Last night, Gregory braved the cold and showed up at our door. We grabbed some nachos and then began talking about different things that are going on in our lives. After a while we ended up on a conversation about a young woman he knows that was asking some faith related questions and he was trying to figure out how to best move forward.
There are two major approaches to apologetics (the defense of the Christian faith) today. One stems out of the enlightenment and runs purely on reason. The idea is to hammer out all of the scientific facts and universal truths so the person you're talking with only has the options of faith or denying reason.
The other approach, which is a result of ongoing questions about the ability of any one person or group to have a complete grasp on absolute truth, is a more philosophical one. Here the key word is "worldview" and the idea that each of us has a set of cognitive tools that we use to understand the world around us ... they help us interpret reality as we see it. The apologetic goal here is to share how a Christian worldview works in a way that is comprehensive in your own life (this creates a space to invite the other person to "try on" a Christian worldview).
Given my belief that the Spirit plays a greater role in conversion than reason, I'm very much a fan of philosophy in the realm of apologetics. This is the approach I've taken in the elemental life and the upcoming Lent devotions, Writings from the Wilderness. It's also much more in line with the style of Ravi Zacharias.
At the same time, I think logic and reason are helpful, especially with people who have science vs. faith issues, but it remains subservient to philosophy in apologetics, simply because the philosophical approach is going to be more conversational, less judgmental, and will display greater humility.
What do you think? What kinds of conversations do you engage in when people ask you about your faith?
CNN Article on Lying
After writing this I returned to a CNN article that I'd bookmarked. It's on the topic of lying and basically stats that we all do it for some mix of the following reasons, "We lie, she says, because we want other people to see us the way we wish we were, to spare others' feelings or to avoid conflict."
Now, one of the reason based apologetics approaches I've heard used in the past went something like, "Have you ever told a white lie?" Of course the person says, "Yes." Which is followed by, "So you're a liar." The basic ideas is that you catch a person in sin and therefore stir up a need for forgiveness.
However, as we can see in the CNN article, the basic response of people today is, "Yeah, I do, and it's for the common good so it's not a big deal." Based on the reason approach, the discussion is now over.
Of course, the philosophical approach invites a whole realm of discussion on why we find it necessary to lie, what is behind that individual's lies, and maybe even discussions on how things should be versus how they are. Suddenly we have an opening for a conversation on worldview.