Limitations of Apologetics @jrdkirk

J. R. Daniel Kirk recently mused on the limitations of apologetics. This is relevant to my recent posts on doctrine and the point of this blog to examine questions.


I used to love apologetics when I first became a Christian. I was considering it as a career. However, as I came to explore the questions honestly, I found apologetics less-than-helpful. Two quotes from Kirk's article really stuck to explain this for me:

In particular, it gives people answers to questions that they often haven’t asked themselves and therefore cannot feel the weight of. The answer seems to work because they’ve never had to use it to minister to their own heart or mind.

This is a really excellent point and is some of the rationale behind this blog. We need to personally struggle with the issues rather than being given simple, pat answers, no matter how good they are. Without the wrestling, the answer is not terribly meaningful.


The other quote was:

Apologetics is bad for my soul. I’d rather have no answer to my doubts than a bad one.

This is just awesome! So many times our desire for clarity and answers leads us to bad answers rather than acknowledging that some things are a mystery. And some bad answers just make things worse. They close us off to the Truth of God and complexity of life with Christ, however simple those things can be at times.

Loving & Judging

Most of the church communities to which I have belonged have had a strong grounding in the holiness movement. Essentially, it's a focus on "right living," sometimes interpreted as avoiding sin. This movement definitely plays a powerful role in my life still, but I've struggled with it and how people approach holiness.


There is this nebulous disagreement I have with some approaches to holiness that have been difficult for me to really define because theologically, I can't fully disagree. Yet something feels off. It was this same sense of some sort of difference from some Christians that Richard Foster's Stream of Living Water helped define. In this book, Foster describes six streams, or traditions of Christian living and belief. They're not opposed to one another, and in fact, all are important and should co-exist. Yet most of us emphasize one over the others, causing theologically subtle, yet practically significant differences.


What I recently realized (this Sunday to be specific) is that it seems like some of the differences occur with how some of us perceive and relate to God, thus affecting how we approach holiness. John Eldredge discusses the varying and ascending metaphors to describe our relationship with God. He argues (well and biblically, in my opinion) that the ultimate relationship God desires is that of lovers. Close intimacy. Even before that, we are friends and children.


Yet what often happens is many times we view God as judge. Is God a judge? Yes. But I don't think that's his primary role. Just as lovers hold one another accountable, God holds us accountable, but that feeling of accountability is different than that of a distant judge.


When we view God as judge, I believe we approach holiness as a way to avoid judgment. As I heard someone say this weekend with reference to the sexual immorality of the US, "If God doesn't judge America soon, he owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah." There are theologically errors in that connection, but regardless, there is this sense of God as Ultimate Judge and not much more. We must live sinless lives in order to avoid God's destructive punishment.


Yet as many people argue and explain, God's primary mission as clearly laid out in the Bible is love. Jonathan Brink wrote a nice reflection on this recently. RELEVANT Magazine also posted an article about love.


In my experience, when we have a close, intimate relationship with God, we want to be holy. It's a way of moving closer to God and becoming like Christ. It's not out of fear, but out of desire. What may look like the same actions are in fact totally different.


Holiness out of love is what I want, not holiness out of fear.

Evangelical & Mainline Differences @CTmagazine

Yesterday, Christianity Today posted an article (more like a summary graphic) based on some research of political differences between evangelical and mainline groups, particularly the pastors.

While the political differences are interesting, I found the right-hand column, entitled Characteristics of Protestant Clergy, to be even more interesting. In fact, it seems like there are even more significant differences between evangelicals and mainliners in these theological areas.

These seems rather relevant to my recent musings on doctrine. In my experience, evangelicals seem more concerned about defending doctrine than mainliners. Yet evangelical pastors are significantly less likely to have graduated seminary. Does that seem ironic to anyone else?

It's hard to truly interpret the data without more information, and as anyone who taken a stats course know, correlation does not mean causation. But I do find it fascinating that those with greater theological education tend to be less apparently dogmatic about their theology overall.

In fact, it seems like evangelicals tend to display more dogmatic, everyone-must-believe-this-exact-set-of-beliefs than mainliners. If you look at the three other graphs, the evangelical line is almost at 100%. All three are on theological beliefs--Agree That Jesus Was Born of a Virgin, Agree That The Devil Actually Exists, and Male (this last one would indicate a belief in complementarianism v. egalitarianism).

I don't think any of these are essential beliefs, but with the almost unanimity that the evangelicals in the study correspond to these beliefs, it could be assumed that many evangelicals do hold these as essentials, either explicitly or implicitly. Even if they don't, I find it interesting that there isn't much diversity in thought on the issues.

In contrast, mainline denominations seem to display much greater diversity in these beliefs. All agree with those statements at over a 50% rate. But the significantly lower number would indicate to me that they hold these as less salvific issues than the evangelicals and allow members to disagree on a greater number of issues.

Again, I may be reading too much into these graphs, which truly provide very limited information. At the same time, these things do match up with my general experiences (there is always an exception on both sides) of evangelical and mainline congregations. What do others think?

Assumptions of Belief

This week I've posted a lot about doctrine and beliefs. One of the things that bothers me most is when I perceive people to be assuming what I believe. This drives me nuts, particularly when I don't hold that belief.

There's times to correct it and times not to correct it. However, recently, I've been hearing some beliefs with which I disagree be presented so frequently and unilaterally that I feel the desire to say, "I don't hold that belief!"

Has anyone else been there?

I'm not sure asserting my belief would do that much good. It could easily come across as antagonistic and put me on the outside of a group.

On the other hand, it could validate others who are in the same position as me, and that's very valuable. Additionally, there may be many people who do not have a firm position on a belief, and presenting and considering an alternative is a very important way of developing a solid, true belief system. Additionally, it is important for everyone to remember that their beliefs are not universally held, no matter what they are.

What do you think? When is it useful and effective and worthwhile to assert one's own beliefs in contrast to others'? What's the appropriate forum (obviously depends on the context)? Short blog post? Tweet with a summary?

Church Groups ≠ Prioritizing and Communing with God

I recently heard someone in two different occasions lift up "church" too highly. And in this context, church was referring to the Sunday service.

The first time, he said that many people do not prioritize God because they do other things rather than "going to church" on Sundays (I'm putting that in quotations because I have theological issues with that statement--church is the people, not a building or service). I think that can very much be true. However, it is not a 1:1 correlation. There have been significant times in my life (recently even) where "going to church" was actually detrimental to my relationship with God. In fact, most of the time, I do not experiences God during Sunday "services." I experience and commune with God more during small group meetings, prayer, talks with my wife, reading the Bible, listening to music individually, being in nature, etc. I firmly believe I can prioritize God and never go to a Sunday gathering.

Does that mean I shouldn't? No, I think we should be in a community. However, many church services are not at all about community. This relates to the second comment. This individual said that God yearns for the people who are not "in church" each Sunday, using the analogy of a mom who does not get all of her kids home at the same time for Thanksgiving or Christmas.

It's a moving image, but I think it's an inaccurate analogy. Church services (I hate the term service, too--we are not called to provide religious goods and services, but to serve) are not about a group of Christians communing together and with God by and large. Some truly have a strong community component. But frankly, most are an experience of passive observation by attendees.

I don't see anywhere in the Bible God yearning for more people to come together to be passive observers.

Challenging and Accepting Beliefs

Yesterday, I discussed some reflections on doctrine. During my thinking and struggling on the issue (it's not over yet, by the way), I read Romans 14 as part of the liturgical year in my Mosaic Bible.

If you don't know Romans 14, please read it now. I've read it a couple of times since because it seems so relevant to my current questions and even this blog. In particular, Romans 14:1 is a good summary of the chapter:

Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong.

In crafting my post yesterday, I had this in mind a bit, focused more on writing what I believe rather than criticizing others' beliefs. Okay, so I didn't do great on this, but in some ways it relates to the idea that arguing and needing to defend oneself is not necessarily what we are called to do.

The purpose of this blog is to help people explore their beliefs. I've thought of adding a new tagline: "Deconstructing to Reconstruct." However, I also have long said these conversations are not for new Christians. They're for people who want to take their faith to the next level and really challenge themselves to seek Truth.

It's very easy to get into a pattern of pointing out others' false belief and challenging it. I think I've done that a few times here. However, my goal is not to really call people out, but rather to provide a space to validate others who are having similar experiences, thoughts, and concerns.

In various church groups, I get the urge to challenge and criticize others' beliefs. But there may be a good reason they have them. What is the use of making that challenge? Oftentimes, it just causes strife.

I think of an analogy in terms of psychotherapy. I see plenty of people with a very different set of beliefs about behavior, motivation, faith, etc. I don't simply debunk all of their beliefs. For ones that are immediately damaging and to which they are open, I will present an alternate perspective. I rarely say something absolutely to a client or family, even if it's considered to be absolutely true in the field. It's just generally not helpful.

I need to remember this regarding theology.

Providing opportunities for discussion is important. But I also need to know the limits and let people believe what they will, no matter how unbiblical and damaging I see it.

However, if a lot of these ideas are premised on Romans 14, particularly verse 1, then we also need to focus on the phrase "believers who are weak in faith." What does that mean?

Everyone thinks they're strong in faith. So it can quickly result in spiritual narcissism. "I'm more faithful than so-and-so, so I will accept their immature faith." I don't want to be that person, but I border on it at times (and may just simply be there).

I wonder if we're not necessarily supposed to operationalize that phrase. It may be something everyone is supposed to hear. No matter if we think someone is strong or weak in faith, we need to focus on building each others' faith. And according to Romans, that doesn't seem to be about defining right belief or right action. After all, Romans 14:17-19 states:

For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God, and others will approve of you, too. So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up.

To me, this emphasizes the futility of detailed doctrinal statements. We are to focus on "living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Arguing over biblical interpretation and types of sins does not usually do this...

Celebrating Christ, Not Doctrine

The issue of doctrine has come up recently for me in a few forms. I've been in a variety of churches with varying levels of theological conservativeness and liberalness. Some have had no statement of faith, while others have had very detailed statements.


I've recently been hearing some people saying it's important to stay true to doctrine. This seems related to Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears' new book, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. I had the opportunity to review it, but declined because I've heard very little come from Driscoll that I think is biblical, so I didn't want to waste my time.


I'm regretting that a bit now, as I want to know more details of this assertion of orthodox doctrine. From looking at the summaries of the chapters on the website, it doesn't look like it includes most of Driscoll's more unbiblical beliefs. And it's focused more on the essentials.


Many an argument and book have focused on what is considered essential to be a Christian and what should be included in a statement of faith. Therefore, I won't really delve into that. However, I would say that it should be relatively general. I'm not sure how useful very detailed doctrinal dogmatics are except to alienate people and draw arbitrary lines in the sand to make us feel good and others feel bad.


Scripture and Jesus are really more focused on relationships and loving God and others than on right belief. The texts really are helping readers develop a closer, stronger relationship with God. Understanding God accurately would be part of that, but I believe it's less important than others believe.


I really appreciate Azusa Pacific University's statement of faith. It is specific enough to identify clear Christian beliefs, but it not overly specific, allowing for a good ecumenical community. I personally prefer that way of defining doctrine, in contrast to more detailed statements, like that of Biola. I find it interesting that Biola doesn't even have a statement of faith. It is a "Doctrinal Statement." In contrast, APU only has a "Statement of Faith."

Both have pros and cons. In an academic setting, I'd prefer an APU model. I think I would prefer that in a church setting, too.


On November 11, 2010, T. Scott Daniels, PhD, discussed APU's theological heritage. He closed his talk by quoting Dr. Felix, a prominent proponent of APU, as saying, "where other places, their emphasis is on defending Christ, the emphasis here is on celebrating Christ."


I think that is just beautiful. In my experience most doctrinal statements and statements of faith are more focused on some sort of defense. I don't see that in the Bible. Rather, I see a call for celebration. That's what I want to do.