مقالة أو فقرة

Making the Case for the Truth of Christ: Exploring a Biblical Model

المؤلف: Lars Dahle
التاريخ: 26.09.2010
Category: الحق والتعددية, الشهادة الشخصية, خدمة السوق

التقييم (1)

Currently 4.00/5

تفضيل (1)

ترجمات

The major theme for the opening day of the Cape Town Congress 2010 is “making the case for the truth of Christ in a pluralistic, globalized world”.

In order to encourage and equip each other for that key task, we need to identify, explore and apply relevant biblical material. There is no better place to start than with Paul’s apologetic approach in Athens.

This approach is relevant when meeting secularity, in the marketplace, when engaging the media, and in personal witness.

Learning from Paul’s argumentative approach in Athens

We are called to bear witness to the truth of Christ in today’s pluralistic and globalized world. Our contemporary world represents a variety of pluralistic contexts, each with its different defining characteristics and with its specific opportunities and challenges for Christian witness.

There are some parallels between our contemporary pluralistic contexts and the pluralistic contexts of the early Christians, especially when they were facing the marketplace outside the synagogue. This is, of course, what the apostle Paul faced in Athens (as well as in other major cities like Corinth and Ephesus).

Acts 17:16-34 provides us with a highly fascinating account of Paul’s visit to Athens. This passage describes the apostle’s initial preaching in the synagogue and in the marketplace. He encountered a context characterized both by critique and curiosity, expressed in objections and questions and coloured by various alternative worldview. Paul was invited to present his case in the marketplace before the Areopagus Council, which (among other duties) had the task of licensing heralds of foreign gods.

Thus, the apostle was invited to make the case for “Jesus and the Resurrection” to this distinguished audience with other Athenians in the marketplace listening in. We may say that Paul’s argumentative approach in Athens was a move from natural theology via ultimate authority to the Resurrection.

First argument: The natural theology argument

Paul argues that natural theologies such as Stoic pantheism and Epicurean deism contain elements of truth. However, a Judeo-Christian natural theology provides the most adequate view of God, the universe and humanity.

This developed argument has a number of functions in Paul’s apologetic: It simultaneously answers the question "Is there a need for a new altar?" and meets the objection "This is foreign!". Furthermore, it provides a credible premise for Paul’s claims about God’s judgement - since God in fact has ultimate authority as the Creator and Sustainer. Finally, it provides a theistic context for Paul’s claims about ’Jesus and the Resurrection’.

We need to explore critical and creative ways of introducing the reality of God into our various secular and pluralistic contexts.

This includes the following:

Everyone has a belief or a worldview, whether conscious of this or not. This fact always represents a possibility for us to introduce our biblical worldview perspective into various informal and formal discussions and contexts. This means that the one and true God at least may become a potential reality for people who do not know the Christian worldview.
It is important to be aware of the dominant religious and secular worldviews in our various contexts and how we may affirm elements of truth within those worldviews. This actually represents key resources for introducing the classical Judeo-Christian view of God, the universe and humanity as the most adequate worldview.
We must not underestimate the pervasive influence of secular thought in education, media and popular culture. We would therefore do well to be aware of the best contemporary apologetic arguments for the existence of God. Such approaches include the cosmological argument (on the origin of the universe), the teleological argument (on the design of the universe) or the moral argument (on objective moral values and duties).
I need to add that in some cultural, professional and personal contexts it seems difficult or inappropriate to share one’s Christian faith in the God of the Bible. In such settings we need to pray that our “good deeds” may speak clearly of our faith in the Triune God, which in the next phase may lead to open questions and meaningful conversations. We also need to remember the potential of asking our non-Christian family, friends, and colleagues what they believe in (or what their most basic – or ultimate – commitment is), which again may lead to the possibility of introducing the reality of God.

Second argument: The ultimate authority argument

Paul argues that the Judeo-Christian God has ultimate authority, as expressed in the claims about his final judgment. This is plausible, since he is the Creator and Sustainer, and it constitutes an appropriate basis for claims about “the epistemic obligation” of the Christian faith.

This compressed argument has a number of functions in Paul’s apologetic: It answers the implicit question "If we are wrong, why is there no plague?" and relativizes or deconstructs any claims to any kind of human ultimate authority. It also challenges fundamental Athenian attitudes such as their escapism, attempts at safety-precautions, and feelings of self-sufficiency. Furthermore, it presents God’s final judgment (which is an expression of his ultimate authority) as the plausible reason for the universal summons to repentance (thus claiming the ’epistemic obligation’ of the Christian faith). Finally, it reintroduces the topic "Who is ’Jesus’?" in an indirect and ’proactive’ way.

We need to explore critical and creative ways of introducing God’s ultimate authority into our various secular and pluralistic contexts.

This includes the following:

The strong link between God the Creator and Sustainer as being the Author of Life, and therefore having ultimate authority over life, needs to be communicated in a variety of creative ways. This is also related to the moral argument for God’s existence (on objective values and duties).
The concept of God’s ultimate authority naturally introduces the holiness of God and therefore provides a basis for introducing the need for salvation from our sins.
Many young people (especially in the Global North but gradually also in the Global South) are disillusioned with authority and suspicious of any claim to authority. We need to show that the claim of the God of the Bible to ultimate authority is the opposite of manipulation. This may be argued forcefully with reference to the Cross of Christ, as showing God’s power in weakness and as an invitation to every human to consider and reflect on God’s holy love.

Third argument: The Resurrection argument

Paul argues that the historical Resurrection of Jesus has a threefold function. It resonates with ultimate human concerns, it indicates the uniqueness and authority of Jesus, and it is based on sufficient, available evidence.

This highly condensed argument has a number of functions in Paul’s apologetic: It answers in an indirect way the questions "Can we hear more about this?" and "Who is ’Jesus’ and what is ’the Resurrection’?". It also reintroduces the controversial question of the Resurrection (from 17:18) in a theistic context with claims to ultimate authority. The Christian claims about the Resurrection are introduced as more attractive than Stoicism (“the soul lives on after death but is finally absorbed into god”) or Epicureanism (“death is the end of all existence”). The reason is that the message of the Resurrection (“death conquered!”) speaks to ultimate human needs and concerns. Furthermore, it provides evidence of the unique role of the man Jesus as God’s appointed Judge. Finally, it implicitly invites the listeners to check the credibility of the historical evidence for the Resurrection.

We need to explore critical and creative ways of introducing the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus into our various secular and religious contexts.

This includes the following:

Death is the final enemy for every human being all over the world. Deep fears for - and total uncertainty in relation to - the future is widespread in many contexts. This is true whether we talk about the future of individuals, communities or our planet. The Resurrection of Jesus resonates in a unique cross-cultural way with such ultimate human concerns.
The question of who Jesus was and is continues to be an issue of real interest to many people. This is clearly evident in such diverse and immensely popular movies as The DaVinci Code and The Passion of Christ. In the light of this widespread on-going interest in Jesus, it is crucial to communicate the Resurrection of Jesus as a clear indication of his uniqueness and authority as the Son of God.
The postmodern (or late modern) tendency in the Global North (and gradually, it seems, also in the Global South) towards relativism influences people’s perspectives on the historical evidence related to the Resurrection of Jesus. However, we should have confidence in the fact that the New Testament claim that Jesus was raised from the dead is supported by sufficient and available evidence. It is also very important to recognize that none of the alternative explanations can explain all the four key facts; i.e. the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus, the birth of the church.

Using and applying Paul’s argumentative approach today

Paul’s case for the truth of Christ, as expressed in the Athenian context, is confirmed by the book of Acts at large. I am here thinking both of the apologetic purpose(s) of Acts and of other speeches (such as in Lystra and before King Agrippa).

It should also be mentioned that some key passages in Paul’s letters also confirms his Athenian approach (such as 1 Thess. 1.9-10, Rom 1:18ff, and 1 Cor 9:19-23). Thus, Acts 17 may be taken as a legitimate biblical model for apologetics.

We have seen that Paul’s argumentative approach before the Areopagus Council may be expressed in terms of a move from natural theology through ultimate authority to resurrection.

This argumentative model is certainly worth exploring in our missional encounters with today’s secular and pluralistic contexts. We all need courage, wisdom and the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit in our creative applications of this key biblical model in our different cultural contexts.

كلمات مفتاحية: truth, Christ, pluralism, Bible, Paul, Acts 17, apologetics

محاورة نشر تعليق

: رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني windjammer (4)
كندا

Hi Lars

I just read your article again.

All good stuff for the academy and the people within, or those who have escaped. I agree we can make use of good evidentiary apologetics there. But, in the 21st century context, where we live, move, and have our being, such as the workplace, in the park, in the neighborhood, and on the street, what is the best apologetic? In regards to this too, we are moving into a post Christian, post modern, post colonial and post Constantine phase. Evidence, reason, rationality, symmetry, evidence hat demands a verdict, winners and losers, generally won’t work. People want to know that we care, that we have integrity. A new apologetic for the new age is vital. Check out my article in the Market Place Ministry Conversation on the Church as Apologetic. What I am hearing like clanging symbols from many is a return to the past.

Cheers

Dr Bryan Hagerman

01.10.2010

: رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Lars_Dahle (4)
النرويج
@ windjammer:
Thanks, Bryan, for your stimulating comment. I enjoyed reading your article on the church as apologetic, where you appropriately emphasize the urgent need for authentic and transformational living.

My intention was not to suggest "the Acts 17 model" as an alternative to living in authentic relationships among our families, neighbours, friends and colleagues. Rather the opposite!

If such relationships are truly authentic, at some point serious questions relating to the meaning, significance and truth of the Gospel do come up. In order to handle such key question with biblical wisdom and passion, a passage such as Acts 17 becomes full of rich insights and practical applications.

Thus, Christian apologetics should not be seen as "language of power", but as "language of persuasion". And as such it is not different from any other competing claims to truth in today’s pluralistic world.

Every blessing! / Lars

03.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني GarryAuz (0)
أستراليا

Here is my previous comment saved as a pdf file, including the matrix.

مرفقات يمكن تنزيلها

01.10.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Lars_Dahle (4)

النرويج
@ GarryAuz:

Thanjs, Garry, for your helpful "matrix approach to a pluralistic world". It is biblically rich, sensitive to where people are and full of practical applications.

The "Acts 17 model" that I outlined is certainly not intended as the only valid, reliable or relevant approach. It seems to me, however, that there is an intriguing ambiguity here:

On the one hand, Acts 17 is less relevant than what some may think, since the specific Athenian context was a sophisticated setting philosophically (the schools) and rhetorically (the Areopagos Council). This is certainly not applicable today in all contexts.

On the other hand, Acts 17 is more relevant than what others may think, since the wider Athenian context was characteized by a pluralism of ideas and religions, as expressed in the marketplace (agora). Thus, it is not surprising that there are very definitite parallels between Lystra (Acts 14) and Athens (Acts 17), along the lines of 1 Thess 1,9-10. These aspects of Acts 17 are certainly applicable to many more contexts today!

Thus, there is space for the parallell exploration of many key biblical passages and how they may shape our continuing witness to our Risen Lord.

Every blessing! / Lars

03.10.2010

: رد ضع علم 1 يعجبني لا يعجبني Carson_Weitnauer (2)
الولايات المتحدة

In working with students at Harvard, Boston College, Boston University, and Berklee School of Music, I encounter a strong need for apologetics on a daily basis. Christian students are often bewildered by the questions their friends ask, and these questions have been well-answered. For instance, the question "Why do you think there is a God?" is a good question! And the students I work with are asked this question quite often. To be asked this question is a sign of trust, curiosity, and a willingness to engage in a meaningful discussion with substantive interaction. But when Christians answer this question by saying, "Well, I just feel that there is one, and furthermore, that Jesus is God," there just isn’t much left to talk about. (As an aside, I actually think testimony is one very rational answer to the question). At this point in the conversation, all we have are feelings. "I feel there is a God, you feel there isn’t." By contrast, when I or a well-trained student responds to this question with, "That is a great question! I’m curious about that too. Mind if I share with you some thoughts that have convinced me there is a God?" the door opens to a rich discussion about the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments for God’s existence. And from this point, once the reality of God’s existence is thoughtfully established, there is a tremendous opportunity to follow-up with a discussion of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. I have seen dozens students remain Christian or choose to become Christian because of thoughtful engagement with their real questions. A few books that I’d especially recommend: The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, God is Great, God is Good by William Lane Criag and Chad Meister, and The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona.

The question that remains for me is: what are the barriers to seeing wider adoption of such basic intellectual training for Christians and churches across the world?

01.10.2010

: رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Lars_Dahle (4)
النرويج
@ Carson_Weitnauer:
Thanks, Carson, for sharing your experience from apologetic ministry among students. That was both encouraging and stimulating to read!

Christian apologetics may be understood as the rational justication of central Christian truth claims over against relevant questions, objections and worldview alternatives. This means that apologetics has a real vital but somewhat limited role in our ministries. This is also wonderfully illustrated in your comment!

There are encouraging signs in many evangelical contexts of a global awakening to the key role of apologetics in evangelism and discipleship. I am especially thinking about such minstries as L’Abri Fellowship, IFES, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, and Reasonable Faith (Bill Craig). But there is certainly a need to develop more global partnerships within this whole key area, something that hopefully CT2010 may contribute significantly to.

Every blessing! / Lars

03.10.2010

: رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Lulen (0)
الهند

I think the case is well taken. I have been thinking about the difference between truth and right from biblical perspective. The nature of right and truth should be explored and their application and limitations expounded. Truth, as I see it, is eternal; whereas right is the basic philosophy upon which the present western civilization stands. Right by nature is relative, whereas truth by nature is constant.

26.09.2010

: رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Lars_Dahle (4)
النرويج
@ Lulen:
Thanks, Lulen, for your deep reflections. The differences between truth and right are certainly worth exploring.

When applied to the task of mission and evangelism, it seems to me that truth refers to the content of our message, whereas right refers to the context of our ministry. We are called to bear witness to the truth of the Word who became flesh. This calling is carried out today in the contexts of varying degrees of freedom of expression, which certainly is a fundamenal right in the Western cultural traditiion.

Every blessing! / Lars

03.10.2010

: رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني windjammer (4)
كندا

Hi

It is my perspective that the argumentative (evidence that demands a verdict) model isolates people deeper into their perspective camps. However, for those willing to do the real hard work, and begin a conversation with seekers based around a developed and ongoing relationship, important steps in relationship building have already begun. The life of Jesus in us lived out in full integrity speaks louder and deeper then a linear systematic approach. People are not to be won by us. This is God’s job and we must allow for ways that best produce this opportunity over the old modernistic colonial power grab approach. Neither are people defeated because we have out gunned them in an argument. The 21st century offers an opportunity for Christianity to offer itself as a more than competitive alternative to the pluralism now attempting to dominate our world. The church has never had a greater and more exciting challenge than right now to be the church. We walk with journey with the resurrected Lord.

29.09.2010

رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Lars_Dahle (4)

النرويج
@ windjammer:

Hi Bryan,

Thanks for sharing your perspective freely. Let me briefly offer the following reflections:

I don’t think there can be any meaningful conversation without having real content. And this actually presupposes the presence of (formal and/or informal) arguments.

I can’t see any inherent conflict between growing relationships and engaging in serious discussions. The latter may actually be essential in developing true friendships!

I don’t think that your implicit analysis of my article as being "evidential" is justfied. It certainly has elements from the evidential tradition (why not?), but also from the classical, the presuppositional and the Reformed apologetic traditions.

I certainly agree with you that we as disciples cannot win any person over to faith in Christ by our own efforts. But this is true of anything we do (such as preaching, testimonies, singing etc), and not just when we offer an apologia for our faith in our Risen Lord (1 Pet 3:15).

However, the positive intention of my article was to show how rich the Acts 17 text is in terms of real apologetic content, and how relevant such a biblcial passage is for us today in 21st century to explore and apply in our ongoing witness to the Risen Lord.

Every blessing! / Lars

29.09.2010

: رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني GarryAuz (0)
أستراليا
@ Lars_Dahle:
A great start to an important issue, Lars, and well argued. Reading Bryan’s response though has triggered an interesting ’video’ in my mind of Paul and his thought processes as he was entering Athens, and as he might have entered many other cities on his journeys. I imagine him conversing with the Lord along these lines: ’My Lord, you have brought me to this place and called me to declare your Gospel to these people. What shall I say? Where and how shall I begin? To whom should I speak?’ I further imagine, though it can’t be confirmed, that the Lord might have simply replied, ’My faithful servant, take note of what you see.’ Thus, as Paul entered the city he would have noticed the altars and the idols and the discussions and the marketplace movements and, finally, the opportunities.

I wonder then, if Paul would have use the same approach in another city onthe basis that it had worked in Athens. Of course the answer is ’Yes. He might have’; and, ’No. He might not have.’ And many people would answer: ’It all depends.’ Do we begin by reaching out to the outcast or drug addict, the woman by the well, or the blind beggar? Or, do we begin by addressing the Stoics in the marketplace, the philosophers in the Areopagus, the Pharisees and the Saducees in the Sanhedrin, or the gathered village elders in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, as Kevin Hovey argued in his great book Before All Esle Fails, Read the Instructions. Again - Yes. No. It all depends.

It seems to me, then, that a great forward with this session would be to develop a matrix so that we could more readily make the decision :’Lord, where should I begin?’ Of course, we always need to be open to the voice of God and not to lean on our own understand, but being prepared and aware allows us to readily say ’Yes’ when the Lord says, ’You give them something to eat.’ We might answer: ’But Lord, we have only five loaves, and three fish.’ To which he might reply, ’Good! Let’s start with those.’ A matrix of 5 by 3, perhaps.

What would be in the matrix? What categories? I wouldn’t count myself expert enough in the field of mission strategies to give a complete and final answer. I’m only a humble former missionary, now English teacher. Through this conversation though, I am confident we can develop a broader foundation for reaching out in our pluralistic yet globalised world. So I add my simple ideas to those you and Bryan have already launched.

Model

Acts 17

John 4

Acts

Location

Athens

At a well, Sychar, Samaria

The desert road from Jerusalem to Gaza

Physical evidence

Idols and altars

A woman collecting water in the heat of the day.

A man in a chariot reading a scroll

Cultural communication style

Discussions in the marketplace

Usually not male to female or Jew to Samaritan

Willing to discuss Scripture

Communicators/ audience

Philosophers, city elders

Jesus and a lone, lowly Samaritan woman

An Ethiopian high government official

Familiarity with Gospel

Minimal

Skewed Samaritan interpretation of Jewish prophecy

Mainly only an awareness of Jewish law and ritual

Size of audience

Small group; large assembly

1

1

Possible points of contact

They were religious.

They loved discussing new things.

They were willing to give newcomers a hearing

Common need for water

Her need for more than water

A shared though estranged heritage

Already reading and curious about Isaiah 53 – in a teachable moment

Anticipated points of conflict

The resurrection

Lordship of Christ

Her dysfunctional life

Awareness of Jewish-Samaritan enmity

Doctrinal differences

Could have rejected Gospel on the basis of satisfaction with rituals already conducted

Effect of contact

A small number of people ‘became followers of Paul and believed’.

She realised he was a prophet and possibly the Messiah; village responded

Believed, received and baptised. Possible link to start of Ethiopian church

Application for today

Find open discussion forums eg universities; the Internet.

Be available to the outcast and willing to challenge false doctrines.

Be open to God’s directions. He can lead us to those who are ready and hungry.

I’ve attached a possible matrix incorporating Paul’s approach in Athens, Jesus’ approach with the woman at the well, and Philip’s approach with the Ethiopian. Clearly, many other models could and perhaps should be added. It’s important to keep it simple enough for people to run with it, but complete enough to cover a range of the most likely possibilities. But no matter how many boxes we add, God will never fit into our boxes - but he may use them occasionally. May our creative Creator bless our discussions!

01.10.2010

: رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني GarryAuz (0)
أستراليا
@ GarryAuz:
Apologies: the table did not copy well into my reply. it should be a 4 by 11 matrix. If someone technical is able to fix that, that would be much appreciated. Otherwise read each 4th entry as a table heading. I tried to attach it as document file but it wouldn’t attach.

01.10.2010

: رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Glyn_1 (0)
نيوزيلندا

In appropriate situations it is important to be able to make the case for Christ. Paul found himself in such a situation in Athens (Acts 17), and this article lays out Paul’s argument well. A useful article. Thanks.

29.09.2010

: رد ضع علم 0 يعجبني لا يعجبني Lars_Dahle (4)
النرويج
@ Glyn_1:
Thanks, Glyn, for your encouraging words! Yes, we do need to be prepared when the opportunities arise.

As the apostle Peter reminds us: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Pet 3,15)

And "this living hope", of course, is based on the Resurrection of Jesus! (1 Pet 1,3)

Every blessing! / Lars

29.09.2010