In the last post, we discussed the utility of
theological reflection in the practice of apologetics. We suggested nine ways
in which the study of theology may benefit those engaged in apologetics,
arguing that one cannot successfully defend that which one does not know. In
this short post, I wish to highlight a
specific example of how the convergence of theological study and apologetic
activity can not only be welcome but also necessary.
It’s no secret that Richard Dawkins is not a
friend of the Christian faith. Neither, however, is he warm towards the
discipline of theology. In an article for the Free Inquiry magazine in 2006, he asked, “what on earth makes one
think that theology has anything useful to say” concerning the origins of human
existence. [1] He continued to argue
that “It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge”, and by
contrast, theology has never said anything “that is of the smallest use to
anybody”. “The achievements of theologians”, writes Dawkins, “don’t do anything,
don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything”. At other times he has spoken of
his “doubt” that “‘theology’ is a subject at all”, comparing it with the study
of leprechauns. [2]
Anyone interested in apologetics is aware of
how popular it is (perhaps even easy) to rebuff Dawkins’ criticisms. What I
want to ask, however, is why – why
should you, the apologist, want to issue a response to Dawkins concerning
Christian theology? Is it because he’s popular? Then you’re a bully, and a
cynic. Is it because he compared God to a leprechaun? Then you’re too easily
offended and distracted. Instead, you
should want to respond to Dawkins’ assault on the study of Christian theology
because it is an assault on all speech concerning God. There is a more pressing issue here, namely, Dawkins’ attempt to
move the goalposts. If he establishes the invalidity of theology, then
apologetics (which is, remember, a theological
discipline) is necessarily defunct. You could have the best philosophical
mind and the sharpest grasp of formal logic, but if theological speech is
disqualified then your apologetic conclusions are dismissed as meaningless; the
detritus of a bygone era.
It
is, therefore, in the apologist’s best interest to be aware of theology here. In order to proffer a plausible apologia to the public, the apologist
needs to know what theology actually is and outline where Dawkins goes wrong.
She needs to know that Christian theology, far from being ‘useless’, serves a
number of functions – intellectually, as the critical study of extant human
constructs; historically, as the study of human civilisation; politically, as
the way to explain religious activity in the social and civic spheres; and
personally, as a helpful means of order and reflection for those who claim a
faith. She needs to know that theology is not just the metaphysical affirmation
of God, akin to a belief in leprechauns, but a multi-faceted intellectual
enterprise with various constitutive schools and disciplines. In order to prove
Dawkins wrong and discredit his reasoning, the apologist needs to be
theologically aware.
It is
also, however, in the theologian’s
best interest to do apologetics here. It isn’t simply one-way traffic. In order to
provide a fully rounded defence of theological study, the theologian needs to
know how to do apologetics so that she may craft a convincing and compelling
response. To be apologetically aware is to be mindful of the politics of public
disputation. It is to be conscientious of those who need brevity and simplicity
so that all thoughts may be taken captive for Christ. It is to be on the look
out for logical fallacies and inconsistencies in thinking, so as to demonstrate
the supremacy of Christ in intellectual thought. It would mean that the theologian
could point out how Dawkins’ insistence that theology is useless not only assumes that a subject is only a subject when it
has a pragmatic and mechanical function (invalidating philosophy, English
literature, historiography, art, etc), but also that Dawkins assumes
‘usefulness’ to be worthwhile. For
something to be worthwhile it must
possess worth. In order for something
to possess worth, one must know what worth means; in order to know what worth
means, one must engage in a manner of discourse identical to that of
theological/philosophical reflection. In other words, the apologetically aware theologian would be able to point out that
Dawkins is assuming the usefulness of that which he’s also arguing to be
useless.
In this one case study, therefore, we can see
how apologetics and theology need one another. Besides the nine reasons listed
in the previous post, we can see in this one example exactly how theological
reasoning affects apologetic activity, and how apologetic awareness should
impact the theological vocation. Again, you cannot successfully defend that
which you do not know.
In the next post, we will conclude our series
with an explanation of how one might start studying theology.
----------------------------
[1] Free Inquiry Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 2.
[2] Taken from Dawkins’ letter published in the
Independent, http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article3015309.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment