“Apology” is a misunderstood term, and 21st century can mean anything you want. By “apology” I mean it the classic sense of a reasoned argument (hence, Justin Martyr above), not a statement of regret. By 21st century, I mean to lump together a number of tired termsthat have the prefix “post,” such as post-structuralist, anti-metanarrative, post-western, post-literate, post-national and most important, post-Christendom. To those fancy words I’d add some broader cultural shifts such urban, pluralism and global monoculture. And let’s not forget some changes in technology and their social ramifications such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering and transhumanism.
Apologetics, as I have encountered it from fundamentalist camps, often comes across smarmy, and painfully embedded in enlightenment thinking. (That’s not to say there isn’t some brilliant stuff out there.)
The problem is that traditional “reasoning” makes some assumptions that need to be reconsidered. What makes you think people will even respect your reasoning?
Here’s a few things I’d address in a post-modern apology:
- The need for a narrative, even in a culture “incredulous” of them.
- The reality that assuming present day man has anything figured out that past generations do not is, as Lewis would say “chronological snobbery.”
- The need for a model a way of life in an increasingly complex and hostile world.
An underlying assumption of such an apologetic is that the end point is discipleship, not conversion. I have to believe that if people are constantly pouring over scripture to follow the model of Jesus that conversion will take care of itself.
What do you think? What would you include in your apology?
Tweets