In The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context, Myron Penner aims to effect a paradigm shift in how we approach apologetics. Rather than calling for an end to apologetics across the board, he hopes for an end to a certain apporach that (to him) doesn’t seem to work in our postmodern context.
In his introduction Penner, an Anglican priest in Edmonton, Alberta, explains:
I am writing this book from the vantage point of a member of the Christian community—the church—and I write it for my own edification as well as that of the church catholic. This is therapy as well as theory. I trust it will be obvious that, while I am engaging in a polemic against a certain form of Christian apologetic discourse, my ultimate goal is to open a pathway for faithful witness, not to close down its possibility. . . . My hope is the exhortative function of this book will speak also to those who profess no faith—a word of woe to (some of) those within the church, and a word of witness to those outside it. (19)
The particular form of Christian apologetics in view is so-called “classical apologetics,” and the figure who is the point of departure is William Lane Craig. Since Penner has accepted much of the postmodern critique of the modern epistemological framework, he doesn’t want to see Christian apologetics held captive to this modernistic way of thinking:
The degree to which contemporary apologetics (and apologists) share this aim of modern thought and attempt to make Christian beliefs rationally warranted (or justified) according to the modern project in terms of OUNCE [“objective-universal-neutral-complex” is Penner’s shorthand for the modern philosophical paradigm], is the same degree to which they are a version of secular apologetics. I use the term “secular apologetics” for this kind of project because this sort of apologetics does not need to appeal to a higher transcendent ground for Christian truths and instead justifies them exclusively in immanent human reason. This is, in other words, exactly the kind of reason-giving practice one would expect to find in the modern secular condition. (36)
Penner proceeds to explain he thinks this apologetic approach “subtly undermines the very gospel it seeks to defend and does not offer use a good alternative to the skepticism and ultimate meaninglessness of the modern secular condition” (49). Here Kierkegaard starts making regular appearances as a conversation partner. He is first invoked to clarify the distinction between a genius and an apostle (the former being bad, the latter good). We’re tempted by the modern philosophical paradigm to approach the apologetic enterprise as “geniuses” who have all the answers instead of as apostles sent with a message. As he concludes, “I am against the apologetic culture of experts that is funded by the modern secular condition, with its assumption that genius is the highest authority for belief and the reasonability of a belief—and my ability to demonstrate it—is the only thing that makes something worthy of my acceptance” (72).
Apostolic Alternative
Penners then turns from deconstructing the genius approach to reconstructing an apostolic alternative. He wants to place edification, not reason-obsessed argumentation, at the center of inquiry. You can imagine how he wouldn’t be keen on debates and other typical apologetic encounters:
If our approach to Christian belief is not to remain lost in epistemological abstraction and objectivity, and if we are to find a prophetic model of witness that will be able to come forth as edification—as a spiritual activity that is itself an expression of faith—then our account of Christian belief will need to be couched in terms of an ethics of belief and not just an epistemology. (91)
He also introduces the role irony plays in apologetics. Irony, he believes, is a way of exploiting the discrepancy between the agreed rules for rational discourse and how things really are (92). When used prophetically (as in how the prophets used it), it can be a way forward for us in a postmodern context to embody the Word we announce (101). Ultimately, Penner would like the focus to be on the ethics of belief more than on the epistemology of belief.
The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context
Myron B. Penner
The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context
Myron B. Penner
He also explores the politics of witness, which he sees as more appeal and less coercion. Penner wants apologetics to be “person-preserving” rather than running roughshod over others in the pursuit of “victory.” As he concludes:
My aim in this book is to place us in a position to acknowledge the topsy-turvy fragmentation of our (post)modern world that has gone down the rabbit hole with Alice, without trying to deny or suppress the unsettling nature of our contemporary situation. I think it can be shown that it is a fundamental mistake for us, at this juncture, to carry forward the modern paradigm and mount a damage control operation that attempts to make sense of and control the chaos by reconstructing Christian belief in terms amenable to the modern epistemological project. (171)
Strengths and Weaknesses
A major strength of The End of Apologetics is Penner’s clarity of writing. He is dealing with complex subjects and does so in an accessible manner. Another is his clear love for apologetics and for spreading the truth of Christ in a way that affirms the person. Finally, he provides concise critiques of some of the excesses of modernity, and to the extent that Christians have bought into and inseparably wedded them to their apologetic approach, Penner’s book provides a good corrective. In some ways, I’m sympathetic to his project since his chief aim is to make apologetics more effective rather than eradicate it.
But, sympathetic though I am, several weaknesses exist. I’ll note two.
First, though Penner interacts with Craig’s entry in Five Views on Apologetics (Zondervan, 2000) he seems wholly unaware of the presuppositional approach, much less practitioners like Conelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, or John Frame (not to mention William Edgar or Scott Oliphint). Van Til was critiquing modernity before postmodernity was even around, so many of the critiques Penner levels against Craig’s “classical” approach wouldn’t hold if applied to presuppositional or covenantal apologetics. Penner’s work would have been stronger had he interacted with this approach—either to critique it from his vantage point or to clarify how his approach is different and superior.
Second, I think Penner’s approach is self-defeating. A book full of epistemological arguments is itself doing many of the things he’s telling us not to do. In his apologetic for a certain type of apologetics Penner fails to follow his own advice—and likely couldn’t given the nature of book writing. So while I think much of his counsel for doing apologetics is helpful (and even importable into a different epistemological framework), encapsulating his arguments into a book seems to undercut the consistent application of his approach to knowledge, argumentation, and apologetics. I doubt Penner would agree with this assessment, but I also don’t think he’s fully broken out from the modernist framework from which he’s encouraging others to break out.
Break Free
Had I been a sold-out disciple of Craig’s “classical” approach, The End of Apologetics might have prompted more cognitive dissonance. As it is, I frequently thought Yes, but . . . as I read. Penner’s diagnosis didn’t sufficiently account for the different ways to approach apologetic without capitulating to the modernist project, and his own attempt to move forward didn’t quite break free either.
Postmodernism is something all Christians need to reckon with—especially when it comes to apologetics. The End of Apologetics provides some insights, especially when it comes to engaging with others in a manner sensitive to the existential issues involved. Put into a different epistemological framework—one that is neither modern nor postmodern, but rather covenantal—Penner’s wisdom would get the most mileage in actual apologetic encounters.