An Author Interview from Books At a Glance
It’s not every day that a new book on apologetics receives such high praise from so many sides, and it’s not every day that an apologetics book claims to carry out its agenda from the viewpoint of the Cross. I’m Fred Zaspel, executive editor here at Books At a Glance, and that’s what Joshua Chatraw and Mark Allen have achieved in their new book, Apologetics At the Cross: An Introduction for Christian Witness. They’re here to talk to us about it today.
Josh, Mark, welcome, and congratulations on your new book!
Chatraw and Allen:
Thank you, glad to be with you.
Zaspel:
Tell us how this book came about. What concerns gave rise to it?
Chatraw:
One day Mark and I were sitting in the coffee house and we were talking about apologetics; and we were talking about how we were training our students in the discipline. As we were talking, we were kind of lamenting that students seem to be strong in one area, but not in other areas. They would maybe be good philosophically, but they weren’t very good with the Bible. They would either have a knack for cultural analysis, but they weren’t very good with church history. They didn’t understand the background of the arguments in the discipline. They would be trained in one particular aspect of apologetics, but they didn’t really have a holistic vision of what apologetics could be and really should be in our estimation. So, the conversation went from where students are at, to where we would like to see them be. And as we looked around in the textbook world and in the books that were being written on the topic, they’re just really wasn’t anything quite like what we were thinking needed to be written. So that’s where we kind of threw ourselves at this for the last three years, that was three years ago. We were saying, how do we have this holistic view of apologetics with students in mind, with people in the church in mind, so that they could interact with their neighbors. So, there’s a practical end to it all, there is a pastoral end to it all, but then there’s thinking through the context of training students how to do this the best.
Zaspel:
You define apologetics as “the practice of offering an appeal and a defense for the Christian faith.” Explain for us how with the help of the apostle Peter you arrive at this definition.
Allen:
We looked at the apostle Peter and we looked at the classic verse in 1 Peter, chapter 3, verse 15, that speaks to always being prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do so with gentleness and with reverence. And so, we’ve reflected on the epistle of 1 Peter and thought about its context, and the context of 1 Peter is a suffering church. You have this church that is suffering and broken, but Peter is encouraging them to suffer well. He is encouraging them to look at Christ, look at the Cross, the way that Jesus suffered in humility, the way he suffered well. And we began to think about the fact that the way we live within culture, the way the church lives together is actually bound up in the Gospel so that the way we live is a defense for the Gospel. Then, having lived like that, how do you articulate the reason? Why? Why are you living this way? And why is it a beautiful way to live? As we reflected upon Peter and the epistle, we saw that doing apologetics related to the life of the believer, the life of the church, and the way that we respond to suffering was a large part of it.
Chatraw:
I would just add to what Mark has said. Maybe, by way of contrast, one of the things that we saw as we were preparing to write this was that we saw a lot of people kind of proof texting 1 Peter 3:15, and we sometimes were happy with proof texting if it was done well, but in the sense of just having Scripture to support what you’re saying, we think that’s important. But to Mark’s point, people really weren’t taking 1 Peter 3:15 in context. In other words, it was 1 Peter 3:15, now let’s jump to my favorite philosophical arguments. As if that’s exactly what 1 Peter was doing. And so, by actually looking at the context of 1 Peter 3:15, this classic apologetic proof text, you actually see that it’s as much about the church living out the Gospel in a hostile environment as the context for apologetics. It’s much more about that than the specifics of how to make an argument. It actually doesn’t give us much information on that, but it talks about, of course, gentleness and respect and so there’s a certain posture that it’s emphasizing, rather than the exact argument itself.
Zaspel:
I think it’s a unique take or observation. When it comes to apologetics books, they all go to 1 Peter, but that observation, I think, is not found in the others. I think it’s helpful.
Allen:
For my experience, I was in seminary back in the 80s and studied apologetics. And in the past, we’ve almost downplayed the aspect of the life of the believer, the life of the church as a part of the apologetic enterprise. But if we look holistically at the Scriptures, it seems like the witness of the Spirit who, through the life of the community, the life of the believer, is a very important part of apologetics.
Zaspel:
Absolutely. What is the goal of apologetics?
Chatraw:
I think the main goal of apologetics is to open the door to gospel conversations. This isn’t an original thought to us, but we described it, for most people, as clearing the debris away, the intellectual objections or even more objections from the heart, emotional objections people have, or maybe just misunderstandings. I mean sometimes in an increasingly post-Christian sight, people just don’t even understand the basics. They have objections, much like they did in the early church, where they had objections against Christianity because they didn’t understand Christianity. Well, part of the apologetic enterprise is now, yes, making arguments, but also just even explaining the basics of Christianity in a way that people can understand it because they had these misconceptions of what it is. So, I would say all of those things is the task of apologetics in that it’s not an end to itself, it’s in order to open doors for the Gospel so that people might take the Gospel seriously. Rather than simply trying to argue people into the kingdom, I think the point is, can we clear the debris out so that people will take the Gospel seriously.
Zaspel:
How is your apologetic approach unique? What is “apologetics at the Cross”? Explain this for us and also why you think this approach was needed.
Allen:
You know, there’s some approaches to apologetics that save the Gospel message or the Cross to the end. We’ve made it to our apologetic, and now we present the Gospel. And actually, the way we’ve approached it, is the Gospel plays a part in all aspects of the apologetic approach, the apologetic enterprise. For example, apologetics of the Cross is others centered. It thinks about, it approaches the other person; it listens to the other person. It’s concerned about their views with genuine empathic listening. Also, innately, it’s accommodating like the Cross, when we think of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Paul says, “I became all things to all people that I might by all means win as many as possible.” So, the Cross and Jesus Christ’s incarnation, it accommodates to the other person. It meets the other person where he or she is, but it doesn’t compromise the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The very purpose for apologetics is to take a person to the Cross and to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think there are other aspects, if you think about the Gospel, the Gospel is holistic, it cares about the whole person. The Gospel is humble. The Gospel is life-changing and transforming, and so these aspects of the Gospel demonstrate how apologetics at the Cross is unique.
Chatraw:
One of the things, even going back to your earlier question, Fred, as far as the need for the book, is: we saw people who said what I said in my previous answer, that apologetics is about clearing the debris to get to the Gospel. So, when we say that, we’re not really being original. And throughout the book we are appropriating and borrowing on the shoulders of those who’ve gone before us, but I think one of the unique parts about the book is that people were ending on the Gospel, but they weren’t starting with the Gospel. What I mean by starting with the Gospel is: in their formulation, in building their apologetic, it didn’t start off through the lens of the Gospel. So, one of the things that we were trying to do is say, okay, if the Gospel should be the center of our theology as evangelicals, and Mark and I would both argue that we should be, and I think we have been following Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, when he says this is our first importance, following Paul in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, when he’s talking about the centrality of the Gospel, to know nothing but Christ and him crucified, and of course then Paul goes on to talk about lots of things, but as Don Carson has pointed out, the point that Paul’s making there is that he’s going to think about all of these other things in light of the Gospel, in light of Christ, and him crucified. And so, as we’re thinking through the apologetic task, we’re wanting to reflect, theologically, on the Gospel and let that be the central theological impetus or starting point for developing an apologetic. And we think once you do that, theologically, you’re going to come out a little differently. You’re going to come out, I think, more holistically, as Mark has already mentioned. Also, you’re not going to sacrifice the Gospel to be more palatable rather in an academic context or maybe just in a cultural context. You’re going to be firmly rooted in the Gospel, but you’re also going to be looking for Gospel connecting points throughout conversations in a way that I don’t know if other approaches quite have always had their flag up for. It’s more of getting people on their train, their logical train and working up. I think the approach we give in the book is very much looking for those connecting points for the Gospel as we make our apologetic arguments.
Zaspel:
Excellent. Excellent.
This is a really broad question, but I’d like to try it. What are some aspects of our culture that Christians should be particularly aware of? And give us some suggestions as to how we can engage our culture in an informed way.
Chatraw:
That’s a good question. It’s a big question, so I’m going to start off and then I’ll let Mark chime in, because I’m sure I’ll leave a lot out there on the table that I could say.
Our cultural analysis is so big, and it’s fraught with dangers because, of course, in a book we’re trying to give some people some trends, right? So one of the things we need to preface this with is that, of course, even in the United States, there’s different cultures. You go to the South and you’re going to get a different culture than if you go to the Northeast. We recognize all of that, but we still think that there’s some certain trends in the West right now that are good for us to recognize. Not in a sense of saying that everyone falls into this 100%, but just to see those trends, to be ready for an interaction. And this is a preface to what I am about to say because in a lot of these trends it’s just the air that people breathe. They are making certain assumptions about why Christianity can’t be true; but it’s not as if they have thought through those assumptions. It’s things like, well, of course, the good life is doing whatever you want to do. It’s just the absolute freedom to do whatever you want to do, and so Christianity can’t be right. Now they haven’t necessarily processed it like that, it’s more like, well, this is just absurd. Christianity’s sexual ethic is just absurd. But part of the apologetic task is jumping into these kinds of cultural assumptions, what Peter Berg called cultural plausibility structures, and hoping people see what they are assuming and then showing how maybe there’s something to that, actually, maybe there’s something we can affirm at this, this kind of cultural assumption, but there’s also something we need to undermine the problems of. Some of these are things like expressive individualism. That term was coined by Robert Bella and has been picked up by Charles Taylor and other intellectuals. And basically, what expressive individualism says is that for us as humans, the highest goal in life is to find the true you and live that out. Now you see this epitomized in most Disney movies, and television shows, and almost every graduation speech that we hear. Follow your heart – be you. Do you. This kind of idea has, I think, taken so many captive in the West, of this is the good life. So I think part of interacting with that is first helping people see that this is an assumption that they are making, and it’s not something that they have reasoned their way to. They’ve just assumed it. And, on one hand, we want to find something to affirm with expressive individualism. And I think there are some things we can affirm. I mean part of expressive individualism is coming out of this reaction against a more hierarchical society where people didn’t have choices. If you were born into a family where your dad was in the military, you were probably going to be in the military. You just didn’t have these choices. If you were born a peasant, you would likely die as a peasant. And so expressive individualism, in some sense, is attached to these other movements and we can affirm that, I think, as Christians that some of these freedoms that we have in our modern world is good.
On the other hand, there are some things with expressive individualism that we have to say there’s some things that are incoherent here. For one expressive individualism is incoherent because we don’t actually do that. No one can actually fully look within themselves and find the true them, because we are cultural beings and we’re always looking around outside of our culture to find conceptions of personhood. The great example, I think, that Charles Taylor has is that no one says that I am someone great because I am the same height of a tree in some foreign country. I’m exactly 5’10” and that tree is exactly 5’10” and that makes me someone of significance. No one, of course, does that. We find our significance, we find our true me, in imitating heroes within our own society and by following the hero stories that are told. We can’t help but look around and be impacted by others and so we can’t ultimately look inside of us and find the true me. The other part in attempting to do that is it often leads to an undermining of the deepest, most valuable relationships that we have. And so, it’s not only incoherent, it actually has all of these existential fallouts.
So that’s just one massive assumption within our culture today – expressive individualism. And what I just tried to quickly run through was how we might affirm an aspect of that in a discussion, while at the same time showing some massive problems with that. And then I think the next move we would make, apologetically, is attach this to a better way in the Gospel, a way that we can have our identity that’s actually secure because of our adoption as sons and daughters of the great King who has called us his own and so he gives us a different type of freedom, a freedom to pursue our true identity as image bearers rather than trying to construct that on our own.
Allen:
That was just one. There are other issues in the culture like modern pluralism. There’s the therapeutic turn, the what feels good, the idea of fulfillment that people are looking to. I don’t know if we have time to unpack all of these. I think the one that intrigues me and interests me, and I think it’s a great challenge, is the concept of religious lethargy. You can imagine, and I imagine, and I think we’ve encountered situations where we give a very, very reasonable defense for the Christian faith. We present our arguments and in fact the person we’re talking with seems almost convinced of the rationality, the viability of our arguments, but then they’ll look us in the eye and say, you know, that’s good for you, I’m glad it works for you, but I’m just really not interested. There’s a shrug of the shoulders. It just seems like there’s not a great interest and there’s this sort of religious lethargy in the culture. So, the way we approach that, one of the things you can do is you wait until these pressure points. Life seems to have certain times where there are these pressure points. Whether it’s suffering in the life of people or it could be a greater awareness of their own mortality, of death, it seems like life brings along, as I said, these pressure points that open up questions.
Another way that we approach this, and it is kind of the opposite of the pressure points, is sometimes the beauty of life. When we look at the beauty of life it raises certain questions of why. What is beauty? Where does beauty come from? Or this intuition within people, most people, that we have this desire for the good life. The Old Testament calls it shalom. This desire inside of us, for life and food and fellowship and beauty – these types of things create questions. Even those who may be very lethargic toward religion and may shrug the shoulders, there are times issues in life can raise questions and create space in a person’s life where we can share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Chatraw:
And really what we’re trying to do in these sections of the book is we’re trying to give people certain trajectories. We call it apologetics scaffolding. In other words, a framework for them to think about conversations with. We think cultural analysis is so important to apologetics and, for whatever reason, kind of lacking in a lot of more traditional apologetic approaches, I think, is because some apologetic approaches have tried to treat man in the abstract. The human in the abstract, rather than saying, who is this person I’m talking to, what culture are they a part of, and how has that culture shapes their rationality? How has culture actually shaped the way they think? We see apologetics and contextualization as basically the same thing. And I think if you don’t do contextualization, if you try to speak to people in the abstract, it’s just not very effective because you don’t have this neutral person or this abstract person – you have real people in flesh and blood who have grown up in certain cultures and communities and think certain ways. So apologetics at the Cross is about stepping into where they are at and how they actually think. In order to do that we need some understanding of the culture. Now, for us, in writing this book, we’re coming at it from our perspective in the West so we’re particularly doing a cultural analysis of the West, but really you could do the same thing, no matter if you are in an Islamic country or you’re in an Eastern country. The approach can be the same, but our examples are for a late modern culture and a Western, increasingly secular society.
Zaspel:
Give us a brief overview of your book so our listeners can know what to expect.
Allen:
Let’s just think of structure and center. If you think of the center of the book, we’ve already touched on this many times. The center of the book is the Cross. This is an apologetics of the Cross, not apologetics of glory. The very nature of the book isn’t crushing the argument of the enemy or winning. Actually, the very center of the book is the Cross of the Lord Jesus. And it’s how, in humility, to connect and serve others, answer questions, understand their framework, their worldview, and gently, very gently begin to get them to question their worldview and open up their mind, create some space that they begin to doubt their own doubt. So that’s kind of the center of the Cross. But if you look at the structure of the book and the way it unfolds, in chapters 1 through 4 we start laying a biblical and historical foundation. In the first two chapters we go through how apologetics functions in the Bible. And in chapters 3 and 4, we unfold the development of, in a very rapid pace, how apologetics works its way out in different contexts in church history. In doing this, we see fundamentally how apologetics functions in the Bible and history, and then we also see how it’s contextual. Then in 5 through 9, if you’re thinking about the structure as constructing the house, 1 through 4 is the foundation, 5 through 9 would be like the exterior walls and roof. This is where we talk about contemporary methods, the different apologetic methods, classical methods, presuppositional, evidential, experiential, narratival – these different contemporary methods. This is where we cast a theological vision based upon the Cross. The idea of sharing in word and sharing our faith in deed and how we live, a holistic approach. And then in chapters 10 through 13 we get to the interior of the house, the paint, the everyday decor, the furniture, the things people see. This is where we get to our basic methodology of approaching apologetics, or approaching the apologetic enterprise in an inside out methodology. Where we work within the skeptic’s or the doubters’ worldview and then we work out through a Christian framework. We do some cultural analysis here. We look at different critiques of Christianity, which some call defeaters, and we offer answers to those defeaters. Then, in the final chapter of the book, we make a case for Christianity. If you are going to sit down and start from A and go to Z and make a case for Christianity, what are the various steps that you would go through. So that’s the basic structure of the book
Zaspel:
We’re talking to Drs. Josh Chatraw and Mark Allen, authors of the new book, Apologetics At the Cross: An Introduction for Christian Witness. It’s an excellent contribution to the study of apologetics, stressing what ought to be the goal of every Christian witness.
Josh, Mark, thanks so much for your good work and for talking to us today.