Asking Non-Believers: Do you understand what you believe?—Between Presuppositionalism and Evidentialism (Potential Contribution of Keller’s Apologetics)
Keller was ordained from the Presbyterian Church of America, a conservative branch of Presbyterianism, and taught practical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, a flagship instition of conservative theological heritage. Therefore, Keller’s apologetic approach is deeply tinged with the approach called presuppositionalism, represented by Cornelius Van Til. Presuppositionalism refers to an apologetic approach which unfolds its apologetic arguments grounded in the presupposition of God’s existence and Christ’s life and work, while questioning some logical loopholes in the interlocutor’s presupposition which does not have the Christian God at its center. What is at the same time the strength and the weakness in this approach is that it supposes little common ground between believers and nonbelievers. In this regard, what stands at the other end of the spectrum is an approach called evidentialism. This approach, unlike presuppositionalism, suppose that there is much common ground between believers and nonbelievers, unfolding its logic and making a case for Christianity based on evidence that is one to both parties. Thus, evidentialist approach is very adept at arguing with historical and philosophical evidence, which makes it a fitting approach for demonstrating theism in general as well as Christianity.
As is shown here, the biggest difference between presuppositionalism and evidentialism is whether one assumes common ground between believers and nonbelievers or not. There have been a great deal of debates already, and if you look at a book like Five View on Apologetics, it will give you a fuller overview of various apologetic approaches. Even so, what many professional apologists are missing, and what Keller captures incisively, and rightly so, is that no one particular approach is always absolutely right. As I have discussed above, Keller’s approach in this book is colored with presuppositionalism. For example, in response to Michel Foucault’s claim that all truth-claims are power-plays, Keller points out that that statement itself is a power-play, if taken to its logical conclusion. In other words, Keller challenges Foucault’s implicit assumption (while his statement is true, all others are power-play). Keller’s approach is precisely presuppositionalistic in the sense that Keller constantly challenges other positions’ presuppositions.
However, Keller doesn’t seem to think that presuppositionalist approach is the only right way in communicating and defending the faith. Rather, he often employs an evidentialist approach. As indirect (and direct) evidence of this, Keller names C.S. Lewis as the figure who influenced his apologetics most. Lewis is an English litrerature scholar and a former atheist, who converted to anglicalism. In fact, Keller quotes some of Lewis’s arguments for faith almost every chapter in this book, and there is little evidence that Lewis’s apologetic approach is presuppositionalist, for Lewis is not a Presbyterian, and his apologetics can’t be that of presuppositionism, but closer to evidentialism.
In sum, Keller’s apologetics is operated in the framework of presuppositional approach, yet it is not completely presuppositional, but mallable enough to suit whom he meets and what kind of needs they evince to him. There is an important insight into what apologetics ought to be. That is, apologetics is basically communication with people with flesh-and-blood, and it would be unwise to stick to one particular approach no matter what. Seen in this light, I get to see some space to carve out a space for apologetics as part of phronesis, and I am quoting here to explain to you why that is so.
Above all, unlike many modern philosophical critics pronouncing the differences between Plato and Aristotle, Gadamer pronounces what they share in common, thereby grounding his practical philosophy. For Gadamer in this regard, the most important concept is the Aristotelianphronesis (practical wisdom), which Aristotle divides knowledge into three kinds… The last is phronesis, which requires people to plunge themselves into concrete situations, and face whatever problems they have to resolve. Therefore, this knowledge, unlike episteme, cannot be obtained through abstract thinking only, nor is it like techne in the sense that it constantly demands adaptive thinking into situations and ever-changing circumstances. Gadamer’s primary contribution to the Aristotelian phronesis was to connect it to the task of interpretation. In other words, when one actively participates in whatever happens in one’s actual life, the knowledge one gets to yield through such participation is inherently demanding interpretation of many factors, such as one’s identity, the circumstances one is in, and how to deal with the given circumstances. This is how the Aristotelian phronesis is given rebirth to through Gadamer. –Review of the Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy-
If apologetics requires its practitioners a kind of sensitivity and empathy who know and understand their conversation partners, then apologetics is indeed part of phronesis. The biggest part of such phronesis would be to love and understand the one(s) with whom apologists are engaging conversation, without which no one can successfully accomplish the goal of apologetics, which is leading them to faith in God. No one is completely objective, but always has certain perspective with some biases, which have been forged through that persons’ particular life processes. It would be good to think again about Francis Schaffer’s taking out the roof. (Remember that Schaffer himself was a presuppositionalist apologist)
The truth we should let them hear is not the doctrinal truth about the Bible, but the truth about the world and human existence. This is for the purpose of showing her her own trouble. If so, the Bible will provide the answer for the truth of her loss and the answer to getting out of that loss (omission)…
Taking out the roof is not a selective play of some kind. Strictly speaking, I believe that emphasizing it is biblical. The notions of judgment and hell are ambiguous for the 20th century person, for which reason making such notions the beginning point of conversation amounts to establishing no points of contact with her. Hell or similar notions are unthinkable ones for modern people. For she is brainwashed by the all-encompassing naturalism. Those of us living in the West might manage to get out of being brainwashed by the nation, but not by culture. –the God Who is there, Francis Schaeffer, 167-
While it becomes obvious now that Keller’s apologetic approach is more eclectic than loyal to one particular approach, his presuppositionalist strength is even more pronounced, which I will discuss in the remainder of the review.
Asking Believers: Do we understand what we believe?
Part one is this book is composed of Keller’s responses to the 7 major challenges to Christianity. Of them, Keller says that the one objection contemporaries have most was Christianity’s seeming exclusivity. Keller’s answer to this objection is very interesting. Keller argues that such exclusivity is due more to Christian’s not understanding the implications of such exclusive claims in Christianity. What does this mean? To make a long story short, Keller argues that Christians should pay closer attention to the presupposition and implications of their claim to exclusivity, which according to Keller leads to peaceful existence among diverse groups of peoples and communities. In other words, the reason that Christians are accused of being exclusive is because they do not completely comprehend what such exclusive claims mean for their lives.
Prior to giving fuller answers here, Keller examines the foundational ethos of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy functions a sort of mediating overarching system among different, diverse groups of communities whose interests might be in conflict with one another at any moment in time. One solution often suggested to alleviate such potential conflicts is that each community keeps in touch with others by the lowest common denominators among all of them, not revealing to others their own idiosyncracies at all. However, Keller objects to this approach, saying that such approach suppresses all the communities, preventing them from being who they are and eventually exploding from its source of conflicts. Therefore, Keller argues that the better question to ask in this circumstance is this: Which community has beliefs that lead its members to treat persons in other communities with love and respect? In other words, it is asking how much one community’s particular beliefs and practices would lead to peaceful coexistence. And according to Keller, Christianity has sufficient resources to answer in the affirmative here. Let’s listen to Keller himself.
What if, however, the essence of Christianity is salvation by grace, salvation not because of what we do but because of what Christ has done for us? Belief that you are accepted by God by sheer grace is profoundly humbling. The people who are fanatics, then, are so not because they are too committed to the gospel but because they are not committed enough. Think of people you consider fanatical. They’re overbearing, self-righteous, opinionated, insensitive, and harsh. Why? It’s not because they are too Christian, but because they are not Christian enough. They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are not fanatically humble, sensitive, loving, empathetic, forgiving, or understanding—as Christ was (58-59)
Keller is saying that Christians do not understand what they profess to believe. Thus, Keller’s proposal to this problem is to go deeper into being Christian, not compromising the Christian beliefs in favor of living in peace with other communities, for Keller sees through the Christian belief that if Christians are faithful to what they profess to believe, then they will be peacemakers in the modern liberal democracy. Keller’s claims sound similar to that of Stanely Hauerwas in the sense that both thinkers argue that we Christians should invest our time and energy into being a church for God in order to contribute to liberal democracy (or even apart from it), yet what differentiates Keller from Hauerwas is that Keller is a pastor whose ministry and church makes every effort at making such vision come true, while Hauerwas was harshly criticized for not providing any one concrete example that brings into reality what his theological vision purports. However, this does not necessarily mean that Keller is completely exempt from the burden Hauerwas had to load upon himself, for Keller still has to demonstrate that his church and ministry is doing the work that he discusses in this book, producing and training Christians who are deeply committed to the Christian beliefs, enough to become peacemakers in the midst of so many conflicts in liberal democracy. Staying with the original intent of this review, I would say that Keller’s apologetic has much potential in terms of questioning not only nonbelievers, but also believers what both parties profess to believe, leading both to better footing of what they believe and helping both know and understand the deeper implications of what they think they believe. In the next week, I will conclude my series on Tim Keller by reviewing Engaging Keller, the only critique of Keller’s theology available as of now. Thank you!