An Incarnational Apologetic

Introduction
Travis sank back in the sofa and sighed in frustration. The young man sitting next to him, uncrossed his legs, set his latte down on the coffee table, and offered an incredulous, “What?” Travis’s long awaited opportunity had come and gone in less than five minutes. All of his carefully constructed arguments for defending the existence of God and other critical tenets of the Christian worldview surrendered to a completely disarming, “That may be true for you, Travis; but it has no meaning for me.” Rational argument – Travis could handle; in fact, he expected to spend hours in rigorous discourse articulating and defending the propositional truth of the Christian faith with his college acquaintance. But to have his initial sullies dismissed with such a nonchalant response left him completely drained of any apologetic energy.
Travis’s experience is common to many. Raised in a Christian home and bred on a diet of rational, propositional argument for defending the faith, he had little encounter with the relatively new kid on the block – postmodern unbelief. Many well-meaning Christians find themselves equally frustrated as they bring the propositional, rational arguments that were constructed in the context of modernity to bear on the postmodern context. As David Dockery points out, “many of us still consider ourselves to be living in the modern context” (13). The sobering reality for Travis and others like him is that this new challenge of postmodern unbelief is not an isolated phenomenon. Dockery further points out that postmodernism is essentially a “dislocating human condition” that goes far beyond mere relativism. It is a new philosophy that permeates Western civilization at its very core. From its gatekeepers in education to its storefront purveyors in everyday culture, postmodernism offers a new way of viewing the world (14). In fact, in contrast to being a small and isolated movement, Christian thinker, Os Guinness, believes postmodernism represents a “watershed moment” (16).
In attempting to understand this watershed moment, most scholars point out that the term “postmodern” refers to time rather than a distinct ideology. The modern period has ended; the postmodern period has begun. Gene Veith associates the shift from the modern to the postmodern in America with the culture revolution of the 1960′s, symbolically climaxing with the demolition of the Pruitt-Igloe housing development in St. Louis on July 15, 1972. The Pruit-Igloe housing development was the poster boy for modernism with its exemplary high technology, modernistic aesthetics, and functional design (39). Yet as Veith points out, “the project was so impersonal and depressing, so crime-ridden and impossible to control, that it was uninhabitable” (39). Furthermore, the demolition of the Pruitt-Igloe housing project is a paradigm for postmodernism. Veith critically explains, “the modern worldview constructs rationally designed systems in which human beings find it impossible to live…while it may have been appropriate to dynamite modernism, most postmodern theories refuse to provide a more habitable alternative” (39).
Although the term postmodern denotes time, postmodernism deals in ideas. Postmodern theories and their departure from modernity constitute a second critical element that defines this watershed moment. Diogenes Allen identifies four critical points of breakdown that occurred between postmodernity’s clash with modernity (3-5). Two of these points of breakdown will be addressed later in this paper. But his fundamental perspective toward the breakdown of modernity and the triumph of postmodernity is of special interest here. While affirming Veith’s analysis that postmodern theories fail to offer any constructive alternative to modernity, they have created a climate of questioning that Allen welcomes as new opportunities for Christian theism to proclaim its truth in the market place of ideas, providing that a critical reevaluation of its truth claims take place free from the modern assumptions of modernity which are generally hostile to religion (2). Thomas Oden echoes this same perspective. In the epilogue to his book, After Modernity…What?, Oden states, “the happy task of theology is to rediscover and reveal the message underneath the modern garnish overlay” (201).
Building on these perspectives regarding the climate of questioning that characterizes postmodernity and the opportunities that it affords Christian theism, the purpose of this paper is, first, to examine and evaluate two areas in which the postmodern thinker rightly challenges modernist assumptions. In keeping with Allen’s perspective, the postmodern critique of modernity offers opportunities for Christian theism to speak its truth into the postmodern context. The second purpose is to define the characteristics of an effective apologetic approach to the postmodern context. In an attempt to recover what Oden called the “apostolic center” of its mission, that task will be defined and described as an “incarnational apologetic.” The Incarnation is the pattern by which the church should approach its mission. The eternal Word of God “became flesh and made His dwelling among us” (John 1:14). The premise being that He is not only the teacher; He is the lesson, the subject matter.

Postmodern Challenge #1: Epistemology
Allen Bloom states in his book, The Closing of the American Mind, that one thing is certain regarding today’s college students: relativism is the culture of the day (25). He is absolutely correct. As Travis discovered, postmodernism rejects the correspondence theory of truth, the reigning epistemological principle for centuries that views truth as the correspondence between propositions and reality. Whether one reads such postmodern thinkers as Foucault, Derrida, or Rorty, relativism rules the day, and absolute truth is viewed as an outdated and antiquated notion.
The consequences of rejecting the correspondence theory are great. But, as Stanley Grenz points out, the clash of postmodernism with the Christian worldview runs deeper than a debate over competing epistemological theories. The more fundamental issue is the postmodern despair over discovering any all-encompassing truth or constructing a unified field of knowledge. Grenz affirms that this despair is not one realized from trial and failure to construct such a unified field of knowledge, but one that logically follows the assumption that a unified reality does not exist (163).
The rejection of a unified reality or the metanarrative, leaves one with only competing limited narratives, each being equally valid and invalid simultaneously. In fact, as Grenz points out, terms such as valid and invalid become meaningless and result in the abandonment of any final criterion upon which to verify or falsify any truth claim (163-64). This is perhaps the greatest challenge that confronts Travis and those like him, communicating an absolute message to a postmodern culture – that is to fellow students, to neighbors, to the proprietors of local businesses, who reject absolutes.
So, how should Travis respond to his friend’s epistemological challenge that truth for him was personal – defined in his own individual terms? At least two responses are necessary. First, while the Christian apologist should challenge the postmodern rejection of the metanarrative, he should not completely dismiss the postmodern critique of modernity’s epistemology. According to Grenz, “evangelicals have often uncritically accepted the modern view of knowledge despite the fact that at certain points the postmodern critique is more in keeping with Christian theological understandings” (165).
Grenz identifies three modernist assumptions regarding knowledge that postmodernism rightly challenges: the certainty, objectivity, and goodness of knowledge (165-166). In a qualified way, Christian theism should also challenge these assumptions. While Christian theism affirms the certainty of divine general and special revelation, it denies that knowledge acquired thereof is derived from autonomous human reason exclusively employing the scientific method. Furthermore, Christian theism also recognizes that the human intellect, regardless of its method of knowledge acquisition, is affected by sin due to fallen human nature. Likewise, Christian theism stands in harmony with the postmodern critique of the modern epistemological ideal of the “dispassionate observer,” who stands outside the flow of history and culture, and objectively encounters the external world. In contrast, Christian theism affirms that one’s personal culture and history influence, and to some degree, condition, what Richard Weaver called one’s “metaphysical dream” of the world (18). Finally, Christian theism also rejects the Enlightenment assumption that knowledge is inherently good, a view that has misled many in various utopian pursuits. The human problem will not be solved by merely dispelling ignorance; the human will must also undergo renewal and redirection (Grenz 165-67).
A second epistemological response or task that the Christian apologist must undertake in light of the postmodern context is to rethink the function of assertions or propositions. While Christian theism applauds the Enlightenment’s focus on logical argumentation and the reasonableness of the Christian faith, the postmodern critique of modernity rightly condemns its elevation of man’s cognitive dimension. Man is more than a rational being. As Grenz points out, the Christian must not compartmentalize truth into the categories of rational certainty that typify modernity. Rather, in understanding and articulating the Christian faith, we must make room for the concept of ‘mystery’ – not as an irrational complement to the rational but as a reminder that the fundamental reality of God transcends human rationality. While remaining reasonable, therefore, the appeal of our gospel must not be limited to the intellectual aspect of the human person. It must encompass other dimensions of our being as well (170).
Grenz draws upon the postmodern social theorists who are “attempting to replace the individualistic foundational rationalism of modern Western thinking with an understanding of knowledge and belief that views them as socially and linguistically constructed” (170). In short, these theorists assert that the propositions that one constructs about reality are shaped by one’s experiences, which further shape one’s interpretive propositions. Grenz points out that Christian theism recognizes this phenomenon and affirms that at the heart of such shaping and molding experiences is the Christian’s personal encounter with God in Christ. Through this encounter, the Christian pursues an understanding of the metanarrative through propositional categories such as “sin” and “grace,” “alienation” and “reconciliation”, and other distinctively Christian doctrines. By embracing this postmodern distinction regarding propositions, Grenz is emphasizing that the function of assertions and propositions is to pave the way for others to join the Christian in his encounter of God in Christ and pursue meaning thereby realized, rather than merely adopt a new set of philosophical propositions. In this way, “the encounter with God in Christ is both facilitated by and expressed in categories that are propositional in nature. The categories that form the cradle for this experience in turn constitute the grid through which the believer comes to view all of life” (171). Therefore, the function of propositions encompasses but is not limited to the rational or intellectual. Rather, their function is to provide categories in which people, in the totality of their beings, are facilitated in their pursuit of the grand narrative.
Postmodern Challenge #2: Radical Individualism
The second challenge that Travis’s friend articulated was that of modernity’s elevation of the individual and, by contrast, postmodernity’s concern for community. Travis parried with a quick defense of the individual. After all, isn’t the essence of the Christian faith a personal, individual relationship with God through the redeeming work of Jesus Christ? Furthermore, from an empirical standpoint, the various totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century should signify a warning against the tyranny of the collective.
However, on closer inspection, Christian theism should echo the concern that postmodern thinkers are raising regarding the radical individualism of modernity. While rejecting the self-determining, autonomous individual who stands isolated from any historical and cultural context, postmodernism emphasizes the “individual-within-community” (Grenz 168). In fact, the individual-in-the-abstract does not exist. The individual always stands in relationship – relationship with God, self, others, and the natural world. The individual is pivotal to human discussion because his volitional power affects those relationships. Although the individual occupies this pivotal position, his position should not be misconstrued as self-determining, resulting in the radical individualism of modernity.
The underlying concern that Travis missed as his friend challenged the notion of the individual was the concern for authenticity. His friend intimated this concern as he expressed dismay over the Christian’s allegiance to doctrine yet a disavowed sense of community. Here again, postmodernists offer a legitimate critique of the Christian’s active acceptance of the individual but passive stance toward community. At the heart of this critique is the postmodern understanding of identity construction. Paul Ricoeur, in Oneself as Another, examines the themes of narrative identity and personal identity and their link to a philosophy of action in relation to others. Standing in harmony with other communitarians, Ricoeur affirms that people come to an understanding of self through the mediation of the community in which they participate. Their sense of identity as personal narrative develops through the narrative of the community (113-139). Therefore, the community mediates a transcendent narrative that encompasses such traditions as truth, virtue, and the common good, that then drives identity construction.
Christian theism should recognize this communal phenomenon as it relates to identity construction. Foundational to this construction is the reality of the Trinity and the fact that God’s identity is defined in communal terms. Furthermore, the Christian lives in the context of many communities, one of which is the church. It is this community that should strongly shape the identity construction of its members as it mediates the metanarrative that is summed up in Christ. Such identity construction answers the question of authenticity. As believers live out the metanarrative as mediated through the church and mirror the community expressed in the Trinity, the watching world will observe something authentic. The gospel will thereby be presented not only propositionally, but also the gospel will be embodied in relationships that are affirming, authentic, and reconciling. This authenticity in relationships will answer a hunger for which the postmodern longs and finds conspicuously absent in modernity.
So, while Travis explores an “incarnational apologetic” he begins by disentangling his erroneous modernist assumptions born out of the Enlightenment with that of the Gospel as embodied in Jesus Christ. In so doing, he allows the postmodern, justified critique of modernity’s “dispassionate” and autonomous quest for knowledge, along with its radical individualism to inform his presuppositions. While this disentanglement is a necessary first step, it is not the last step. The result of his mind renewal should be a newly avowed approach to presenting the gospel: one that affirms a high view of Scripture, one that builds on the foundational doctrines of Christian theism, and one that reaches for an authenticity in relationships that epitomizes the community of the Trinity. While all elements of this mind renewal are critical, the last one is that which will be most evident to the watchful eye of postmodern unbelief. As Andy Crouch insightfully pointed out, the question that people like Travis’s friend are asking today is not “Is Christianity true?” but “Is Christianity worth believing” (101). The distinction between the two questions lies in their respective requirements for satisfactory answers. The first requires propositional argument, marshaled in courtroom language. The second requires an attractive vision, shaped by authentic living (101).
So where can Travis turn so that his thinking and approach to an incarnational apologetic are both well informed and authentically attractive? While certainly allowing the Word of God to inform his thinking, there are authentic and attractive themes that emerge from the social science literature dealing with conflict resolution that converge with Biblical truth which can further inform Travis’s approach to an incarnational apologetic. Five such convergences of themes include: 1) the Trinity as paradigmatic for authentic community; 2) costly love; 3) the imago dei; 4) the “will to embrace”; and 5) relationship building and contextualization.

An Incarnational Apologetic: the Trinity as Paradigmatic to Authentic Community
In a time when communal conflict reigns both inter-culturally and intra-culturally, the postmodern rightly searches for the means to healthy, peaceful community. Such a quest requires substance if the end of disarming conflict and not merely placating its destructive energy is to be realized. For this reason Helmick and Peterson devote the first section of their book, Forgiveness and Reconciliation, to the “Theology of Forgiveness;” and rightly so, for theology looks to divine Revelation as its source of authority.
One theme that emerges from their contributors is that of the Trinity as paradigmatic for authentic community. In contrast to isolation and division that a radical individualism promotes and one that the postmodern rightly criticizes stands the Trinity as a model for community that should inform the communal life of the church. Although the postmodern may argue that allegiance to a divine being tends to divide people rather than unify, Miroslav Volf effectively argues that a monotheism of a Trinitarian nature promotes community and restrains self-enclosed and exclusive identities (Helmick and Petersen 33). If God is three persons, Father Son, and Spirit, then the identity of each person is understood in relation to the others. Furthermore, Volf argues that these three non-self-enclosed identities “form a perfect communion of love; the persons give themselves to each other and receive each other in love” (33). Therefore, peace in the present is grounded in the “transcendental peacefulness of the divine being” (33).

An Incarnational Apologetic: “Costly Love”
Foundational to the perfect community found in the Trinity is love. Love – not defined in postmodern terms such as tolerance or sentimentality – but love as defined and exemplified by the Incarnation. Here again, themes from the conflict resolution literature converge with a Christian theistic definition of love. In exploring a theology of forgiveness, Rodney Petersen builds on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s notion of “costly grace” and emphasizes the need for “costly forgiveness” – one that is rooted and exemplified in Christ’s atonement. He argues that such a “costly forgiveness” is the out-working of the sacrificial love intrinsic to the cross and becomes the building block for authentic community (Helmick and Petersen 19). So, part and parcel to Travis’s marching orders as he faces his postmodern friend is: learn to love as Christ loved – for He is not only loving, He is love; and such love is intrinsic to the Trinity.
There are at least two reasons why demonstrating true, biblical love is such a critical issue at this cultural moment in history. First, postmodernism speaks much of love but demonstrates just the opposite. Commenting on one of Dostoevsky’s books in which he depicts a conversation between two characters who describe hell as the inability to love, Ravi Zacharias points out that all hell has broken loose on postmodern culture (112); for with all of the talk of love, betrayals and atrocities to one’s fellow man run rampant and the underlying assumptions of postmodernism fail to check their destructive course. Postmodernism, while rejecting the radical individualism and hedonism of modernity, which are logical ends of the Enlightenment Project, fails to provide moral moorings that direct the human emotions and sensibilities away from self-gratification. But love rooted in the Trinity and the Atonement has nothing to do with self-gratification. Love is the posture of the soul and its attachments are binding. Love is “costly”, sacrificial – an issue of the will and not merely the emotions and sensibilities. Such a definition of love needs to be demonstrated to the postmodern.
But then there is a second reason why Biblical love is such a superlative testimony at this cultural moment – and that is the issue, again, of authenticity. As Francis Schaeffer pointed out, if Christians are to expect the non-Christian to believe that God exists and that they really believe what they profess to be true – then they must wear the mark of love; for love is the clear, objective standard of truth (188). So, as Travis demonstrates a costly love to his postmodern friend, he will see Christ’s love. In his consistent demonstration of love, even in very difficult situations, his friend will see something of a crucified love. That kind of love demonstrates something authentic and genuine. Show that to the world, and perhaps as Dorothy Sayers has said, “at least they may realize that here is something that a man might be glad to believe” (25).
An Incarnational Apologetic: the Imago Dei
Building then on the Trinity and the love intrinsic to it as paradigmatic for authentic community, how does Travis move from modernity’s smug self-enclosed concept of self to a demonstration of the costly love identified above that is critical to a genuine representation of Christ in the world? Two issues of perspective are necessary. First, he must take seriously the imago dei. His postmodern friend is, in fact, the image of God looking back at him. Schaeffer continuously emphasized the respect with which the unbeliever should be approached – a respect born out of the doctrine of man bearing God’s image. James Houston effectively argues that the imago dei should be interpreted relationally as opposed to facultatively. In contrast to interpreting the imago dei in terms of man’s rationality as is common in Augustinian theology, it is better interpreted in light of who man is before God. Themes such as righteousness are not so much judicial categories as they are relational categories – of what a person has in relation to another. Ultimately, God, by creating man in His image, predestined him to live in community – that is, “for” and “in” the Other (86). Therefore, taking seriously the imago dei will keep Travis from conceptually isolating his postmodern friend, but rather, aid him in viewing his friend with respect and a desire to usher him into the ultimate community of belief.
An Incarnational Apologetic: the “Will to Embrace”
Not only must Travis take seriously the imago dei, there is also a second critical perspective he must embrace if he is to authentically demonstrate a costly love to his postmodern friend. Whereas the first perspective was directed outward, toward his friend, this second perspective is directed inward, toward himself. In his Chapter entitled “The Drama of Embrace”, Miroslav Volf identifies four structural elements that form the essence of reconciling alienated parties. The first of these elements is identified as “opening the arms.” Opening the arms is a sign of discontent with one’s self-enclosed identity, an identity as was noted above that is part and parcel to modernity’s concept of self, and of a desire for the other. This gesture also signifies that space has been created within oneself for the other to come in and has initiated movement out of oneself so as to enter the space created by the other (140-141). Such a gesture represents a fundamental change of perspective that is critical to an incarnational apologetic. It represents a self-emptying that is prerequisite to fulfilling Christ’s dominical summary of the law: a love for God and a love for one’s fellow man.

An Incarnational Apologetic: Relationship Building and Contextualization
After building on the Trinity and the love intrinsic to it as paradigmatic for authentic community, and embracing a proper perspective of the imago dei and moving the will to embrace the other, how does Travis bridge the gap between good intentions and real follow-through? Part of the answer is found in the notions of relationship building and contextualization. As a relationship is built and the other’s personal/historical context is better understood, several opportunities emerge for leading the other to an understanding and embracing of the grand narrative found in Christ.
First, Leith Anderson argues that since the postmodern embraces a post-forensic worldview, rational argument is best conveyed in the context of close personal relationships (45-46). In this way, empathy colors the contours of the argument and the other is not viewed as merely a challenge to tackle or a battle to be won. Through a personal relationship, the other can be mentored not only through rational argument, but also through a living – an incarnational – representation of the Gospel.
Second, there may be something in the other’s personal history/context that offers a point of parallelism to the gospel. The postmodern understands narrative or story as the embodiment of truth as more important than a mere record of facts. Thom Hopler interprets John, Chapter 4, in this light. Jesus brings the gospel to bear upon the Samaritan woman through a parallel point of contact with her personal history. Such points of contact can be unearthed through personal relationships. Important to this process is valuing the other person’s experiences and history as real and empathizing with them in their experiences; not simply dismissing them as irrelevant in the cause of upholding Truth (55-63, 158).
This leads to a third strategy: the practice of empathy. Building on Philippians 2:4, Daniel Buttry argues that understanding the other person’s position and needs will help direct transforming initiatives that are relevant to the other’s personal context (31). Empathy will also foster the emptying of oneself, followed by the opening of oneself to the other. Often walls of exclusion, constructed in prideful evaluation of the other’s actions or mindset, are difficult to dismantle. Commenting on Alexander Solzhenitzen’s The Gulag Archipelago, Lewis Smedes observes that Solzenhitzen was able to leave personal space for his friend, who became a willing agent in human brutality, by putting himself in the other’s shoes. Such a view of the other is a reminder that God’s effectual grace is a prerequisite for anything good. As Smedes points out, “put me in other circumstances, where to be honest or courageous requires a very high price, and I could not guarantee anyone that I would be a hero (148-149). Therefore, such an empathic view of the other will lead to transforming initiatives that are positive and affirming in character and completely dependent on the grace of God in realizing their ends.
In conclusion, postmodernism rightly challenges the epistemology of modernity and presents opportunities to those like Travis who would bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to bear on their generation. While challenging the radical skepticism and despair that characterizes postmodernism due to its rejection of the metanarrative, Christians would be amiss in dismissing the postmodern critique of modernity in those areas of epistemology defined earlier in this paper. Furthermore, the other aspects of the postmodern ethos identified earlier should lead the Christian apologist to embrace an “incarnational apologetic” – one that materially demonstrates that the purpose of human existence is more than the accumulation of knowledge. Rather it is the pursuit of wisdom: wise living in which all relationships – including those with God, self, others, and the created world – stand in harmony. The modus operandi for such harmony is found in Jesus’ dominical summary of the law: “love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:37-39). Such “costly love” fulfills Paul’s exhortation: “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5:1-2).
—
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Diogenes. Christian Belief in a Postmodern World. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989.
Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
Buttry, Daniel L. Christian Peacemaking – From Heritage to Hope. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1994.
Crouch, Andy. “Zarathustra Shrugged.” Christianity Today Sept. 3, 2001: 101.
Dockery, David S. The Challenge of Postmodernism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995.
Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.
Guinness, Os. A Time for Truth – Living Free in a World of Lies, Hype, & Spin. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
Helmick, Raymond G. and Rodney L. Petersen, eds. Forgiveness and Reconciliation. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2001.
Hopler, Thom and Marcia Hopler. Reaching the World Next Door. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
Oden, Thomas C. After Modernity…What? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.
Ricoeur, Paul. Oneself as Another. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Sayers, Dorothy L. Creed or Chaos? Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1974.
Schaeffer, Francis. The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, Volume 4. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982.
Smedes, Lewis B. Forgive and Forget – Healing the Hurts We Don’t Deserve. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1984.
Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. Postmodern Times – A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994.
Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion & Embrace. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996.
Weaver, Richard M. Ideas Have Consequences. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1948.
Zacharias, Ravi. Can Man Live Without God? Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1994.