Making the case for faith

By Arthur Paul Boers and ChristianWeek | June 29, 2010

Apologetics just ain't what it used to be. Some decades ago, in my high school and university days, we evangelicals latched onto books with authoritative sounding titles, like Know Why You Believe and Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Being a debater myself, I easily mastered the arguments and wielded them with passion. Trouble is, I never seemed to convince anyone—in my classes, at parties or in late night bull sessions.

In the last few years, so-called "new atheists" penned works that sound as authoritative as those 1970s era apologetic texts: The End of Faith, God is Not Great, The God Delusion. Many are best sellers, suggesting they meet some need within our wider culture.

I am not too bothered by all of this. I generally find new atheists misguided and unconvincing. They're quite bright, of course, but they usually argue against versions of Christianity that I do not recognize. I can be as cranky as—or even crankier than—almost anyone about the lapses and missteps of Christians and the Church. Yet new atheist critiques and complaints often miss the mark. Contrary to what they would have us believe, I know and admire many people of faith that are intelligent, well-read, knowledgeable about science, respectful of diverse points-of-view and not eager to shed blood.

David Bentley Hart, however, believes that it is worthwhile to challenge new atheism and take its intellectual claims seriously. A theologian and philosopher, he brilliantly takes on many of their accusations.

At first, I found his book exhilarating. He knows so much about church, theology and theological controversies, literature and the content of new atheist books, that the case he makes is compelling. Moreover, he is a clever writer, never shy about showing off his erudition. His sentences are often long and complex and I frequently had to look up the definitions of obscure words. As someone who likes a persuasive argument and admires a well-reasoned case, I felt stunned by Hart's onslaught on his opponents and I could only sigh with relief: "Phew. I'm glad that I'm on his side!"

Hart believes new atheists are worth taking on not because they are especially convincing, but because the arguments of "today's cultured despisers of religion" are shallow, misguided and ill informed. It is not that their opinions and conclusions leave something to be desired; he proves over and again that they do not have a substantial grasp on history or theology. He notes ruefully that "among Christianity's most fervent detractors, there has been a considerable decline in standards in recent years." He dismisses one famous volume as "not a serious—merely a self-important—book…." Another work, in his view, is "dreadful, vulgar and almost systematically erroneous."

Hart examines various charges: Christians discarded ancient wisdom early on, the Church was uniquely ignorant when it comes to science (think of Galileo), believers are responsible for unprecedented violence (Inquisition, Crusades, persecution of witches). We have heard all of these complaints before. But I have never seen anyone so thoroughly and convincingly refute such accusations. Hart rebuts them, one by one, always giving us another perspective, an ameliorating interpretation.

Hart does not just refute old charges; he offers a spirited account of how unique and life-giving loyalty to Jesus is. In fact, he suggests our faith is unparalleled and that is a key reason for its attraction and success in the early centuries. And what our culture finds most valuable and worthwhile in ethics today are "fragments and haunting echoes of Christian moral theology. Even the most ardent secularists among us generally cling to notions of human rights, economic and social justice, providence for the indigent, legal equality or basic human dignity…."

I largely agree with Hart. As I've mentioned, I hardly dare not! But I do have reservations.

For one, this book makes for dense reading. One would need to be highly motivated to wade through the minutiae of his arguments. Sentences that threaten to be paragraphs in themselves may feel overpowering and at times I'm tempted to skip them altogether. While I have limited education in history, theology and philosophy, I often felt unqualified to judge Hart's claims. I'll admit that I just enjoy having an outspoken and passionate scholar on "our" side.

For another, Hart strikes a smug tone. While I am glad to have the shabby and shallow arguments of Christianity's opponents refuted, I wonder why a Christian would feel the need to be so pompous. In the end, his arguments probably will not convince many folks, just as my high school and university appropriation of apologetics was largely ineffective. The spirit of what we say and communicate is at least as important as the content. I admire Hart's intellect but I have to wonder whether he is a nice or likable man. He sure does not sound winsome to me.

And, finally, while Hart does persuade me that Christians were not as violent historically as many suggest, he merely downplays the degree of our violence. I am convinced that the greatest deterrence to winning people to the faith is the scandalous fact that followers of the Prince of Peace so often solved problems by slaughtering enemies. Until the Church more clearly renounces violence why should anyone respect our claims about loving enemies—as Christ loved us when we were enemies—or the power of the forgiveness and resurrection?

The solution is not to ratchet up arguments against those who dispute us. Rather the challenge for us—the best apologetics of all—is to live like Jesus, as if we really do believe that He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.