Biblical Apologetics

In a recent essay (hithertofore unposted/unpublished) that I have been working on I explore the issue of how Scripture is meaningful/significant. I take pains to establish the fact that meaning is relative to the person or to the community. That is, something is significant/meaningful to each of us in different ways.

This idea applies to the theological doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture. That is, the Scripture will seem meaningful to some and not to others. So, if meaning is relative to the individual/community, then I ask the question of whether there is any "inherent" meaning in the text of Scripture. Further, if meaning is relative then what gives a believer the audacity to suggest that the Scripture should be meaningful to others? This is a fair question/objection. I respond by talking about the "ought-ness" of meaning. The sense that if we find something meaningful/significant we typically think that it ought to be meaningful/significant to others. For example, if you read a good book or see a good film then we usually think that others ought to think the same. As such, just because meaning is relative does not, in and of itself, exclude us appealing to others that they should find meaning in something.

The below quotation from my essay comes after discussing the above points. The second paragraph is the point that I think is interesting.

The ought-ness of meaning also extends out of the Scripture’s appeal to the shared existential and spiritual situations of humankind. The ability for the text to resonate within so many diverse contexts is similar to the ability of a film to reach across cultures and speak to the commonality of human experience. The ought-ness in film proceeds from the unique and distinguishing character of the film, itself. The same is true of the text, and this leads us back into Calvin’s analogy of the “sweet” taste of Scripture. There is a similar sensual appeal that seems to transcend diverse contexts to speak to a common spiritual and existential dimension. It does not, of course, follow that all will find the text meaningful or significant, nor does it follow that all will find the text meaningful/significant in the same way or to the same degree. In our examination of meaning we have found that the meaningfulness of Scripture occurs at the intersection of text, reader, and Spirit at specific moments in time. But we have been exploring the ought-ness of meaning, which occurs when we experience something deeply meaningful that feels so deep and so basic that it seems to carry with it a meaningful and significant message for all of humankind. There is a sense that others might also be profoundly affected by the text. It is this sense that I call the feeling of ought-ness.

A critical apologetic and philosophical note along these lines is that it may be misguided to attempt to establish the truth of Scripture prior to a person engaging the text, itself. To attempt to establish the priority of the text at the outset could be a potentially frustrating endeavor. Analogously, it would seem backward and awkward to persuade an individual that a film is meaningful prior to viewing the film! This is simply not how we go about this sort of thing. We may share our excitement and attempt to convey a sense of the significance we have derived from a film, but ultimately our call is, “Give the film a viewing”! Similarly, when presenting the Scripture in the public square the church’s call is to give the text a reading; that the individual would open themselves to the possibility of a meaningful and significant engagement with the text. It is in this sense, then, that we can do justice to Calvin’s analogy and the examination of meaning as we have explored it in this essay.

Traditionally, apologetics has sought to establish the meaningfulness of the Scripture at the outset. In other words, there were logical and philosophical reasons for considering the Scripture as "true" or as the "Word of God." We had to have a reason considering the biblical text as meaningful. In this sense, I think we extracted the text from the stream of life and abstracted it away from its original and primary function: To guide humanity through life and to ultimately guide them to a dynamic Encounter with their Creator.

Here are a few examples of biblical apologetics in action:
Is the Bible from God?
How do you know the Bible is true?
The Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Authority of the Bible
“You Can’t Trust the Gospels. They’re Unreliable.” by Paul Copan
Here is an interesting quote from this article that kind of illustrates my above point: "The Christian has no way to refute skepticism about the unique claims and deeds of the historical Jesus without first establishing that the texts that record his claims are generally reliable. If the Gospels are fictitious, then a defense of Jesus’ self-understanding and unique role in salvation will also come under fire. So what follows are a few points to keep in mind when discussing the Bible’s historical reliability."

My thought is that perhaps we need to guide the non-believer to the text and suggest that it may be meaningful for them. In some sense it makes the Word prove itself as significant/meaningful in each and every life-situation. I think this is the direction that Apologetics is moving. In general, I think that Apologetics is dying out. If it is going to be revived it must undergo complete reconstructive surgery.