What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context
The modern apologetic enterprise, according to Myron Penner, is no longer valid. It tends toward an unbiblical and unchristian form of Christian witness and does not have the ability to attest truthfully to Christ in our postmodern context. In fact, Christians need an entirely new way of conceiving the apologetic task.
This provocative text critiques modern apologetic efforts and offers a concept of faithful Christian witness that is characterized by love and grounded in God's revelation. Penner seeks to reorient the discussion of Christian belief, change a well-entrenched vocabulary that no longer works, and contextualize the enterprise of apologetics for a postmodern generation.
190 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2013
15 people are currently reading
403 people want to read
About the author
Myron Bradley Penner
3 books5 followersMyron Bradley Penner (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is an Anglican priest in the Diocese of Edmonton, Alberta. He previously taught at Prairie College and Graduate School and served as a human development worker. He is the editor of Christianity and the Postmodern Turn and coauthor of A New Kind of Conversation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
November 6, 2013
As I grew up in the church I had a lot of questions about things of faith. It wasn't until I got to university that the need to find answers to such questions became much more pressing. My discovery of "Christian apologetics" was incredibly helpful. I was overjoyed to find books like Lee Strobel's Case for Christ, William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith and Josh McDowell's More than a Carpenter. Such books gave me a confidence that my faith was something more than simply what I was taught or had always believed. I could be a believer and still use my brain.
A funny thing happened on the way to...wherever I am now - I became a bit skeptical of apologetics. The more I read and studied, the more I realized that the answers I had first discovered were not as cut-and-dried as I first thought. Or at least, they seemed satisfying to me but not to other people just as smart (I mean, just plain smarter) then me. I was looking for full-proof certainty, an answer to every question, and I was coming to believe this was elusive.
Another thing that made me skeptical was that apologetics was often very simplistic. Some Christian apologists would talk and act as if their case had no holes or questionable points. It was as if the costs were so high in the debate that to admit any weakness was to lose the whole thing. This was obvious to me as I recently listened to an episode of the podcast Unbelievable. In this podcast a Catholic and Protestant were debating sola scriptura. While I would tend to agree with the Protestant, his refusal to see any of the legitimate challenges posed by his Catholic interlocutor was depressing. As I listened, I wondered if he really believed his answers and if he realized he was not really answering the Catholic debaters questions.
This leads me to the book The End of Apologetics by Myron Penner. Penner's book put into words much of the cynicism I have developed with apologetics over the years. At one point he tells a story of meeting two young, boisterous apologists. Then these two learned that Penner's friend was not a Christian. They immediately launched into their newfound knowledge, pushing a case for the Christian faith. The man did not convert in light of their air-tight presentation, no doubt feeling a bit dehumanized, as they failed to take into account his reasons for not being a Christian.. And this is one of the problems with modern apologetics - rather then listening to the individual person, entering into the relationship and specificity of life, it mows down people with claims of universal truth.
Penner argues that apologetics is a threat to Christians because, as it is often done today, it is totally influenced by the modern, Enlightenment worldview. Many Christian apologists write and speak as if this view of the world, its use of logic primarily, is part and parcel of a Christian worldview. The very idea that we can all leave our individual lives and enter into a neutral public space where we leave our biases behind and approach discussion objectively is swallowed uncritically by apologists. Upon examination, informed by a post-modern view of the world, we see the flaws in this worldview and with it the flaws in apologetics. Yet modern apologists are blinded to these flaws, even seeing them as part of the gospel to be defended (i.e., defending universal truth). Anyway, Penner writes:
All of this paves the way for Moreland to draw his conclusion that Christian intellectuals have the moral and spiritual responsibility to defend not just the truths of the Christian faith but also the very philosophical systems and concepts that make it possible to assert them as knowledge (according to modern criteria). Penner, Myron B. (2013-07-01). End of Apologetics, The: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context (Kindle Locations 650-653). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
In other words, the problem is that much Christian apologetics ends up defending a specific philosophy rather then the gospel. And speaking of philosophy, this book is a bit academic and heavy on the philosophy. (By the way, once Penner started quoting Charles Taylor's A Secular Age he had me.) It was more challenging then I expected. The target is not Christians who have just read a Lee Strobel book or two and attended some apologetics conferences at their church. Instead it targets pastors and seminary students. I guess the goal is to reach such people, to help them change their view of apologetics and for this to work top-down in the church.
There were a few questions I was left with. Penner critiques the modern, Enlightenment view from a post-modern view. Certainly the modern view needs critiquing, but I wonder if Penner has uncritically accepted his own view? Penner emphasizes that postmodernism is an ethos, not just a philosophical view (as many try to reduce it to). He argues it is a condition of our culture. How does his argument translate to another culture? I can imagine someone in 20 years coming along and using the Bible (as Penner does) to say that both the modern and post-modern views are flawed. Of course, perhaps Penner would be okay with this as I think part of his point is that we are trying to reach a post-modern culture with a modern apologetic. Such misfiring is not working.
Also, I wish Penner had spent more time giving a picture of what positive use apologetics could have. It is not like modern Christianity invented it. What about the apologists in the early church? What about the arguments of medieval philosophers? Penner would agree that there is a place for reason and thinking in faith, I just wish he had spent more time showing what this would look like. What role does answering questions have in his formulation? How ought a Christian go about engaging a person with whom she disagrees?
Overall, this is a great book. It deserves a reading from pastors and campus ministers. Honestly, it probably deserves a second reading to fully grasp all the points. But hey, that is part of what makes it a great book.
A funny thing happened on the way to...wherever I am now - I became a bit skeptical of apologetics. The more I read and studied, the more I realized that the answers I had first discovered were not as cut-and-dried as I first thought. Or at least, they seemed satisfying to me but not to other people just as smart (I mean, just plain smarter) then me. I was looking for full-proof certainty, an answer to every question, and I was coming to believe this was elusive.
Another thing that made me skeptical was that apologetics was often very simplistic. Some Christian apologists would talk and act as if their case had no holes or questionable points. It was as if the costs were so high in the debate that to admit any weakness was to lose the whole thing. This was obvious to me as I recently listened to an episode of the podcast Unbelievable. In this podcast a Catholic and Protestant were debating sola scriptura. While I would tend to agree with the Protestant, his refusal to see any of the legitimate challenges posed by his Catholic interlocutor was depressing. As I listened, I wondered if he really believed his answers and if he realized he was not really answering the Catholic debaters questions.
This leads me to the book The End of Apologetics by Myron Penner. Penner's book put into words much of the cynicism I have developed with apologetics over the years. At one point he tells a story of meeting two young, boisterous apologists. Then these two learned that Penner's friend was not a Christian. They immediately launched into their newfound knowledge, pushing a case for the Christian faith. The man did not convert in light of their air-tight presentation, no doubt feeling a bit dehumanized, as they failed to take into account his reasons for not being a Christian.. And this is one of the problems with modern apologetics - rather then listening to the individual person, entering into the relationship and specificity of life, it mows down people with claims of universal truth.
Penner argues that apologetics is a threat to Christians because, as it is often done today, it is totally influenced by the modern, Enlightenment worldview. Many Christian apologists write and speak as if this view of the world, its use of logic primarily, is part and parcel of a Christian worldview. The very idea that we can all leave our individual lives and enter into a neutral public space where we leave our biases behind and approach discussion objectively is swallowed uncritically by apologists. Upon examination, informed by a post-modern view of the world, we see the flaws in this worldview and with it the flaws in apologetics. Yet modern apologists are blinded to these flaws, even seeing them as part of the gospel to be defended (i.e., defending universal truth). Anyway, Penner writes:
All of this paves the way for Moreland to draw his conclusion that Christian intellectuals have the moral and spiritual responsibility to defend not just the truths of the Christian faith but also the very philosophical systems and concepts that make it possible to assert them as knowledge (according to modern criteria). Penner, Myron B. (2013-07-01). End of Apologetics, The: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context (Kindle Locations 650-653). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
In other words, the problem is that much Christian apologetics ends up defending a specific philosophy rather then the gospel. And speaking of philosophy, this book is a bit academic and heavy on the philosophy. (By the way, once Penner started quoting Charles Taylor's A Secular Age he had me.) It was more challenging then I expected. The target is not Christians who have just read a Lee Strobel book or two and attended some apologetics conferences at their church. Instead it targets pastors and seminary students. I guess the goal is to reach such people, to help them change their view of apologetics and for this to work top-down in the church.
There were a few questions I was left with. Penner critiques the modern, Enlightenment view from a post-modern view. Certainly the modern view needs critiquing, but I wonder if Penner has uncritically accepted his own view? Penner emphasizes that postmodernism is an ethos, not just a philosophical view (as many try to reduce it to). He argues it is a condition of our culture. How does his argument translate to another culture? I can imagine someone in 20 years coming along and using the Bible (as Penner does) to say that both the modern and post-modern views are flawed. Of course, perhaps Penner would be okay with this as I think part of his point is that we are trying to reach a post-modern culture with a modern apologetic. Such misfiring is not working.
Also, I wish Penner had spent more time giving a picture of what positive use apologetics could have. It is not like modern Christianity invented it. What about the apologists in the early church? What about the arguments of medieval philosophers? Penner would agree that there is a place for reason and thinking in faith, I just wish he had spent more time showing what this would look like. What role does answering questions have in his formulation? How ought a Christian go about engaging a person with whom she disagrees?
Overall, this is a great book. It deserves a reading from pastors and campus ministers. Honestly, it probably deserves a second reading to fully grasp all the points. But hey, that is part of what makes it a great book.
August 4, 2013
This was quite the frustrating read. In some parts I really agree with Penner's thesis (that much of the modern apologetic project is in bed with modernism), but even in the places where I tend to be sympathetic, I still think he erects strawmen to make his debate partners looks more naive and un-naunced than they really are. He writes as if [what we could call] evidentialists reduce the faith to a mere acceptance of propositions. Even if I disagree with their method, Christian charity demands that I fairly present their position. Obviously guys like Craig and Moreland believe that true Christian faith flourishes (and needs) discipleship, community, etc. He tends to present them as bald rationalists. Also, his (brief) discussion of presuppositionalism is superficial at best, downright uninformed at worse. If he paid closer attention to Van Tillian apologetics he wouldnt (essentially) condemn the entire modern apoogetic enterprise.
On the upside, he does present some stinging criticisms of apologetic neutrality and provides helpful reminders that apologetics should aim at more than mere acceptance of a few additional propositions like "God exists." The kind of faith we hope to lead a person to is full blooded and thrives in community and is aimed at the flourishing of other image bearers.
But overall for me the negative outweighed the positives. With the except of one short section toward the end of the book Penner seemed more concerned with kierkegaardian categories of analysis than biblical and theological ones. And his painting of his debate partners in the worst light was a put-off.
On the upside, he does present some stinging criticisms of apologetic neutrality and provides helpful reminders that apologetics should aim at more than mere acceptance of a few additional propositions like "God exists." The kind of faith we hope to lead a person to is full blooded and thrives in community and is aimed at the flourishing of other image bearers.
But overall for me the negative outweighed the positives. With the except of one short section toward the end of the book Penner seemed more concerned with kierkegaardian categories of analysis than biblical and theological ones. And his painting of his debate partners in the worst light was a put-off.
August 30, 2013
A brilliant Kierkegaardian book. Penner's title, "The End of Apologetics," might be understood in two senses (note that Penner himself doesn't articulate the title's double sense): First, "end" in the modern English sense of cessation or limit. He argues that certain apologetic methods damage Christian faith because they cash in on problematic modern assumptions about truth, belief, and reason. He calls for an end to such coercive apologetic methods, however well intentioned or occasionally successful.
But the subtitle about "Christian Witness" signals that the "End" of apologetics might also be understood in the Aristotelian sense: The book is a meditation on the goal, the objective, the END of apologetics. If the goal of apologetics is to provide rational grounds for belief (propositional statements which another person should rationally accept), then it fails to do justice to the gospel of Christ. For Penner, the Christian witness is of such a nature that it can only truly be manifested in lives of believers in individual and relational contexts. The gospel is more of a way of life than a sum of propositional facts. The strongest witness arises from a person's encounter with God, which can occur when a person encounters another person who has had such an encounter and has incorporated it into her life.
So truth is always embodied, relational, relative in a sense that does not necessarily exclude a transcendent truth. The witness includes content, but is really communicated in actions and relationship. This sort of witnessing "defends" the faith in a sense, in that it promotes Christian faith, but not in the classic apologetics sense of setting up a series of rational propositions superior to those of non-theistic philosophies.
This is the thrust of the book, but there are enough additional insights to make the whole thing worth reading. There are some themes I need to revisit because the book becomes fairly philosophically sophisticated at certain points (Penner draws on Kierkegaard, Levinas, Foucault, and a number of Christian theologians), and there are a few aspects which I'd quibble with, or even outright disagree with. But such things are elements of any good book. Regardless, the main takeaway for me is that witnessing about our faith must take into deep account the beliefs, experiences and desires of the individual to whom we are witnessing. It also must take into account the specific context in which the witnessing is occurring, as well as our motive for so witnessing. (The discussion on speech acts, for instance, is brilliant in terms of challenging the claim that we can boldly speak "truth" or propositional facts which stand alone regardless of our intent or personal feeling).
In short, the "end" of apologetics should be the process of appealing to another to foster an edifying relationship of regard and love with another person who is also a child of God. At the same time, this end necessitates an "end" to more coercive apologetic methods which seek to provide rational grounds which are palatable to modern assumptions about what justifies our beliefs. The nature of the witness which Christ invites us to share, not to mention the (post)modern condition many people find themselves in today,
But the subtitle about "Christian Witness" signals that the "End" of apologetics might also be understood in the Aristotelian sense: The book is a meditation on the goal, the objective, the END of apologetics. If the goal of apologetics is to provide rational grounds for belief (propositional statements which another person should rationally accept), then it fails to do justice to the gospel of Christ. For Penner, the Christian witness is of such a nature that it can only truly be manifested in lives of believers in individual and relational contexts. The gospel is more of a way of life than a sum of propositional facts. The strongest witness arises from a person's encounter with God, which can occur when a person encounters another person who has had such an encounter and has incorporated it into her life.
So truth is always embodied, relational, relative in a sense that does not necessarily exclude a transcendent truth. The witness includes content, but is really communicated in actions and relationship. This sort of witnessing "defends" the faith in a sense, in that it promotes Christian faith, but not in the classic apologetics sense of setting up a series of rational propositions superior to those of non-theistic philosophies.
This is the thrust of the book, but there are enough additional insights to make the whole thing worth reading. There are some themes I need to revisit because the book becomes fairly philosophically sophisticated at certain points (Penner draws on Kierkegaard, Levinas, Foucault, and a number of Christian theologians), and there are a few aspects which I'd quibble with, or even outright disagree with. But such things are elements of any good book. Regardless, the main takeaway for me is that witnessing about our faith must take into deep account the beliefs, experiences and desires of the individual to whom we are witnessing. It also must take into account the specific context in which the witnessing is occurring, as well as our motive for so witnessing. (The discussion on speech acts, for instance, is brilliant in terms of challenging the claim that we can boldly speak "truth" or propositional facts which stand alone regardless of our intent or personal feeling).
In short, the "end" of apologetics should be the process of appealing to another to foster an edifying relationship of regard and love with another person who is also a child of God. At the same time, this end necessitates an "end" to more coercive apologetic methods which seek to provide rational grounds which are palatable to modern assumptions about what justifies our beliefs. The nature of the witness which Christ invites us to share, not to mention the (post)modern condition many people find themselves in today,
March 16, 2015
This book does a good job of exposing the assumptions of modernity and the trap Christian theology falls into when it insist on playing apologetics within a modern paradigm. Christianity becomes merely a set of propositional truths instead of a living encounter with a Person when modernity becomes the leading framework for theology. While we shouldn't jettison reason, there is only so much human understanding can be allotted when dealing with the apocalyptic.
The author argues for a prophetic witness that understands truth does not exist in a vacuum, but in a community with agreed upon systems to evaluate belief. We should adopt a humble attitude when "attesting" to what we feel God has revealed to us. The author draws heavily on Kierkegaard, arguing that real truth is something embodied not merely talked about.
The author falters in his application. While successfully pointing out the dangers of the modern apologetic model, and arguing theoretically for a hermeneutical approach to witnessing, he fails to really give any examples of what that might look like in real life. He also comes dangerously close to making the atypical postmodern self-defeating statement "We can't know the truth," etc.
A challenging book, and worth the read, I was just hoping for a little more application/illustration. He had negative examples, just needed a couple positives.
The author argues for a prophetic witness that understands truth does not exist in a vacuum, but in a community with agreed upon systems to evaluate belief. We should adopt a humble attitude when "attesting" to what we feel God has revealed to us. The author draws heavily on Kierkegaard, arguing that real truth is something embodied not merely talked about.
The author falters in his application. While successfully pointing out the dangers of the modern apologetic model, and arguing theoretically for a hermeneutical approach to witnessing, he fails to really give any examples of what that might look like in real life. He also comes dangerously close to making the atypical postmodern self-defeating statement "We can't know the truth," etc.
A challenging book, and worth the read, I was just hoping for a little more application/illustration. He had negative examples, just needed a couple positives.
September 9, 2014
We all know those people who want to win an argument over religious disputes. (I used to be one... big time). Through rational, evidential debate, many Christians (particularly those who enjoy a certain flavor of modern apologetics) love to dispute the veracity of absolute truth claims, discussing arguments, reasons, evidences, for and against various worldviews.
That's all well and good; but what if Christianity, that is, the good news of liberation preached by Jesus of Nazareth, a 1st-century Jew, has less to do with modern, epistemic foundations, Greek systems of absolute truth, and propositions and worldview-formulations than it does with a certain way of living, a way-of-being-in-the-world, a way of approaching life. In other words, what if academia (modern philosophy and science) doesn't actually have a monopoly on what constitutes as "Christianity"? What if Christianity contains more subjectivity than so many of these Christian apologetics assume? What if Christianity is less about argumentation and more about edification?
Perhaps Christianity is more about God shattering our categories and less about our fitting Him within them; perhaps Christianity is more about our being gripped by the truth, undone by the truth, and made New by the truth than it is about our finding the truth, possessing the truth, and then arguing over it; perhaps we're not called to treat people like they're proposition-processing computers and instead see a face, a human subject, someone also trying to figure out what the hell is going on down here; perhaps Christians believe that nobody, not even themselves, have certainty about what is going on down here; perhaps there is no meta-narrative that explains away all tensions, no worldview that answers all questions; perhaps Christians shouldn't claim to know everything, nor give off the impression that they do, but instead confess that they believe God is making all things New (something that defies human explanation), and in the mean time, maybe we could all love each other while we await His return, holding onto His promise, not with epistemic confidence in all of our petty human arguments, but instead in His promise of faith. "Behold I am making all things new," said Jesus.
Who's to say otherwise?
Does not God have a way of subverting human expectation in so many ways: by coming as a baby in a manger, born a man, suffering, bleeding, crying, hurting, dying, weak, pathetic, crushed. Behold, the glory of God! A lamb slain! What kind of theology is this? Is this a God that humans want to worship? No. Humans want power and domination. Humans want a God like Zeus who's going to rip through the sky with lightning and crush his enemies. We want a God of omnipotence as we have defined it. We want a God who loves us and hates our enemies. But instead of Zeus, we get Jesus, the man of sorrows, afflicted, beaten, sorrowful unto death, who came in meekness and with forgiveness for the oppressed and oppressor alike, loving His enemies and brothers. Behold, it would appear that God could not give two shits about we expect Him to be. God is in the business of rupturing our expectations. Perhaps the same logic applies to apologetic methodology.
This, as I take it, is the main thrust of Myron B. Penner's "The End of Apologetics." He presents some interesting ideas and relies heavily on Kierkegaard, as well as some postmodern thinkers, to frame his perspective on how a Christian ought to do approach such topics as truth, epistemology, belief-formation, evangelism, etc. A good read. I enjoyed it if for no other reason than that it rattles some cages. I like rattling cages. Life's boring when we're too comfortable.
That's all well and good; but what if Christianity, that is, the good news of liberation preached by Jesus of Nazareth, a 1st-century Jew, has less to do with modern, epistemic foundations, Greek systems of absolute truth, and propositions and worldview-formulations than it does with a certain way of living, a way-of-being-in-the-world, a way of approaching life. In other words, what if academia (modern philosophy and science) doesn't actually have a monopoly on what constitutes as "Christianity"? What if Christianity contains more subjectivity than so many of these Christian apologetics assume? What if Christianity is less about argumentation and more about edification?
Perhaps Christianity is more about God shattering our categories and less about our fitting Him within them; perhaps Christianity is more about our being gripped by the truth, undone by the truth, and made New by the truth than it is about our finding the truth, possessing the truth, and then arguing over it; perhaps we're not called to treat people like they're proposition-processing computers and instead see a face, a human subject, someone also trying to figure out what the hell is going on down here; perhaps Christians believe that nobody, not even themselves, have certainty about what is going on down here; perhaps there is no meta-narrative that explains away all tensions, no worldview that answers all questions; perhaps Christians shouldn't claim to know everything, nor give off the impression that they do, but instead confess that they believe God is making all things New (something that defies human explanation), and in the mean time, maybe we could all love each other while we await His return, holding onto His promise, not with epistemic confidence in all of our petty human arguments, but instead in His promise of faith. "Behold I am making all things new," said Jesus.
Who's to say otherwise?
Does not God have a way of subverting human expectation in so many ways: by coming as a baby in a manger, born a man, suffering, bleeding, crying, hurting, dying, weak, pathetic, crushed. Behold, the glory of God! A lamb slain! What kind of theology is this? Is this a God that humans want to worship? No. Humans want power and domination. Humans want a God like Zeus who's going to rip through the sky with lightning and crush his enemies. We want a God of omnipotence as we have defined it. We want a God who loves us and hates our enemies. But instead of Zeus, we get Jesus, the man of sorrows, afflicted, beaten, sorrowful unto death, who came in meekness and with forgiveness for the oppressed and oppressor alike, loving His enemies and brothers. Behold, it would appear that God could not give two shits about we expect Him to be. God is in the business of rupturing our expectations. Perhaps the same logic applies to apologetic methodology.
This, as I take it, is the main thrust of Myron B. Penner's "The End of Apologetics." He presents some interesting ideas and relies heavily on Kierkegaard, as well as some postmodern thinkers, to frame his perspective on how a Christian ought to do approach such topics as truth, epistemology, belief-formation, evangelism, etc. A good read. I enjoyed it if for no other reason than that it rattles some cages. I like rattling cages. Life's boring when we're too comfortable.
October 26, 2013
As we transitioned from a premodern to modern world, as the Enlightenment opened our eyes, and as more and more atheists came out of the closet, Christian apologetics thrived. In this new world, we Christians feel it is our inherent responsibility to prove the truth of our Christian worldview. We feel the need to justify our beliefs. But, when it comes to spreading the Gospel, has apologetics become more hostile than helpful? Does it edify, or does it tear down?
Penner wonders if apologetics is not the single biggest threat to genuine Christian faith. Who do we think we are, trying to bring the Truth (capital T) of God down to our human reasoning level, and strip it down to bite-size truths (little T) that we can nail into our opponents? There’s a difference between knowing something is true and showing it to be true.
Penner feels it’s time to take the next step to postmodernity in our approach to apologetics. The modern Enlightenment worldview is just one way of viewing the world, and may not be the most appropriate way for Christian witness. An apologetic approach that doesn’t respect the identity of our listeners, or that doesn’t highlight the role of Love (for, at it’s most basic level, the Truth of God is about Love), does an injustice to the Gospel. If the Gospel we present isn’t good news, it isn’t true. And truth, says Penner, is something you live, not something you own.
He compares experts to prophets in his discussion of proper, postmodern apologetics. The prophets are preferable; we cling to our experts and trust them to present the facts, but it’s the prophets who deliver a higher truth. Bible prophets cared little about proving the truth of their message. What utter silliness would that be, to question a message from God? Instead, they lived the message.
All of this sounds intuitive and wonderful, yet somehow, the book didn’t inspire a change in me. Too dry, perhaps, or too few real-world examples. I found it intellectual and mildly stimulating, yet ultimately unsatisfying. The philosophical presentation stayed on an intellectual level through the whole book, and never broke through to the heart where it could make a difference.
Penner wonders if apologetics is not the single biggest threat to genuine Christian faith. Who do we think we are, trying to bring the Truth (capital T) of God down to our human reasoning level, and strip it down to bite-size truths (little T) that we can nail into our opponents? There’s a difference between knowing something is true and showing it to be true.
Penner feels it’s time to take the next step to postmodernity in our approach to apologetics. The modern Enlightenment worldview is just one way of viewing the world, and may not be the most appropriate way for Christian witness. An apologetic approach that doesn’t respect the identity of our listeners, or that doesn’t highlight the role of Love (for, at it’s most basic level, the Truth of God is about Love), does an injustice to the Gospel. If the Gospel we present isn’t good news, it isn’t true. And truth, says Penner, is something you live, not something you own.
He compares experts to prophets in his discussion of proper, postmodern apologetics. The prophets are preferable; we cling to our experts and trust them to present the facts, but it’s the prophets who deliver a higher truth. Bible prophets cared little about proving the truth of their message. What utter silliness would that be, to question a message from God? Instead, they lived the message.
All of this sounds intuitive and wonderful, yet somehow, the book didn’t inspire a change in me. Too dry, perhaps, or too few real-world examples. I found it intellectual and mildly stimulating, yet ultimately unsatisfying. The philosophical presentation stayed on an intellectual level through the whole book, and never broke through to the heart where it could make a difference.
August 3, 2013
Penner's basic premise is that the primary methods used by modern apologists ("defenders of the faith") are counterproductive, in part because they appeal to the secular modernist view that (absolute) Truth can be known through reason alone. Penner regards truth (lower-case t) as that which is edifying and holds that absolute Truth rests only with God, that humans can see it at best "as through a glass darkly." Meanwhile he calls for a more humble style of Christian witness that is other-focused (relationship-oriented and edifying to the receiver) rather than focused on one's own goal of winning an argument or convert. Especially helpful here is his discussion of Kierkegaard's distinction between geniuses and apostles, where he concludes "that when the modern epistemological paradigm treats human reason as the source and ground for truth — as a replacement for a premodern reliance on God and other sources of belief outside oneself — then our most important values, such as God, truth, meaning, and even reason itself, are undermined." [p. 73]
This is really difficult stuff, heavy on abstract theological concepts expressed in long, complex sentences often bereft of clarifying commas (Canadian style). As a nontheologian, I cannot claim to have understood it all, and my summary does not begin to do it justice. I wish Penner would write another version for the average Christian layperson. I think we could all be edified by a book calling us to demonstrate the truth of our faith through genuine dialectical relationships, person-preserving witness, as opposed to what he calls "apologetic violence."
I loved his closing statement:
"My confidence is that the broken fragments of the premodern mirror may yet be used to reflect the beauty of Jesus in ten thousand places and many, many thousands-upon-millions of more faces." [p. 171]
This is really difficult stuff, heavy on abstract theological concepts expressed in long, complex sentences often bereft of clarifying commas (Canadian style). As a nontheologian, I cannot claim to have understood it all, and my summary does not begin to do it justice. I wish Penner would write another version for the average Christian layperson. I think we could all be edified by a book calling us to demonstrate the truth of our faith through genuine dialectical relationships, person-preserving witness, as opposed to what he calls "apologetic violence."
I loved his closing statement:
"My confidence is that the broken fragments of the premodern mirror may yet be used to reflect the beauty of Jesus in ten thousand places and many, many thousands-upon-millions of more faces." [p. 171]
August 30, 2024
A dense, heady book that's somehow also very succinct and straightforward with the argument it presents.
Myron Bradley Penner, an Anglican priest, sets up the first half of this book explaining and dissecting what Christian Apologetics is, from the days of natural philosophy to Thomas Aquinas to post-modernism and Michel Foucault. The second half deconstructs Apologetics in a post-modern world. He explains the philosophical and spiritual conflict between one truth and many truths, and argues that the way forward for convincing people of Christian Truth is not in arguing endlessly, but in living a faithful Christian life, and serving as a witness to God. As someone who follows a Reformed tradition myself, that rang very true for me! My biggest take-away from this book was the phrase: "HOW you say something is more important than WHAT you say."
The arguments Penner presents are thoroughly researched and cross-referenced, to the point where the footnotes are nearly as long as the book itself! His knowledge presented is meaty, and never uninteresting. The passion he has for the idea that the best way to lead someone to Christ is not by convincing them, but by showing them, is remarkable, and very inspiring!
While I LOVED this book, I think if you are atheist or exploring your faith, this won't do much to convert you to Christianity. It's more of a book for Christians in the know, and even then, I think Christians would struggle with this book unless they have a passing familiarity with C.S. Lewis and Kierkegaard. Penner sometimes misses the forest for the trees, and even relies a little bit too heavily on the post-modernism he claims is a threat to Christian thought, but when the thesis is as strongly developed as his is here, it's easy to focus on what he's truly trying to say.
Myron Bradley Penner, an Anglican priest, sets up the first half of this book explaining and dissecting what Christian Apologetics is, from the days of natural philosophy to Thomas Aquinas to post-modernism and Michel Foucault. The second half deconstructs Apologetics in a post-modern world. He explains the philosophical and spiritual conflict between one truth and many truths, and argues that the way forward for convincing people of Christian Truth is not in arguing endlessly, but in living a faithful Christian life, and serving as a witness to God. As someone who follows a Reformed tradition myself, that rang very true for me! My biggest take-away from this book was the phrase: "HOW you say something is more important than WHAT you say."
The arguments Penner presents are thoroughly researched and cross-referenced, to the point where the footnotes are nearly as long as the book itself! His knowledge presented is meaty, and never uninteresting. The passion he has for the idea that the best way to lead someone to Christ is not by convincing them, but by showing them, is remarkable, and very inspiring!
While I LOVED this book, I think if you are atheist or exploring your faith, this won't do much to convert you to Christianity. It's more of a book for Christians in the know, and even then, I think Christians would struggle with this book unless they have a passing familiarity with C.S. Lewis and Kierkegaard. Penner sometimes misses the forest for the trees, and even relies a little bit too heavily on the post-modernism he claims is a threat to Christian thought, but when the thesis is as strongly developed as his is here, it's easy to focus on what he's truly trying to say.
November 1, 2013
Книга на доста високо академично ниво, което в никакъв случай не означава, че няма какво практично да се вземе от нея. Напротив, критиката на модерната апологетика (в постмодерен, киркегардовски вариант и с избрана "жертва" У. Л. Крейг) е много добра, макар и далеч не изцяло оригинална. Макар да не съм убеден, че съм съгласен с всичко, което предлага автора от идеите му за постмодерно свидетелство определено има какво да се вземе.
Макар на някои места да ме отегчи и 1-2 пъти да изпуснах нишката на мисълта (философията ми дойде в повече) книгата като цяло се оакза по-четлива отколкото ми се стори отначало.
Предполагам, че мнението ми е донякъде пристрастно - самият аз отдавна намирам една балансирана (подчертавам) постмодерна позиция за много по-убедителна от модерната без значение дали говорим за богословие, апологетика или проповядване. Струва ми се, че тази книга би се наредила сред трите, които бих препоръчал на човек, който се интересув аот християнски поглед към постмодернизма - другите две са Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context by Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke и A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey by Brian D. McLaren (само първата част). Всяка от тях представя нещата от съвсем различен ъгъл, но кумулативно смятам, че дават добра представа.
Макар на някои места да ме отегчи и 1-2 пъти да изпуснах нишката на мисълта (философията ми дойде в повече) книгата като цяло се оакза по-четлива отколкото ми се стори отначало.
Предполагам, че мнението ми е донякъде пристрастно - самият аз отдавна намирам една балансирана (подчертавам) постмодерна позиция за много по-убедителна от модерната без значение дали говорим за богословие, апологетика или проповядване. Струва ми се, че тази книга би се наредила сред трите, които бих препоръчал на човек, който се интересув аот християнски поглед към постмодернизма - другите две са Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context by Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke и A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey by Brian D. McLaren (само първата част). Всяка от тях представя нещата от съвсем различен ъгъл, но кумулативно смятам, че дават добра представа.
October 3, 2013
Nonsense. The only reason I finished reading it was that I purchased it. What Penner does is throw in the towel. His argument boils down to, "Modern rational-empiricism has won, so I have to come up with some PoMo BS in an attempt to make a case for the failure of Christianity." Unfortunately, I can't give the book a zero instead of one star.
September 26, 2021
Phenomenal.
January 5, 2020
Penner's goal is to give us an account, a story, of how witness should work in a postmodern context. He sets this up in opposition to the modern apologist, for whom he uses William Lane Craig as an exemplar. Penner believes the modern apologist is engaged in a futile battle at best, and an intellectually-violent, self-indulgent conquest at worst.
So, where does this leave us? Penner does not want to jettison the concept of 'truth' completely, but wants to frame it in terms of edification. Nobody, save God, has access to objective 'Truth', so we shouldn't even try. Rather, we should seek out a community, tradition, etc. which provides an edifying truth for us.
Penner is trying to situate himself within the intellectual tradition of postmodernism, referencing various existentialist and pragmatist writers, and especially trying to align himself with everyone's favorite 19th century Dane, Kierkegaard.
My own opinion is that Penner does motivate one to think more about the person and building up rather than tearing down in our witness. But, I think he throws away the baby with the proverbial bathwater in utterly rejecting modern apologetics. It seems to me that rational argumentation has its place and time, though they are not our only tools in witnessing.
Oh, and half of the Kindle edition is made up of footnotes. So, you can go down many reference rabbit-holes if you so desire. I purchased many other books thanks to this guy, for better or worse.
So, where does this leave us? Penner does not want to jettison the concept of 'truth' completely, but wants to frame it in terms of edification. Nobody, save God, has access to objective 'Truth', so we shouldn't even try. Rather, we should seek out a community, tradition, etc. which provides an edifying truth for us.
Penner is trying to situate himself within the intellectual tradition of postmodernism, referencing various existentialist and pragmatist writers, and especially trying to align himself with everyone's favorite 19th century Dane, Kierkegaard.
My own opinion is that Penner does motivate one to think more about the person and building up rather than tearing down in our witness. But, I think he throws away the baby with the proverbial bathwater in utterly rejecting modern apologetics. It seems to me that rational argumentation has its place and time, though they are not our only tools in witnessing.
Oh, and half of the Kindle edition is made up of footnotes. So, you can go down many reference rabbit-holes if you so desire. I purchased many other books thanks to this guy, for better or worse.
February 26, 2018
The scope of Penner's argument in "The End of Apologetics" is surprising in scope: that the Enlightenment vision of "rational" humanity is antithetical to the Gospel, and modernistic attempts to defend Christianity in Enlightenment language are equally anti-Gospel. Yikes.
And I think I agree with him.
This book is just a little uneven, but overall Penner has offered a pretty devastating (and sharply-written) critique of much of the Western-apologetic enterprise. He takes a thoroughly Kierkegaardian, deconstructive axe to our Modernist-Enlightenment tree, but doesn't tear down without building up (thankfully). He manages to put forward a positive vision for prophetic witness in our culture that is overwhelming and inspiring. The chapters on 'irony' and 'politics' were my favorite moments in the book, and it's also a lucid, winsome introduction to Kierkegaardian thought in general.
This deserves a place alongside James K.A. Smith's and Merold Westphal's work on the church in postmodern culture. As someone immersed in skeptical, young-adult culture today, I found it exciting and helpful in equal measure. More of American-Western-Christendom should heed the warnings here.
And I think I agree with him.
This book is just a little uneven, but overall Penner has offered a pretty devastating (and sharply-written) critique of much of the Western-apologetic enterprise. He takes a thoroughly Kierkegaardian, deconstructive axe to our Modernist-Enlightenment tree, but doesn't tear down without building up (thankfully). He manages to put forward a positive vision for prophetic witness in our culture that is overwhelming and inspiring. The chapters on 'irony' and 'politics' were my favorite moments in the book, and it's also a lucid, winsome introduction to Kierkegaardian thought in general.
This deserves a place alongside James K.A. Smith's and Merold Westphal's work on the church in postmodern culture. As someone immersed in skeptical, young-adult culture today, I found it exciting and helpful in equal measure. More of American-Western-Christendom should heed the warnings here.
June 5, 2019
Really interesting book that (in my opinion) refutes something dangerous and real but tends to also caricature modern apologists (particularly William Lane Craig) in a way that is inconsistent with the methods of approaching people in their full subjectivity that he advocates in his final chapter. Interesting read, and I think successfully shows us that a postmodern context allows for and teaches us about the Gospel's power and the supremacy of God's revelation in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. Wish I had more of a background in Kierkegaard before reading this- my understanding of Kierkegaard is only really shaped by my little prior knowledge and Penner's interpretation, which directly relates Kierkegaard to postmodern thought (if postmodernism can be considered an ism or thought group).
August 17, 2021
Best book on Christian philosophy that I’ve read in a while. Profound insight into the dehumanizing effects of modernism and Christianity’s complicity, when adopting modernist categories and arguments.
August 26, 2013
A thorough analysis of the state of Christian apologetic and witness through a postmodern lens informed by Kierkegaard.
The author provides a thoroughgoing challenge to the modernist/rational modus operandi of modern Christian apologetics. He does well at showing how one cannot just acquiesce to the fundamental assumptions and worldview of modernism and the Enlightenment consensus and be able to effectively demonstrate the essence of Christianity. The Kierkegaardian contrast between genius and apostle and how each communicates and views authority and how modern apologetics relies too much on the former when Christianity is all about the latter is also instructive. The emphasis on edification as the end goal provides great resonance with what is revealed in Scripture. The author's discussion of the premodern worldview and how we cannot attempt to just resuscitate that worldview after the modernist project is also helpful. His comments regarding truth and the recognition that God is truth and the possessor of truth, and how we can abide in truth, know truth, but are not said to be able to possess truth as if it is our own is also challenging and worthy of consideration.
Even though the author does often qualify his acceptance of postmodernism with the understanding that God is absolute truth and the possessor thereof (even if we see through a mirror darkly), his almost complete embrace of postmodern critique (and Kierkegaard's viewpoints) seems to be a bit too much. Christ is true philosophy; all other philosophical schemes may reflect His truth in some ways but will not in others, and we must accept the good and reject the evil in all of them.
Nevertheless, an excellent critique and worthy of consideration.
**--book received as part of early review program
The author provides a thoroughgoing challenge to the modernist/rational modus operandi of modern Christian apologetics. He does well at showing how one cannot just acquiesce to the fundamental assumptions and worldview of modernism and the Enlightenment consensus and be able to effectively demonstrate the essence of Christianity. The Kierkegaardian contrast between genius and apostle and how each communicates and views authority and how modern apologetics relies too much on the former when Christianity is all about the latter is also instructive. The emphasis on edification as the end goal provides great resonance with what is revealed in Scripture. The author's discussion of the premodern worldview and how we cannot attempt to just resuscitate that worldview after the modernist project is also helpful. His comments regarding truth and the recognition that God is truth and the possessor of truth, and how we can abide in truth, know truth, but are not said to be able to possess truth as if it is our own is also challenging and worthy of consideration.
Even though the author does often qualify his acceptance of postmodernism with the understanding that God is absolute truth and the possessor thereof (even if we see through a mirror darkly), his almost complete embrace of postmodern critique (and Kierkegaard's viewpoints) seems to be a bit too much. Christ is true philosophy; all other philosophical schemes may reflect His truth in some ways but will not in others, and we must accept the good and reject the evil in all of them.
Nevertheless, an excellent critique and worthy of consideration.
**--book received as part of early review program
April 4, 2014
Penner offers a profound critique of our Modern epistemological and philosophical paradigm, especially as it relates to the degree to which it has informed Christian philosophy. Penner places himself in the Postmodern camp, but appropriately clarifies what Postmodernism is in relation to Modernity (more of a "movement" than a "position"). His redefinition here is helpful to rebuild some of the bridges that may have been burned between Modernity and Postmodernity, but i'll let you read it to see if you feel the same way.
As per my review of the content, Penner has some very well thought out critiques that he develops against Modern philosophy. He uses Soren Kierkegaard's work to inform much of his approach to the topic (i.e., his Genius/Apostle distinction). Whether or not his arguments are airtight, his conclusion is quite a prophetic message to the Modern/Postmodern church. In regards, however, to the airtightness of his arguments, I did find that I was left wanting a greater depth of discussion from Penner on certain aspects of his theology. I believe this work of Penner's only calls for a larger work; more to the end of a systematic theology. For example, I would have loved to have Penner fill in what his understanding of the Word of God, the Premodern conception of Reason, or Revelation is in greater detail.
This is a good book to challenge, I think, laymen of the Church, but I use "challenge" intentionally. It is a bit of an academic endeavor to get into Penner's book, but Christians should be encouraged to engage areas such as this in order to abstain from ignorance in a culture that is growing quickly to adopt higher levels of thinking into its every day conversation. I would definitely recommend this for Pastors and Professors alike (at least in the North American context).
As per my review of the content, Penner has some very well thought out critiques that he develops against Modern philosophy. He uses Soren Kierkegaard's work to inform much of his approach to the topic (i.e., his Genius/Apostle distinction). Whether or not his arguments are airtight, his conclusion is quite a prophetic message to the Modern/Postmodern church. In regards, however, to the airtightness of his arguments, I did find that I was left wanting a greater depth of discussion from Penner on certain aspects of his theology. I believe this work of Penner's only calls for a larger work; more to the end of a systematic theology. For example, I would have loved to have Penner fill in what his understanding of the Word of God, the Premodern conception of Reason, or Revelation is in greater detail.
This is a good book to challenge, I think, laymen of the Church, but I use "challenge" intentionally. It is a bit of an academic endeavor to get into Penner's book, but Christians should be encouraged to engage areas such as this in order to abstain from ignorance in a culture that is growing quickly to adopt higher levels of thinking into its every day conversation. I would definitely recommend this for Pastors and Professors alike (at least in the North American context).
December 2, 2015
Penner draws on the thinking of Kierkegaard, Ricoeur, Foucault, and others to recast Christian witnessing in light of our postmodern situation. He argues persuasively that contemporary Christian apologetics is stuck in a modern epistemic paradigm: namely, the focus on defending the rational superiority of the Christian worldview. Since 'truth' in modernity is usually propositional (e.g., the Bible is the direct word of God), contemporary apologists concern themselves with defending the objective reality of those propositions. Similarly, Christians demonstrate their faithfulness by assenting to this series of propositions. This is particularly true in Mormonism, where good standing and temple access hinges almost entirely on whether the member assents to a series of Mormon narrative propositions.
Penner describes why such a modern framework is problematic in our postmodern context: "What counts as rational is always embedded within a set of power relations operative within a given social structure. And rather than producing the untarnished truth about the way the world really is, human reason merely presents us with a series of perspectives that reflect the way the world appears to a group or groups of people."
As a result, he argues for a hermeneutical paradigm, which shifts the focus of Christian belief from "Is the [belief/proposition] true and justified?" to "Is it intelligible and meaningful?" He further argues that "The pressing issue is not solving an abstract set of theoretical problems but interpreting the symbols and texts of a received tradition in order to understand their meaning and significance in relation to a concrete set of problems and exigencies that we encounter."
I found this book thought provoking and very accessible. I would recommend it to any philosophically-minded Christian reader.
Penner describes why such a modern framework is problematic in our postmodern context: "What counts as rational is always embedded within a set of power relations operative within a given social structure. And rather than producing the untarnished truth about the way the world really is, human reason merely presents us with a series of perspectives that reflect the way the world appears to a group or groups of people."
As a result, he argues for a hermeneutical paradigm, which shifts the focus of Christian belief from "Is the [belief/proposition] true and justified?" to "Is it intelligible and meaningful?" He further argues that "The pressing issue is not solving an abstract set of theoretical problems but interpreting the symbols and texts of a received tradition in order to understand their meaning and significance in relation to a concrete set of problems and exigencies that we encounter."
I found this book thought provoking and very accessible. I would recommend it to any philosophically-minded Christian reader.
July 12, 2013
I was fortunate to win a copy of this book on Goodreads website. This is a very interesting book. It is the first book I have read on the concept of post-modern apologetics. Thus, this was not the easiest read for me.
That said, I believe it was worth the work. Dr. Panner makes his case very well. Indeed, modern apologists would do well to interact with what he has written here, especially with regard to the damage done by placing the prophetic word at the mercy of some secular standard of reasoning.
The primary critique I would offer is with regard to his modern apologist caricature. Throughout the book William Lane Craig, a classic apologist, is used as representative of the modern apologist. Though Craig is certainly a good representative of that brand of modern apologist, I find it hard to see how some of the accusations leveled against him would also be applicable to presuppositionalists like Van Til.
That said, I am very glad I read this book, for it left me much to consider.
That said, I believe it was worth the work. Dr. Panner makes his case very well. Indeed, modern apologists would do well to interact with what he has written here, especially with regard to the damage done by placing the prophetic word at the mercy of some secular standard of reasoning.
The primary critique I would offer is with regard to his modern apologist caricature. Throughout the book William Lane Craig, a classic apologist, is used as representative of the modern apologist. Though Craig is certainly a good representative of that brand of modern apologist, I find it hard to see how some of the accusations leveled against him would also be applicable to presuppositionalists like Van Til.
That said, I am very glad I read this book, for it left me much to consider.
August 13, 2016
this is good, depending on what you're looking for . . it's extremely academic - to me, in the worst way . . the way where, in a sense, the whole book could've been summed up in a line or two . . want the line?: . .the best witness is a lived faith . . there's the book . .
that being said, there (of course) is *lots* more going on and lots of very worthwhile insights . . put it this way: i dogear pages when i read that have significant passages on them . . and i dogeared a lot of pages in this one . . the stuff that appealed to me the most is kierkegaard stuff . . and just well put thoughts on that simple basic message: don't argue them in, show them the faith in action . .
that being said, there (of course) is *lots* more going on and lots of very worthwhile insights . . put it this way: i dogear pages when i read that have significant passages on them . . and i dogeared a lot of pages in this one . . the stuff that appealed to me the most is kierkegaard stuff . . and just well put thoughts on that simple basic message: don't argue them in, show them the faith in action . .
August 5, 2016
Every Christian apologist, after having read this book and still defending her or his apologetic method, will automatically give proof of the book's assertion that propositional logic is not value neutral but always influenced by unconscious bias, which in this case would have to mean that an overwhelmingly powerful argument in favor of a more postmodern and biblical approach in apologetics, or rather prophetic witness, is rejected for the simple reason that an entire career invested in the cause of Christian apologetics (by said apologist) cannot be allowed to be jeopardized or subverted by this powerful book.
April 8, 2023
Essentially unreadable. One straw man after another are knocked down using cliches and jargon endemic to the most obtuse academic specialists. Penner's heros are uniformly these folk; the self-important but silly lost in their tortuous introspection.
It appears that Penner took some ideas from Charles Taylor's (great) book and spent 174 pages trying to apply them in the most long-winded impenetrable way to Christian apologetics.
Sorry, this is so harsh, but to me this was psychobabble; like reading a parody or caricature of postmodern academic philosophy cranked out of a word processor.
It appears that Penner took some ideas from Charles Taylor's (great) book and spent 174 pages trying to apply them in the most long-winded impenetrable way to Christian apologetics.
Sorry, this is so harsh, but to me this was psychobabble; like reading a parody or caricature of postmodern academic philosophy cranked out of a word processor.
July 22, 2013
This book was written for the academic community but there is much the layman can take away from it. Penner uses Kierkegaard a great deal, something appreciated more by scholars. I really liked his premise, though, that we can no longer do apologetics likes we've done for decades. Classic apologetics just will not work effectively. Penner really concentrates on the personal aspect of belief and living out that belief as we interact with others. There is certainly food for thought in this book. See my full review at http://bit.ly/14i5KJN
December 31, 2015
I guess this book teaches me a lesson of not to judge a book by its title or cover. I purchased this book thinking it would be some kind of an apologetics book of how to deal with the Postmodern world we live in. You know arguments for and defenses of. Instead I found a book that primarily deals with Kierkegaard and his relation to the post modern world.
I'm sure if I were a Kierkegaard scholar or even novice this book would be an interesting read. Unfortunately I am neither and as a result I found the book way over my head and a disappointing dry read.
I'm sure if I were a Kierkegaard scholar or even novice this book would be an interesting read. Unfortunately I am neither and as a result I found the book way over my head and a disappointing dry read.
April 19, 2014
To sum it up: the author presents the primacy of witnessing (rather than debating) in the postmodern world. One can win an argument and not win the person. In a postmodern context, we must treat people as subjects—who are to be known, understood, and witnessed to. Rather than faceless objects, or categories—who are to be proven wrong or illogical.
September 25, 2014
An excellent scholarly explanation of the dangers and inadequacies of modern apologetics. Penner takes Kierkegaard's position on apologetics, that modern apologetics does more to make Christianity worldly than it does to foster faith. My only criticism is that Penner does not acknowledge his own adherence to the rules of logic while criticizing apologists for their adherence to modern logic.
November 4, 2013
This is really like a 3.5, mainly for theoretical issues, though I am sympathetic to the aims of the author. You get my whole take in another week or two on the blog.
July 15, 2013
I needed to put my academic hat bag on for this one but found that after a few chapters I was following Penner and wrestling with the thesis rather than the language.
Want to read
September 6, 2016The 2014 Christianity Today Book Awards: 2nd Appologetics/Evangelism
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2...
January 21, 2014
My review will be posted on my blog in the next couple days.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews