Apologetic Approach to Gospel proclamation which sees no qualitative difference between the believers and the non-believers
As I will spend more time on studying the scholarly trajectories of apologetics, contemporary Christian apologetics has remained mostly the task of scholars and theologians. Christian philosophers and systematic theologians have been paying close attention to apologetics, for which reason apologetics has seemed to be the primary occupation of scholars rather than pastors, resulting in putting apologetics in the context of adversarial debates rather than conversational guidance toward Christian faith. We commonly witness among scholars in their debates some of the most controversial issues in Christian theology being dealt with, such issues as theodicy, the relationship between science and faith, and the authority of the Scripture. In the meantime, it has been increasingly uncommon to see pastors engaging in the apologetic task in the process of proclaiming the gospel. It is in this context that I approach Keller apologetic’s first characteristic, which is that he locates apologetics as a step toward gospel proclamation. This is so in the following three respects. First, Keller argues that all pastors, especially those whose ministries are in urban contexts, should be apologetic; second, Keller also argues that pastors’ apologetics should never be separate from gospel proclamation, but always happen in the big picture of gospel proclamation; third, Keller contends that Christian apologetics should never be only for the unbelievers or for the beginners of faith, but for all people, including those mature in faith, beginning in faith, and those who are never interested in faith. To understand these three respects fully, one is required to understand Keller’s presupposition of what gospel is. That is, Keller understands that everyone, no matter at what stages of faith they are, should always listen to gospel all the time, over and over again, repeatedly, and for this reason he sees no need to differentiate between the service for the believers and that for non-believers. This is because Keller understands that believers as well non-believers don’t believe the gospel.
Let me explain what he means by this. For Keller, the gospel is not something that they need to hear just once when people are initiated into faith. Rather, Keller strongly asserts that everyone should continue to listen to the gospel, for no one truly believes the gospel including himself. For Keller, believing the gospel has everything to do with experiencing the change of one’s heart. Heart is our foundational motivation structure. Namely, that which comprise our dearest commitments, devotions, and our loves, which is apt to be quite firm and rigid, and it takes quite a long time to change that formidable structure, which is only possible through repeated gospel proclamation delivered to one’s heart over and over again. For this reason, Keller openly admits that he sometimes did something in which he didn’t believe the gospel. If he did believe God’s love toward him, he would not have done what he did, which is what he often made a confession. Therefore, Keller forcefully makes a case for the need to listen to the gospel himself everyday.
Seen in this way, there is no need to differentiate the services for the believers and for the non-believers or the beginners in faith. Everyone, regardless of their growth in faith, needs to listen to the gospel every Sunday (or even everyday), in which there leaves no room for distinguishing between the believers and the non-believers. You know why I am talking about this seemingly irrelevant stuff from the beginning? For how one understands the gospel has everything to do with how one understands and makes use of apologetics. If one assumes the gospel to be a good news for everyone, whether they are believers or non-believers, the space in which apologetics plays its own role in that contexts becomes much broader. In sum, assuming that every Sunday service is attended by the believers as well as non-believers, and that for every Sunday service the goal is to proclaim the gospel, pastors will help the faith of the believers strengthen, to say nothing of providing a great model in being an apologist in the midst of the high wave of secularism. Moreover, in case of the non-believers and the beginners in faith, apologetics pastors actually advocate the rationality of faith, correcting their misconceptions of faith as irrational and unreasonable, as well as providing much better alternatives to their secular counterparts. Added to this, Keller says that pastors will experiences their congregants actually bringing their non-believing friends and acquaintances to Sunday services, thinking that their pastors’ apologetic sermon might make their friends think again about what faith is. Thus, pastors will be able to deliver the message of the gospel irrespective of their audiences’ growth in faith. Therefore, the case for the aforementioned three aspects of faith, that pastors should be apologetic, that such apologetic sermon should always be in mind the big-picture of gospel proclamation, and that apologetic proclamation of the gospel should have in mind everyone is made plausible. Presupposed in these three aspects are that the original purpose of apologetics is not to argue, but to lead people to faith (alongside that people are not changed by debates, but by the outpouring love of God), and that everyone, believers and nonbelievers alike, are far away from the love of God. Keller takes rhetoric very seriously in the sense that he communicates faith to such people, and he also takes very seriously drawing upon non-Christian scholars and cultural luminaries.
The importance of Rhetoric
The second characteristic of Keller’s apologetic is that he knows full well the importance of rhetoric. Oftentimes those who consider themselves conservative and biblical Christians look down upon the role rhetoric plays at best, and sometimes regards rhetoric as virtually satanic in tension with their faith, which tries to make possible through human effort the faith that is only possible by God’s grace. However, even those will be astounded at Paul’s skillful employment of rhetoric. When I was in seminary, I was doing the exegesis of 2 Corinthians 12:1-10, finding out that the way Paul argues through in that particular passage was through rhetorical means in order to awaken the Corinthians whose standard of whether a person is faithful or not consists in whether that person has had mystical experiences or not. Keller concurs. The importance of rhetoric in making a case for faith is no less so here. In particular, he clarifies the importance of faith in his reading of 1 Corinthians 2:1-5.
In 1 Corinthians 2, Paul says “I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.” At first glance this seems to argue against using any craft at all in preaching, but the rest of the New Testament makes it impossible to hold that Paul never used logic, argument, rhetoric, or learning as he preached. In the book of Acts, as we see, Paul skillfully uses different arguments for different audiences. (Keller, Preaching, 16)
Keller is an apologetic pastor who maintains cultural sensitivity, through which he communicates the message of the gospel with such sensitivity. Particuarly in this book Encounters with Jesus Keller surgically asks with excellent rhetorical skills of his the questions the gospel accounts throw on contemporaries. For example, in John 1 when Nathanael asked what good things come out of Nazareth, Keller connects this question with the image of periphery Christianity has in the Western world. Of course this is not the case in some other parts of the world, but at least where Keller ministers to people, and other urban parts of the world, Christianity has been pushed to periphery rather than remaining in the center. And the people who keep up with the best of modern culture might as well ask precisely the question which Nathanael asked in John 1. In other words, Keller’s questioning building on Nathanael’s questioning is quite persuasive. Even so, Keller turns the head of the question and ask the same thing to moderns, questioning if they could learn little or nothing from Christianity. And then Keller shows that many modern ideas cherished by modern people are actually from Christianity (e.g. loving the weak and the marginalized came from Christianity), thus catching them off guard about what they have been thinking of Christianity. Such rhetorical keenness and sensitivity digs into the sentiments of many modern people, asking them the kind of questions they would ask about Christianity, yet asking even more profound questions than the ones they would ask, and simultaneously providing much more rational answers contained in the gospel message. What Keller is trying to get at is the confidence from his audience, for without gaining their trust and confidence there is no persuasion, which would make it possible for him to communicate the gospel message. This is why in Keller’s apologetics an effective communication with the world through richly quoting and engaging with non-Christian scholars or cultural sources.
Effective communication through richly drawing upon non-Christian and secular sources and resources
This last characteristic of Keller’s apologetic has much overlapped with what I discussed in my review of Preaching. This is understandably so because Keller’s apologetic is shown through his sermons. It is also his sermons in which he engages with and draws upon all these non-Christian scholars and cultural luminaries. Here I will give two examples only. These examples contain interviews from key figures in culture and sports. I will conclude this review by examining in what contexts Keller does his apologetic work.
First, when he mentions the topic of inner-emptiness, Keller argues that too many people confuse their inner-emptiness with their drive for life, and their anxiety coming from such inner-emptiness with hope, whereby he exemplifies his thesis through interviews with the following figures in culture and sports. World tennis champion Boris Becker once said in an interview: “I had won Wimbledon twice, once as the younger player. I was rich… I had all the material possessions I needed… It is the old song of movie stars and pop stars who commit suicide. They have everything, and yet they are so unhappy. But I had no inner peace.” Alongside this, Keller also mentions an interview with Sophia Loren, “I have had everything, yet in my life there is an emptiness that is impossible to fulfill.” What Keller wants people to understand through these interviews is that people will never get what they want through pursuing what they are pursuing. But for most people they never have had what those famous people have had, Keller also points out “I wish I could have what they had” in their hearts. In response to this, Keller indicates that those have-it-all were of the same mind before they reached to where they were, saying that even if we were where they were today, we would feel exactly the same inner-emptiness as they did. In conclusion, Keller contends that if people try to fulfill their inner-emptiness through their own means, not only will they be enslaved by those things, but also they will find that those things will never deliver their promises.
Secondly, Keller speaks of self-proving, showing how this theme is pervasively present in popular culture, and as I spoke in my review of Generous Justice, how such desire for self-proving is deeply inextricable with the desire for self-salvation. In the end, he would like to show how salvation through faith in Jesus Christ frees us from such desire for self-proving. Here I will also quote two movies. In Rocky, Sylvester Stallone says the following.
I just wanna prove somethin’—I ain’t no bum… It don’t matter if I lose… Don’t matter if he opens my head… The only thing I wanna do is go the distane—that’s all. Nobody’s ever gone fifteen rounds with Creed. If I go them fifteen rounds, an’ that bell rings an’ I’m still standin’, I’m gonna know then I weren’t just another bum from the neighborhood.
Explaining this in the movie, Keller shows his deep insights into what salvation is.
I propose to you: One of the reasons you have all these dreams of working hard to look good and do well and achieve is because you are trying to prove to yourself and everyone else, even people who may not be around anymore, that you are not a bum.
There is one more movie Keller mentions in this regard, which is Chariots of Fire, recently reopened in Korea. Harold Abrahams speaks of his motivation to be the best 100m runner as follows: I’ll raise my eyes and look down that corridor… with ten lonely seconds to justify my whole existence.
Keller further explains that we all have such desires, behind which is more than the desire to excel, more than the desire to contribute to society by excelling, but fear of being regarded as worthless person. Keller argues that we all try everything to escape from such fear, showing that we are worthy of our own dignity and proving that to ourselves as well as to others. As I have amply explained to you before, this is part of our futile attempt to save ourselves by our own effort, for it is part of our determining who we are by what we do. The message of the gospel tells us to accept God’s granting worth upon who we are, and the more we accept it, the freer we become from such desire for self-proving. Keller cites Rocky and Chariots of Fire precisely in this regard.
This week I have reviewed Keller’s Encounters with Jesus, and showed three primary characteristics of Keller’s apologetics. In the coming week I will review his Reason for God to see more in depth how Keller’s apologetic approach contributes to the overall Christian apologetics. Thank you.
LIKEELLUL