|
In this issue implicitly devoted to what is known among the
theological disciplines as apologetics-the intellectual defense of
the faith-it is well worth addressing the often heard objection that
"Lutherans don't do apologetics." When heard, this claim is
frequently followed by a supporting statement to the effect that,
"You can't argue people into faith." For good measure, the
historically-minded might even point out that Martin Luther himself
had some not very nice things to say about theological appeals to
fallen human reason.
And while each of these statements might be true, each also needs to
be thoroughly qualified. To say that Lutherans don't do apologetics
may be, unfortunately, largely true as a simple description of recent
North American Lutheranism. Yet it is certainly not the case that
Lutherans have always been averse to the project, as becomes evident
even upon examining the prolegomena of many seventeenth-century
Lutheran dogmatic works.
Similarly, it is indeed true that Luther, in high polemical mode, did
sometimes rail against reason's misuse and abuse. Yet in less
polemical writings-the Small Catechism, for example-he is quick to
point out that reason is, of course, one of God's good gifts. And
even in his more controversial writings he could admit that "we must
use our reason or else give way to the fanatics" (AE 37:224).
But this is not at all to suggest that one can argue people into
faith. Doing so, however, is not the task of apologetics. Given that
faith is created by God Himself via the proclamation of the Gospel,
the primary apologetic task might simply be characterized as
addressing those intellectual objections the unbeliever raises in an
attempt to dismiss a clear proclamation of the Gospel. And quite
understandably, these objections are most frequently aimed at matters
of empirical fact, the sorts of Christian claims that might at least
in theory be verified or falsified by some logical or investigative
means. The reason this is perfectly understandable is that
Christianity, unlike most world religions, is firmly grounded in
objective historical events.
To ask whether Jesus existed, or whether He publicly claimed to be
God incarnate, or whether He rose from death in order to establish
that claim is not at all to ask an esoteric "religious" question such
as, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" It is to ask a question
about objective, historical facts. It is, therefore, not surprising
that the apostles themselves regularly appealed to empirical evidence
in their proclamation of Christ. John insists that he writes about
what he and his companions "have heard, which we have seen with our
eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched" (1 John
1:1). Peter, presenting the case for Christ to a hostile audience,
not only reminds his hearers that he was an eyewitness to the events
described, but refers to these events having happened "as you
yourselves know" (Acts 2:22).
Likewise, the modern apologist says merely that if there are certain
objections to the faith that can be addressed by reasonable appeals
to evidence-or certain foundational facts that can be similarly
established-then by all means, when speaking to the rational
unbeliever, make every possible use of reason and evidence. By all
means, tear down the intellectual barriers the skeptic has
constructed to "protect" himself from a confrontation with the
Gospel. No, doing so will not argue anyone into faith. But by means
of reasonable and persuasive argument, as by means of the Law, "every
mouth may be silenced" (Romans 3:19). And with mouths closed, perhaps
way is made for ears to be opened. Rev. Korey D. Maas is Assistant Professor of Theology and Church History at Concordia University Irvine, where he holds the 2008-2009 Harry and Caroline Trembath Chair in Confessional Theology. He is also currently a Guest Tutor at Westfield House of Theological Studies, Cambridge, England, and a Visiting Fellow in the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity.
|