life is based on understanding what it means. Look at how the author of Hebrews chides Christians for not not moving on to a mature understanding of the faith: alarmingly, what Hebrews points out as “the obvious basics” for his readers could easily be considered “advanced theology” today. That passage really struck me deeply as a teacher: it emphasizes that understanding is not an optional extra to the Christian faith. Among other things, many of the dangerous elements in our culture are so because they are the thin end of the wedge for materialistic, pagan, or simply self-destructive ways of seeing the world. Presented constantly with secular worldviews that on the surface appear more plausible and perhaps more immediately attractive, the Christian with a weak understanding of the teaching of the Church may end up giving the whole thing up as a mess that doesn’t make any sense.
What’s more, with the widespread rise of secular thought, there are a lot of pretty decent people out there who are not Christians… and plenty of well-publicized examples of Christians not living up to the example of Christ. I think the “ultimate apologetic,” as William Lane Craig puts it, probably is our lives… but I also think that we, individual Christians, cannot be that apologetic unless we are fully in line with God – and that includes with our minds as well as our hearts.
I find myself thinking that “bagging some unbelievers” might not be the most important function of apologetics. Rather, I wonder if the most crucial function is to improve the intellectual and spiritual health of the Body of Christ. Can we reach those who do not believe, if we do not understand why we believe what we do, and if we do not apply that understanding to our lives?
Skipping ahead slightly, the final session that I attended was Paul Copan’s “The Incarnation of Christ in Philosophical Perspective”. (I had to leave early for another commitment, so I missed the second half of Saturday’s program. I did order some CDs, though!) Copan focused on the essential Christian doctrine of Jesus being both fully human and fully divine. Copan’s argument worked through several important distinctions: between “nature” and “person”; between what is essentially human and what is commonly human; and between different levels of awareness. One of the key insights to draw from these is that when Jesus exclaimed “Why have you forsaken me?” on the cross, his divine awareness and communion was a constant; it was his human nature that experienced a break with the divine. Which is important: as we relate to Jesus, we can know that He has experienced all our pain and sorrow, including the pain of feeling like we’re cut off from God.
Which brings me to the next session of the weekend that I went to: Steve Porter’s “Did Jesus Have to Die? Defending the Christian Doctrine of Atonement.” The title was actually a little misleading; Porter didn’t so much discuss the doctrine of atonement, but rather present an argument for a specific theory of atonement, specifically the “penal substitution theory.” This was an interesting presentation for me, because it moved me into an area of theology that I hadn’t explored in any detail. It was a bit frustrating in some respects, because it seemed like this presentation, more than any of the others, simply assumed the Protestant point of view here as automatically correct (though acknowledging that it’s not required for salvation).
After the session, I asked him a few questions; I wasn’t sure what the specific Anglo-Catholic view is on the atonement, but I don’t think it’s quite what Porter was presenting. Were these views in conflict or complementary? Porter was a bit dismissive at first, saying that the other view just tended to see the atonement as “magic.” I took issue with that straight away: mystery is not the same thing as magic. To his credit, Porter immediately accepted that correction, and then went on to say that the view I was taking simply declared the atonement to be a mystery, while the penal substitution theory actually explained how it worked.
That’s an interesting point, and one that I think is open for argument. I can see that some theories of the atonement take us “further in” than others (without making a claim for which theory is more accurate than the other). But at the heart of it still lies the mystery of God’s grace, and I don’t think we should lose sight of that. The penal substitution theory might in fact give us more insight into what happened on the cross… but it still does not explain it. The cross is and always will be a mystery – and should be.
I wonder if being raised Christian tends to create a certain familiarity, a certain taking-for-granted, with these mysteries. The way Porter explained it, Jesus’ work seemed almost prosaic: something big and important, sure, but still within the grasp of human minds to figure out. I’m an intellectual; I like to figure things out, and there are plenty of things for me to figure out, plenty of ways to put my God-given intellect to work. But I think God has done something else for me, and that’s to give me a sense of the awesomeness and majesty of what He’s done in the world. I wasn’t raised even knowing or talking about Jesus, much less thinking about Him or His work for us. When I accepted that He is the Son of God, I acknowledged that He died on the cross for our sins… for my sins…and I was (and am) stunned by the sheer magnitude of that gift. When I think and pray about it, the very mystery of it helps me to open my heart to Him.
The first question, then, is where we acknowledge the mystery of God’s grace, and where we continue to push forward in figuring things out. Despite my sense that we must recognize the mystery at the heart of what Jesus did, I am actually all in favor of applying our minds to the question of “what was going on when He died?” because understanding opens the way for growth. So the question remains: is this particular theory of atonement the best way to explain the cross?
Porter’s presentation was in many ways the most motivational of the conference for me, because intuitively I disagree with what he said… but I can’t articulate why, not yet. As an Anglo-Catholic, I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament; I am fortunate enough in my church to be able to participate in the Eucharist usually three times each week. Sharing in Christ’s Body and Blood is a regular part of my day to day life, and I see how God has been working through that to effect His transformation in me. Something happens, something real, in the Eucharist; I don’t have to understand how it works to know that it’s going on. And the presence of Christ that I have experienced in the Eucharist is both solemn and joyful, awe-inspiring and deeply loving. The result is that, when considering this theory of how the atonement worked, I can say on an experiential level that it doesn’t adequately explain what’s going on.
The upshot is that I want to learn more… and I feel that God has so guided me as to give me the chance of learning from and growing in two traditions, the evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic. That’s pretty amazing… and more than a little scary. He’s got me on the fast track, for sure: I’ve asked Him to put me to work, and He has been taking me at my word (ready or not!).
It was a great opportunity to attend this apologetics conference, and it’s certainly given me a lot to think about and pray about… as well as a keen sense that God is calling me to do something for Him with the mind that He’s given me. What it is, I am not quite sure, but I am continuing to ask Him to guide me on the path that He’s laid out for me.
Related posts:
- Bayside Apologetics Seminar: Conference Report
- Skepticism as Snobbery
- Places Worth Visiting (or, Blogroll II: The Return)
- “Inside the Mind of a Former Atheist”: Speaking Engagement at the Bayside Church Apologetics Seminar
- CS Lewis: Narnia and Beyond – Mere Christianity
3 Responses to “Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World: Conference Report”
Dr Holly Ordway came to Christ through reason, in the pursuit of truth. "In your hearts honor Christ as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 15).
She writes about her journey from atheism to orthodox Christian faith in her book "Not God's Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith" (Moody Publishers).
Holly,
Remember the question, “What would you like to ask God?” I see that your question was basically the same as mine:
You said, “More than just being interesting, though, Stroebel’s presentation made me ask: What is the Lord calling me to do?”
Although I never told you, mine was “What would you like me to do, Lord?”
Blessings.
Art
Moreland’s argument that “mind cannot form from matter” is, in my opinion, a weak one. I find a stronger argument to be “Mind preceded matter.” The question comes down to this: Either matter is eternal or God, the non-physical mind that brought it into existence, is eternal. The Universe is not eternal, hence Mind preceded matter. I think it also gives a hint as to our being made in the image of God. Our mind controls the machine we call our body through the organ we call the brain much as a driver controls an automobile.
Descartes may have said, “I think, therefore I exist.” but God would probably reply, “I AM, therefore think!”
Art
It is so thrilling to know that this conference is moving to the West Coast, although now that I know I missed the first one I am kinda bummed, but.
Hazen’s point about being part of a “knowledge tradition” is very significant and balanced well with experiencing Him daily (a point often weighted more to experience by some evangelicals). I also resonate with your point in response to Porter’s attempt to answer the mystery of Christs sacrifice and your connection with the Lord’s supper. I have wrestled with what I believe regarding the Eucharist in practice and theology for a while and will be interesting to follow your research on the subject (if I may ride your coattails).
Anyway, thanks for the incredibly detailed response to what seemed to be a wonderfully enlightening conference.