Matthew
joespencer
Robert C.
robf
BrianJ
douglashunter
Kevin Barney
Jim F.
nhilton
cherylem
Clark Goble
NathanG
jennywebb
janetlisonbee
kirkcaudle
Karl D.
KarenWhat is the place of apologetics in teaching and studying?
Posted by joespencer on December 31, 2006
Perhaps it’s because we as Latter-day Saints have been writing apologetics longer than we have been writing anything else, but it sometimes seems to me that we are all too apologetic a people in our teaching, our writing, and even our thinking (“apologetics” is, for those unacquainted with the term, a name for efforts to defend the Church or its teachings against detractors). Even our thinking: is there any particular reason that we feel like we haven’t “done anything” with a lesson, like reading, researching, or studying isn’t “with purpose,” if we don’t leave the activity with our “testimony strengthened”? I think we all know what I’m referring to here: why is it that a lesson (or study) that is filled with textual insight, with theological engagement, or with joy in the word, must somehow confirm (or even “prove”) that Joseph was a prophet, or some such thing? Why, that is, are we always focused on a question we would think should be a presupposition, rather than a conclusion?
So why are we so taken up with apologetics? Why are spending all of this time asking over and over again whether Joseph was a prophet, whether Jesus is the Christ, whether God really answers prayers, etc., etc., etc.? Why do we have testimony meetings over and over and over? And so on.
I myself had become rather frustrated with this aspect of our collective approach to teaching and studying, until I read a wonderful article by Jean-Luc Marion. Writing as a Catholic, he tries (the article is a chapter in his ) to think the role of apologetics in religion. True to form, he changed my thinking about apologetics drastically. Whereas I had always understood the purpose of apologetics to be to prove the truth of a particular Mormon claim, he comes to the conclusion that apologetics is rather an attempt to delineate questions about the truth of a particular claim so clearly that the reader/listener will recognize that there is no proof, one way or the other. In other words, the point of doing apologetics is not to provide positive evidence for a religious claim, but–because the claim cannot be proven true or false–to make it clear that adherence to or repudiation of the claim amounts to a declaration of fidelity/infidelity to whomever (or Whomever) is implicated in the claim, a manifestation of loyalty/disloyalty to whatever community professes to believe the claim.
In short, apologetics is essentially the discourse that defines the borders of a community.
In light of this, it seems to me that apologetics has an important place in study and teaching: we are constantly affirming our place in the community, or confirming exactly where we feel the boundaries of the community lie. Though we certainly might presuppose the community so that we can encounter (within the community) the God of our community, perhaps it is perfectly in order that after that encounter, we take a few minutes to show how that encounter reaffirms the boundaries of the community that grounded it. A dialectic, then: community and the divine encounter, apologetics giving way to dialogic theologizing giving way to apologetics.
So, I think I’ll feel less like I’m selling out next time I feel like pointing out “Hey, the complexity of that textual structure really seems to suggest the truth/historicity/what have you of the Book of Mormon!”
Like this:
This entry was posted on December 31, 2006 at 4:41 pm and is filed under On studying, On teaching. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Robert C. said
Interesting post, Joe.
I tend to think of “having testimonies strengthened” differently than apologetics, though I’m not sure of a good way to separate the two. A good example of the distinction I have in mind is the difference between a hearing a testimony-meeting testimony and reading an apologetic FARMs article. The former seems to be doing something much that is much closer to the experience I have while praying, but I’m not sure if the difference is more in terms of a spiritual vs. intellectual distinction, or if there is another dimension of distinction that is important here. Perhaps the word testimony itself conveys this sense–I think we tend not to think of testimonies in apologetic terms, though again this may simply be because we emphasize that a testimony is not merely an intellectual understanding.
A think a related question is why we study scriptures in the first place–is it to learn (incl. opening to personal revelation) or is it to build our faith (i.e. confirm–amen–what we already know)? Although I tend to think that learning is the primary objective, I think your post is emphasizing the latter, which I think is also important. I tend to think of physical nourishment in similar terms: when young we eat and drink primarily to physically grow, but when we get older we eat and drink primarily to renew our energy and perhaps to grow in non-physical ways (i.e. spiritually or intellectually)….
brianj said
You touched on something I have been wondering about recently. I’ll admit that you lost me with this sentence, “A dialectic, then: community and the divine encounter, apologetics giving way to dialogic theologizing giving way to apologetics.” but that’s because I don’t understand the terms well enough to keep them all in my head.
I would have aligned myself with your previous self: anti-apologetics (though I know that “anti” is too strong). You got me thinking though: there is a place for apologetics. Does that “place” need to be better defined or understood, though? In other words, is apologetics only okay as long as everyone participating understands it in the community-defining terms you use? Too often apologetics feels like wresting the scriptures.
joespencer said
A confession: much of my frustration with apologetics stems from my love for Nibley’s work but my general distaste for most of what has been published “in his honor” since his first earth-shattering publications. In other words, I think that all of Nibley’s descendants have fundamentally misinterpreted his work: he was constantly trying to point out simply that there is no proof against the Church that is universally binding; he was essentially forcing the question again and again: will I take the leap of faith. Nibley did a lot of what might be called wresting, but I tend to think it was more wrestling (with, namely, the claims made by enemies of the Church). His descendants now tend to do more wresting, I think, than wrestling (“We do the thinking for you so you can feel quite comfortable in your faith” or something like that).
A clarification: what I’m thinking about in the “dialectic” is something like the following. I’m wondering if apologetics (in the sense Nibley did it, per the above) does not open onto the possibility of a genuine divine encounter (what I called “dialogic theologizing”) because it establishes the community within which one must encounter the God of the community. (Can I sum this up as “the community chooses its God”?) And then I’m wondering if that encounter does not in turn ground the possibility of establishing the grounds, the limits, and the bounds of the community itself. (Can I sum this up as “the God of the community defines the bounds of the community”?) Hence, there is a sort of cyclical (“dialectical”) play here between the God of the community and the community of the God, each grounding the possibility of the other. (Now, that was probably more cryptic than what I was trying to explain.)
A response: as for Robert’s comments, I think you are right. That is, I think you are right that there is quite a gap between an article in the JBMS and a testimony in sacrament meeting. I suppose that what I’m trying to address in asking the question in the first place is whether the former has not influenced the latter too much. In other words, I suppose I’m wondering whether the gap between these two ought not to be emphasized more strongly. My recent ruminations have begun to lead me to think that there is a very necessary link between apologetic work (strengthening another’s testimony, defining the community) and “dialogic theology” (encountering God, thinking Him in study, prayer, etc.). Hence, I think I still am quite frustrated with most apologetic literature (as Brian points out, so much of it is a wresting of the scriptures), but I think I am beginning to sense a way in which I can separate my frustration with Mormon apologetics from my “natural” inclination to point out here and there while teaching, studying, etc., that this or that detail, concept, framework, etc., seems to confirm or “prove” the truth of the LDS position (or rather, seems to define the boundaries of a faithful LDS position).
brianj said
Hah! maybe it was more cryptic, but it did the trick! What your describing seems to be the notion of “common consent”: D&C 76 is part of our canon (i.e. “scripture”), but President Hinckley’s addresses in General Conference are not—we have not (yet) as a community accepted them as defining. Though one could add such non-LDS canon principles as food storage to the list of what defines us, so I won’t reduce your idea to simply one of canon vs. non-canon.
Robert C. said
From a slighlty different angle, I think an important distinction between apologetics and testimony is who is being addressed. Most apologetic literature seems to be addressed primarily to critics whereas the kind of apologetic aside while teaching that Joe mentions (what I’d call a “testimony-building” comment) is addressed primarily to members themselves. I think one reason that apologetic literature is not very satisfying is that it is a distraction from our relationship with God and with each other….
Matthew Faulconer said
I hadn’t thought of apologetics as a way of defining the borders of a community, but I agree it is helpful to do so. Great posts and comments.
Following Joe’s point I think we should distinguish 2 separate types of bad apologetics. An apology can be poor by 1) poorly defending something important to the community, or 2) defending something which isn’t important (or, worse, is actually harmful) to the community.
I see Joe’s point as asking me to recognize the good of the first type of bad apologetics. The Church is made up of people with different abilities at making and recognizing good arguments. The Church’s practice of asking everyone to participate in apologetics (versus only a few who do it well) is a recognition that a poor defense of something important to the community (type 1 above) is still valuable to the community in that it re-affirms what is and isn’t valuable.
Imagine one person stands up in testimony meeting and says that they know the Book of Mormon is true because someone without any school training couldn’t have written a book without any spelling or grammatical errors. The next person stands up and says that they know the people in this ward are better than others because no other group of people would have helped them out in their time of need like this ward did for them. It is probably better for the first person to give the testimony they have rather than stay quiet. But in the second case, though also well intentioned, this testimony would have been better not shared because the principle that the people in this ward are are better than other people is probably harmful. (Not sure if this is the very good example but I was looking for a harmful principle that you actually hear–something hard to find examples of, I hope.)
joespencer said
Brian, I think you are right to read the concept of “common consent” into my thoughts here. That is not a topic I’ve taken up thematically, but I think it underlies much of my thinking about community lately. At the same time, I think I recognize in the divine encounter a sort of rupture of the community that would base itself entirely on common consent. That is, for a community to be a genuine community, it has to be disrupted by the God of the community, has to be questioned, called into question, and so precisely shattered. The dialectical relation that I’m trying to think about between apologetics and theology is the play between the shattering of the boundaries of the community through the divine experience on the one hand, and the resolidifying of those boundaries through apology on the other hand. Might the relation between these two events be summed up as “on-going revelation”?
Robert, I like the distinction you’re drawing here: between apologetics addressed to the community (and hence, apologetics that work on the bounds of the community) and apologetics addressed to the critics outside the community (apologetics that would apparently, therefore, not perform any work on the bounds of the community). I like this direction, but it opens to me some aspects of apologetics that I’ve not taken up carefully; or rather, it forces me to recognize the fact that there is a good deal more to think about here. A preliminary question, then: what role do the critics of the community play in the solidifying of the boundaries of the community (don’t they, in the end, summon the apologetic response, whether or not it is directed to those critics)? A question, moreover, to link up any answer to the former question with the questions Brian is forcing me to raise here: whatever role the critics play in grounding the apologetic response, isn’t that apologetic response a necessary distraction from the theological encounter (necessary: one that grounds the possibility of community by countering the theological encounter dialectically)?
Matthew, I think the way you sorted things out here is quite suggestive: only bad apologetics are dealt with. That is, perhaps what I’m saying here suggests that there are no good apologetics (in the sense of being argued well, etc.), but only proper (?) apologetics (in the sense of accomplishing the “right” purpose. All apologetics, that is, are bad, but they serve a good purpose. I hadn’t recognized this implication in my own arguments, and I’m not sure you did either, but what you said drew it out for me. Hmmm….
Robert C. said
Joe #7: “necessary: [a distraction] that grounds the possibility of community by countering the theological encounter dialectically.”
I think this whole idea of “dialogic theologizing” (in the original post and in comment #3) is very, very interesting, something I look forward to discussing throughout this year, esp. as we focus on the New Testament and the ideas of an incarnate God, the sacrament and the church as the body of Christ. In particular, I think Hebrews 5-6 is a fascinating place to consider these questions. One idea is that moving from the milk to the meat (5:12-14) might be considered in light of moving from a discussion taking place between those outside of the community and those within to a discussion between those within the community and their God. I think this raises a very interesting way of interpreting 6:1ff, “Therefore (not) leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance”, faith, baptism, etc. (And I’m still thinking about the Mt. Sinai / Mt. Zion contrast in Heb 12 and I think this is all important context for that passage.)
Jim F. said
Joe, would you mind telling us the Marion piece you read? The book title got omitted in your post.
Joe Spencer said
Wow, I hadn’t even caught that the name had been omitted somehow.
The book is _Prolegomena to Charity_, and I have chapter 3 (“Evidence and Bedazzlement”) in mind.
brianj said
I was preparing my lesson for next week and noticed Luke 1:1 as being “apologetics addressed to the community”: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us….”
John said
Much of the esoteric terminology of apolgetics may be found (blessedly) by searching the Web for an explanation.
apologetics: from the Greek apologia, which means “defense” or “answer.” Apologetics is the task of defending a particular idea or belief system and answering its critics.
The two main apologetic methods are classical (evidential) and presuppositional.
dialectic: from the Greek word for conversation. The practice of examining ideas and beliefs using reason and logic; often accomplished by question and answer. Dialectic includes the logical pattern of thought, the overall pattern being thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Thus, thought proceeds by contradiction (thesis/antithesis) and is then reconciled by a fusion of the contradictory ideas (synthesis). The aim of thought is truth, and truth can only be discovered by showing how any given claim survives challenges from opposing claims.
theology: the study of the nature of God. The rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth.
Any Web site (such as this one) that invites learned discussion of philosophy as applied to religious belief should necessarily include a comprehensive glossary so that posts like this can be “translated correctly” by the casual reader.
PS: I heartily detest “spin-doctor apologetics,” where facts are misrepresented or under-evaluated in an attempt to sell a particular viewpoint (religion) to others. Thankfully, little of what I have ready lately falls into this camp. First of all, I have all the proof I need that God exists and that Joseph Smith was his prophet. Secondly, I know that no one is able to find these facts out with a mere appeal to logic. (Job 11:7-8; Jacob 4:8)