Interview with David Horner: "Apologetics and the task of Evangelization"

/

Caius Obeada hosted an interview with David Horner earlier this year. Dr. Horner is a terrific moral philosopher and, in this interview, he discusses apologetics and the role in evangelism. This is a topic Horner also explores in this essay: Too Good Not to be True: A Call to Moral Apologetics as a Mode of Civil Discourse.

From Caius Obeada:

“This is an interview with Dr. David Horner, professor of Theology and Philosophy at Biola University in California. We discussed apologetics and the task of evangelization, the role that they play, the tools, and the relation with the body of Christ. Dr. Caius Obeada, director of Reasonable Faith Romanian Chapter and Founder of Vox Dei Institute of Apologetics, discussed many aspects of apologetics in defending the Christian Faith.”

Petrine Apologetics: 4 Things You Didn’t Know About 1 Peter 3:15

/

“Petrine” refers to ideas, words, teachings, or documents attributed to the Apostle Peter. This article uncovers several aspects of apologetics that Peter was concerned about in the course of his writing.

  1. The context of the verse is persecution.

  2. Peter is referring to Jesus as God (Yahweh).

  3. Peter is moralizing “apology”—a legal term.

  4. The case for rational apologetics is in verse 14.

The Context of the Verse is Persecution

Part of the appeal of using 1 Peter 3:15 as a prooftext for apologetics is its completeness as a thought—true apart from its context. But as any Bible scholar will tell you, the context of a statement constrains its meaning and determines the author’s intent. Few realize that the audience in 1 Peter is concerned with persecution.

First Peter is written around 60 A. D. by the Apostle Peter to Christian “strangers” (1:1) living in a Roman milieu of pagan systems (termed by Peter as “Babylon” in 5:13); particularly in Asia Minor. The following is an outline of 1 Peter is given by Donald W. Burdick and John H. Skilton.

I. Greetings (1: 1– 2)
II. Praise to God for Salvation (1: 3– 12)
III. First Response to Suffering: Creating a Holy Community (1: 13— 2: 10)
A. Call to Holiness and Love (1: 13— 2: 3)
B. Creation of a Vibrant Community (2: 4– 10)
IV. Second Response to Suffering: Winsome Witness in Society (2: 11— 4: 19)
 A. Navigating Authorities in State and Household (2: 11— 3: 12)
B. Introduction: identity as foreigners and exiles (2: 11– 12)
C. Submission of all to rulers (2: 13– 17)
D. Submission of slaves to masters (2: 18– 25)
E. Wives and husbands (3: 1– 7)
i) Submission of wives to husbands (3: 1– 6)
ii)  Warning to husbands to respect wives (3: 7)
F. Conclusion: Seek good, not evil (3: 8– 12)
G. Suffering for Christ and as Christ Did (3: 13— 4: 19)
i) Good conduct despite possible persecution (3: 13– 17)
ii) Christ’s example of suffering and exaltation (3: 18– 22)
iii) Distinctive living among unbelievers (4: 1– 6)
iv) Exhortation summary: Love one another (4: 7– 11)
v) Doctrinal summary: Suffer for Christ (4: 12– 19)
V. Living Together in Christian Community (5: 1– 11)
A. Shepherding Role of Elders (5: 1– 5)
B. Exhortation for All to Be Humble and Alert (5: 5– 11)
VI. Final Greetings and Benediction (5: 12– 14)[1]

Chapter 3 verses 13-17 (ESV) reads:

14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

John Walton states that in 1 Peter, every chapter has references to suffering and perseverance: 1:6-9; 2:19-25; 3:8-22; 4:1-2, 12-19; 5:6-10.[2] Thus, Peter is instructing Christians to follow Christ’s example and live virtuously, even amidst unjust suffering as a witness to society. When asked why one has hope that transcends their circumstances, Christians should be ready to explain (give an apologetic).

As Justin D. Barnard puts it, “The hope that the apologist possesses must be manifest in such a way that those in despair’s grip are compelled to ask. In other words, Petrine apologetics, as an activity, is a defense whose need is driven by an encounter with an alien form of life.”[3]

This gives new meaning to the quote, “Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary, use words.” Thus, Peter’s instruction is an urge to engage in a form of moral apologetics.

Peter is Referring to Jesus as God (Yahweh)

In Charles Kuykendall and C. John Collins’s treatment of 1 Peter 3:15, they argue that the first part of the verse should be rendered, “But in your hearts revere the Lord Christ as holy." This is done in order to make the directive of acknowledging Christ's holiness more explicit and to take the more nuanced view that "'Christ' further defines who the Lord is."[4] But what does “Lord” mean?

The Greek word for Lord (κύριος) denotes a master’s absolute ownership rights over some property. This is what Roman citizens would be accustomed to hearing. But for Jews, it has a greater semantic potential: LORD (יְהוָֹה), the proper name of the God of Israel—also known as the Tetragrammaton (meaning “four letters,” transliterated as YHWH). When biblical writers use other biblical writings, they are doing two things: (1) validating their source, and (2) supplanting it within a contemporary context. This signifies intertextuality—or a relationship between two or more texts.

In the case of verses 14-16, Peter is referencing Isaiah 8:12-14 (ESV) which reads as follows:

12 “Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.
13 But the LORD of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Since verse 13 corresponds to 1 Peter 3:15, Peter is identifying the Tetragrammaton with Jesus.

Kuykendall and Collins note that Peter has no scruples about using the title Yhwh to describe Christ. They provide 1 Peter 2:3-4's allusion to Psalm 34:8 as a proof-text. Again, in 1 Peter 2:3-4, the ambiguous Greek term “Lord” is used, but Psalm 34:8 disambiguates it using the one-and-only Tetragrammaton. Similar moves are made by Paul’s use of the Shema (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6; Deuteronomy 4:35) and the Gospel writers’ allusion to Isaiah (cf. Mark 1:3, Matthew 3:3, Luke 3:4, John 1:23; Isaiah 40:3).

Peter is Moralizing “Apology”—a Legal Term

1 Peter 3:15 has been called the locus classicus for apologetics—the classic place to look in finding prooftexts for apologetics.[5] Apologetics is a branch of theology that argues for the truth of Christianity. “Apology” (ἀπολογία), from which “apologetics” stems, in the ancient Mediterranean was used to refer to court defenses. For example, in Plato’s Apology of Socrates, Socrates gives a legal defense for which he should not be put to death for “corrupting the youth.”

In a similar way, Paul defended himself before the Jewish council (Acts 23), Felix (Acts 24), Festus and Agrippa (Acts 26), and Christians when defending the authority of his apostleship amidst accusations (1 Corinthians 9; 2 Corinthians 13). As a Jew, Jesus was likewise accused by three Jewish sects in Matthew 22, for which he gave judicious replies.

It is from these terms that we derive the Greek terms “apologesthai” (verb; to give an answer), “apologia” (noun; the answer given), “apologetikos” (noun; the skill of giving an answer), and of course “apologetics” (noun; the discipline that gives answers).[6] Though these terms are not always used, there is a number of instances of apologetic activity throughout the New Testament.

Given the context of 1 Peter 3:15, we see that Christians in Asia Minor are being instructed to prepare to explain their hope, even amidst unjust suffering. Their virtuous living in these circumstances will put their persecutors to shame. Such upright behavior would put them at a rhetorical advantage in court (a common practice among Greeks and Jews), with their accusers being embarrassed.[7]

However, as Craig Keener points out, “The present case is not bound to legal settings, nor is it a deliberate reversal of charges.”[8] Though the disciples may face legal persecution, the goal of the was to change the lives of the accusers in an honor-shame culture. It is in this sense moral instruction, rather than legal instruction. Even in our culture (which is less driven by honor and shame), we see how shame can be used to change behavior, for the better and for the worse.

For example, a study was done on patients whose physicians made them feel ashamed for unhealthy behavior.[9] One-third responded by avoiding future doctor visits while another third decided to change their health behaviors for the better. This may be while Peter says to give reasons for the hope in us with “gentleness and respect.”

The Case for Rational Apologetics is in Verse 14

Many contemporary apologists would say there is precedent for making positive cases for the existence of God, the coherence of theism, the reliability of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, and so on. But is there a precedent here in 1 Peter that makes these sorts of rational apologetics permissible? If there is a case to be made, it would be in explaining the content and method in which Peter is referring.

The hope that was in the early church was that they would be resurrected just as Christ had been (1 Thessalonians 4:14). This is the content that the early church was to be ready to defend. Implicit in this was the belief in God, the historicity of Jesus, and much more (though it is unlikely that these things would have been as relevant to defend at the time). So what about the method?

Again, verse 14 says, “But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled.” As we saw, this is an allusion to Isaiah 8, which indicates that it is the LORD, God of Israel, we should fear rather than man. To Jews, fear of the Lord is not merely reverence but has an epistemic aspect as well.

It is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7), the hatred of arrogance and pride (8:13), a fountain of life (14:27), humility (22:4), understanding (Job 28:28, Psalm 110:10), the whole duty of man (Ecclesiastes 12:13). These all hinge on wisdom (Proverbs 1:7, 9:10, 15:33; Psalm 110:10) by observing God’s instruction.

The semantic potential for wisdom includes technical skill, shrewdness in administration, and prudence in ethical and religious affairs in Hebrew (חָכְמָה) and generalized knowledge, acute experience, skill, discretion, craftiness, artistic awareness, rhetorical eloquence, and intellectual excellence in Greek (σοφία). Its diversity of use has made it difficult to pin down its exact definition. Recent developments in psychology and philosophy shed light on what is common among instances of wisdom.

In philosophy, wisdom is normative practical knowledge about the significance and priorities in life. In psychology, as delineated in the Berlin Paradigm, wisdom is expert knowledge and judgment of the "fundamental pragmatics of life."[10] This includes five qualitative criteria.

  1. Factual knowledge: To what extent does this product show general (conditio humana) and specific knowledge about matters of life (e.g., life events and institutions) and the human condition, as well as demonstrate scope and depth in the consideration of issues?

  2. Procedural knowledge: To what extent does this product consider decision and advice-giving strategies, whom to consult, how to define goals and identify means to achieve them?

  3. Lifespan contextualism: To what extent does this product consider the past, current, and possible future contexts of life and the many circumstances in which a person's life is embedded?

  4. Value relativism and tolerance: To what extent does this product consider variations in values and life priorities and recognize the importance of viewing each person within his or her own framework despite a small set of universal values?

  5. Awareness and management of uncertainty: To what extent does this product consider the inherent uncertainty of life (in terms of interpreting the past and predicting the future) and effective strategies for dealing with this uncertainty?[11]

The first two criteria are described as "basic" while the last three are described as "metalevel," taken together to create a sort of metaheuristic for life. (Note that #4 is not referring to the technical definitions of relativism and tolerance, but the practical sense of deliberate organization and accommodation, respectively.)

In any case, the necessity of rational argumentation is implied. However, that is not the end of it. Petrine apologetics requires that one lives virtuously and contextualize rational argumentation within a greater understanding of wisdom in which the apologist can contextualize his or her knowledge.

[1] Burdick, Donald W. and John H. Skilton. “1 Peter,” NIV Study Bible, Fully Revised Edition. Edited by Kenneth Barker. Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Locations 8616-8617.

[2] Walton, John H., Mark L. Strauss, and Ted Cooper Jr. “1 Peter.” The Essential Bible Companion. Zondervan. 2006. 118-119.

[3] Barnard, Justin D. “Petrine apologetics: Hope, imagination, and forms of life. Review and Expositor. Vol. 111, Iss. 3 (2014). 274-280.

[4] Kuykendall, Charles and C John Collins. "1 Peter 3:15A: a critical review of English versions." Presbyterion. 29, No. 2 (September 2003). 76-84.

[5] Ibid., Barnard.

[6] Ramm, Bernard. “Brief Introduction to Christian Apologetics,” Varieties of Christian Apologetics: An Introduction to the Christian Philosophy of Religion. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI. 1976. 11-12.

[7] Keener, Craig S. “Behave Honorably, Refuting Slanders (3:13-17),” 1 Peter: A Commentary. Baker Academic, 2021. 257-265.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Cohen, Taya R., Scott T. Wolf, A. T. Panter, and Chester A. Insko. “Introducing the GASP Scale: A New Measure of Guilt and Shame Proneness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 100, No. 5. (2011). 947-966.

[10] Konrad Banicki. "The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm: A Conceptual Analysis of a Psychological Approach to Wisdom," History & Philosophy of Psychology. Vol. 11, Iss. 2 (2009). 25-35.

[11] Staudinger, Ursula M., and Alan Law. "Wisdom." Encyclopedia of Mental Health, 2nd Edition. Edited by Howard S. Friedman. Elsevier Science & Technology, 2015.

A Walk through Samaria: Befriending The Catcher in the Rye’s Holden Caulfield (Part 2)

/
A walk Through Samaria.png

A Keen Eye and a Good Heart in a Shallow World

            As Lewis says, a friendship is, in part, a rebellion, and by befriending Holden, we can also participate in rebelling against the superficiality of the world, just as Holden does. The strongest weapon that Holden uses against superficiality is his keen eye. Holden, as a reader, possesses an eye that looks deep into those around him in an attempt to form meaningful relationships and defend innocence within the world. In spite of his claims that he is “quite illiterate,” Holden admits that he reads frequently.[1] According to Holden, the best stories are the ones that make the reader want to befriend the author and “call him up” at any time.[2] Holden reads not only for pleasure but also in hopes of forming a connection—a friendship—between him and the author. Given this understanding of Holden as reader, it makes perfect sense why he would want readers—which includes willing Christian readers—to take on the role of listener. Holden hopes that readers might befriend him and, through such friendship, provide him with the guidance he so desperately needs: that of an authority figure who will show him how to preserve innocence and expose superficiality.

            All around Holden are the superficial—the “phonies,” as Holden famously refers to them: the hypocrites, the shallow, the materialistic, and the perverted. And Holden’s understanding of superficiality is the same as Christian readers might have. There is, of course, the hypocrisy of the religious, which Holden does well to criticize. According to Holden, many religious people simply want to talk to a person just to know if he or she is of the faith, which is what Holden experienced with Louis Shane at Whooton, who, in Holden’s mind, ruins a decent conversation about tennis by asking Holden if there is a Catholic church in town.[3] Holden says, “He [Louis] was enjoying the conversation about tennis and all, but you could tell he would’ve enjoyed it more if I was a Catholic and all.”[4] Here, Holden is able to see past Louis’s façade: Holden understands not only how the practice of faith can become an idol and make one shallow but also how such shallowness prevents people from having a true conversation with others. Empathy is impossible in the realm of superficiality, and given the shallowness of many of Holden’s peers, Holden struggles to find one with whom he can share mutual empathy. By befriending Holden, we can join him in becoming more empathetic toward those around us, for we also seek genuine, meaningful relationships with the people around us.

            Furthermore, Holden, like Christian readers, understands the ills of materialism, and his keen eye allows him to see past the materialism in the three women at The Lavender Room. The three women (Bernice, Marty, and Laverne) represent a materialistic American culture. Holden says that he checks the women out—but not inappropriately.[5] Instead, it is as if Holden is, more or less, studying them, while also noticing their physical attributes as all sixteen-year-old males are, unfortunately, prone to do. Holden concludes in his study that the women are “three witches” and “three real morons,”[6] to use his words. When dancing with Bernice, Holden explains that she does not seem to pay attention to him. In fact, Holden says, “Her mind was wandering all over the place.”[7] Holden’s keen eye clues him in on the fact that Bernice is rather shallow and surface-level, apparently incapable of focusing on anything other than her own thoughts.

            When Holden sits down with the other two women, he discovers that they behave similarly to Bernice. Holden says, “. . . I tried to get them in a little intelligent conversation, but it was practically impossible. You had to twist their arms. You could hardly tell which was the stupidest of the three of them.”[8] Holden resists a shallow understanding of the world and the people who inhabit it. The three women, however, are shallow, blind, and materialistic, which prevents them from recognizing Holden’s humanity. They have no awareness of their surroundings or of those around them. Holden may be crass in this scene, particularly when he mentions the physical attributes of these women throughout the chapter, but he at least provides the reader with a clear vision of his perception of the women. By befriending Holden, we can set an example: we can begin to serve others by truly listening to other people and not being consumed by preoccupations. By doing so, we, by extension, are also serving Holden.   

            Along with a keen eye, Holden also possesses a good heart—and one which compels him to defend innocence. During his encounter with Sunny, a teenage prostitute, and Maurice, her pimp. Holden admits that he can tell that Sunny is his age.[9] Holden’s keen eye is able to see that Sunny, though a prostitute, is still an innocent child. After Sunny explains that the dress she took off was recently purchased, Holden says, “It made me feel sort of sad when I hung it up. I thought of her going in a store and buying it, and nobody in the store knowing she was a prostitute and all. . . . It made me feel sad as hell—I don’t know why exactly.”[10] Holden does not realize that it is his good heart that makes him feel sad.

            Furthermore, Holden desires to protect the innocent; he does not wish to corrupt Sunny. For, as Holden admits, he did not feel like sleeping with her, especially because of Sunny’s predicament and her dress: “. . . I just didn’t want to do it. I felt more depressed than sexy, if you want to know the truth. She was depressing. Her green dress hanging in the closet and all.”[11] Holden is depressed because, unbeknownst to him, he sees how her innocence has been corrupted, and he refuses to contribute to such corruption. This is why, later in this scene, he takes a stand against Maurice, calling out his vileness in spite of his threats.[12] On the surface, as Pinsker points out, Holden is simply saving face: the quarrel is more about money than anything else.[13] However, it would be wrong to say that this is all just about money. It is safe to assume that Holden’s depression turns into rage, and he directs it toward the corruptor Maurice.

            Unlike the shallow, the materialistic, and the hypocrites, Holden seeks genuineness and authenticity, and the nuns he encounters on his second day in New York fit the bill. In contrast to the women in The Lavender Room, for instance, the nuns possess a genuineness that Holden admires. The nuns are readers: they have come to New York to teach English and History, and they discuss literature with Holden.[14] Granted, they do not discuss Thomas Hardy’s The Return of the Native with him—and they change the subject after Holden gives them his opinion of Mercutio,[15] but they at least engage with him—and much more than other Catholics Holden knows. However, for Holden, the nuns do not ruin their conversation with him because they do not ask if he is a Catholic.[16] The nuns possess a genuineness not found in the three women—a genuineness that seeks not the pleasures of materialism but instead seeks to see humanity, particularly within Holden.

            The nuns also appear to possess rather unique qualities that Holden does not see in many other people, which suggests that the nuns—and by extension, Christian readers—represent the type of people that Holden seeks to find friendship with. For instance, Holden finds it difficult to place his aunt or Sally Hayes’s mother in the nuns’ shoes.[17] According to Pinsker, even readers could not fill such a role, for, outside of his sister Phoebe and late brother Allie, Holden finds fault—phoniness—in everyone. For that reason, if readers believe Holden would like them, they are mistaken.[18] However, what Pinsker fails to realize is that Holden respects the nuns, and in his discussion with them, does not detect the same kind of phoniness he does when with the three women. In fact, Holden is clear that he even feels bad that he did not give the nuns more money as a donation.[19] Therefore, it is safe to assume that we, who recognize the humanity in people like the nuns do, would be able to befriend Holden.

A Well and a Person in Need of Truth

            As mentioned earlier in this discussion, Holden seeks friendship from readers, and we as Christian readers should be the first to take up the call. Holden is a defender of the innocent. We should do likewise by befriending Holden and letting him come unto us. If we are to take the time to befriend Holden, then we can join him in the rebellion required of friendships. We can join Holden in calling out the hypocrites, the shallow, the materialistic, the perverse. We can decide to join him in his quest to preserve beauty and innocence. Paul says, “Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.”[20] Holden most certainly, in his own way, teaches us such things—even in his youth and in his depravity. Therefore, we must not despise him and instead let him be the example he so desperately seeks to be, so that we, in turn, can be the example the world so desperately needs.

            However, such a thing cannot be done if we are quick to write off The Catcher in the Rye or any other text that is, or appears to be, un-Christian. In his discussion of Basil the Great, Jacobs notes that in Basil’s day, much of the literature that Christian students studied was pagan (like Homer’s works, for example). However, Jacobs explains that Basil did not see this as a problem because such literature still possessed much “wisdom and virtue,” so long as Christian students possessed sound enough judgment to glean such things from their reading. And, Jacobs adds, if readers are able to engage with such pagan writings in a loving way (what he calls “charitable reading” throughout his book), then readers will also be able to learn how to “love God and neighbor better through reading them” in spite of their un-Christian themes and symbolism, making such books not as wretched as they may seem at first glance.[21] All truth really is God’s truth, and if we as Christian readers can learn to accept this, then befriending someone like Holden becomes not only possible but also beneficial for us.

            As mentioned above, Christ walked through Samaria with a godly purpose. Therefore, I am not arguing that we simply read all narratives that are un-Christian just because they are un-Christian. But I am arguing that before we throw down the book, or write to the teacher, or punish our children or ourselves, let us take the time to truly listen to what that text is saying. We may discover, if we are to turn just a few more pages, that there is in fact a well to drink from and a person in need of truth—and who knows?—this person may even be ourselves.


               [1] Salinger, 18.

               [2] Ibid.

               [3] Salinger, 112.

               [4] Ibid., 112-13.

               [5] Ibid., 70

               [6] Salinger, 70.

               [7] Ibid., 71.

               [8] Ibid., 73.

               [9] Ibid., 94.

               [10] Salinger, 95-96.

               [11] Ibid., 96.

               [12] Ibid., 103.

               [13] Pinsker, 68-69.

               [14] Salinger, 110-11

               [15] Ibid., 111.

               [16] Salinger, 113.

               [17] Ibid., 114

               [18] Pinsker, 42-43.

               [19] Salinger, 113.

               [20] 1 Tim. 4:12.

               [21] Jacobs, 141-42.

A Walk through Samaria: Befriending The Catcher in the Rye’s Holden Caulfield (Part 1)

/
A walk Through Samaria.png

Editor’s note: The work of apologetics often first requires entering into relationship with those whose values and beliefs depart radically from our own. In the piece that follows, Richard Decker explores how reading what might be considered problematic texts, such as The Catcher in the Rye, can help develop empathy and build common ground for the apologetic endeavor that follows. This is an important reminder that apologetics is about winning people and not arguments.

Introduction: A Walk through Samaria

            As a public and private school English teacher who happens to be a Christian, I am blessed to have the opportunity to interact with many people from many different walks of life—including fellow Christians. I also have the opportunity to talk about literature and other forms of art with students, parents, colleagues, and friends. However, every now and then, typically when I am speaking with my brothers and sisters in Christ, I find myself listening to an explanation as to why such and such a book/TV show/movie/video game is un-Christian because it contains such and such content. I understand where my peers are coming from—I mean really, who wants to be both in the world and of the world? Still, I typically catch myself thinking, Is that text necessarily bad? I certainly enjoyed that book/TV show/movie/video game—even learned how to be a better person because of it! Blame it on my liberal arts education, but I think such questions deserve to be addressed because I believe we as Christians, and specifically, Christian readers,[1] have a misconception of what it means to be in the world but not of it.

            One of my former professors, Dr. Stephen J. Bell, always begins his English classes with his famous weltanschauung[2] lecture. In it, Bell discusses how Christian readers must be careful not to avoid or retreat from the world as they live in it and read its literature. In other words, to truly engage with the world, we must be willing to at least enter it. In light of Bell’s teachings, I have noticed that many of us seem to think that avoidance of—or isolation from—all things un-Christian is what keeps us from becoming part of the world.

            However, if avoidance is the only path to holy living, why did Christ decide to walk through Samaria instead of around it? Scripture tells us that Christ and his disciples had to walk through Samaria in order to return to Galilee.[3] Andreas J. Köstenberger, an ESV Study Bible contributor, explains that the need to walk through what the Jews would have considered unclean can be understood in two ways: one can read it as the quickest route or as a necessary route, the latter, given the original Greek, refers to a “divine necessity or requirement.”[4] If the latter is true, then this means that Christ went through Samaria for a godly purpose. In this case, it was to reveal himself as Savior to the Samaritan woman—and not only reveal himself but also to drink from her well and listen (and answer) the questions she asks.[5] Drinking from such a well, as Köstenberger mentions, would have been considered unclean by the Jews.[6] However, what mattered more to Christ was not cleanliness or uncleanliness but truth—his truth. Granted, Christ did not dirty himself, so to speak, simply for the sake of dirtying himself but to reveal truth to a woman Christ’s peers would have simply written off as unclean and unholy.

            Christ and his actions reveal to us that we must sometimes go through Samaria and walk alongside those who are unclean if we want to reveal his truth. In the context of this discussion, this may mean that in order to become better ministers and purveyors of truth, we must sometimes engage with that which is unclean—like the many books and movies that many of us tend to simply write off without first listening to the questions these texts ask. When the scribes and the Pharisees were perplexed that Christ was spending time with sinners and unholy people, Christ responds by saying, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”[7] Followers of Christ should also be willing to spend time with those plagued by the sickness of sin so that we may better minister to them. But how can we care for the sick if we know nothing of their ailments? And how can we know of their ailments if we don’t walk alongside those who suffer from them and investigate the world that is the source of such sickness? How can we truly walk alongside someone without first befriending them? Such questions have led me to ask a more immediate question: “Why immediately write off and avoid books or other media without even taking the time to listen to what it and its characters have to say?” Christ certainly engaged with what we might call un-Christian in his ministry, and not a single serious Christian would call out Jesus for such actions. Yet, for some reason, when books and other media are the topic of discussion, many of us are quick to turn away without question.  

            Therefore, I wish to look into the idea of engaging with what may be considered un-Christian stories and characters. I propose that as we attempt to understand the un-Christian characters in un-Christian books and other media, we must seek to befriend such characters so that we can give them a chance to be heard before simply writing them off. For I believe that such reading can be beneficial for our Christian hearts and minds. Given that such an idea may be controversial to some Christian readers (or, at the very least, unsettling) and given that I only have time to discuss one character from one novel, I figured it would be best to discuss a rather unsettling and controversial character: The Catcher in the Rye’s Holden Caulfield.

Reading in General and Friendship in Particular

            One of the greatest benefits to reading literature is its ability to encourage the reader to practice empathy. Karen Swallow Prior, in the first half of her discussion on the human aspect of reading, suggests as much.[8] And in her article on why Christian literary critics must learn to approach a text more lovingly, Marybeth Baggett explains how her reading of Stephen Crane’s Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, invoked feelings of empathy within her.[9] However, empathy, being a most selfless act, is arguably one of the most difficult acts to perform. And selfless reading, given that all readers are human and thus fallen, is equally difficult.

            However, for us Christian readers, and especially those of us who seem to be quick to write off any text that has traces of the un-Christian, such empathetic reading is relevant. Christians are called to be selfless in all things, which includes the reading of great literature. But when one considers many of the characters of great literature, it can be rather difficult to be selfless—to be empathetic. Such a difficulty may arise when we attempt to empathize with, say, The Catcher in the Rye’s Holden Caulfield. Holden is a difficult character with whom to walk alongside: he is blunt, rude, at many times vulgar, and seemingly not a person that readers should emulate. However, by befriending Holden Caulfield, we will discover that we both seek to defend innocence and expose superficiality, and in turn, will see that sometimes, that which is un-Christian, can sometimes revel to us the most Christian of truths.

            When considering befriending Holden Caulfield, we must first understand what it means to be a part of a friendship. C. S. Lewis’s understanding of such a relationship makes even befriending Holden possible. In The Four Loves, Lewis explains that one aspect of true friendship is when two or more people desire to go against the grain, seeking out a particular truth in a way that is unique—different from all others within their community. And true friends, Lewis continues, are those who separate themselves from the status quo in a fashion that resembles rebellion.[10] Such a stance, Lewis suggests helps to solidify friendship. By befriending Holden, we will discover that, like Holden, we seek to defend innocence and resist—or rebel against—superficiality.

To Befriend Holden Caulfield

            On the very first page of the novel, Holden appears to invite readers to befriend him, and Christian readers would be wrong to not accept his invitation. Holden begins his story by addressing his listener with the phrase “if you really want to hear about it.”[11] It is well known that Holden is in a psychiatric hospital of sorts; his listener, one can assume, is a counselor or psychoanalyst. This setting establishes the novel’s frame narrative.  However, the listener is not named, nor does he speak. It is as if the novel itself is inviting readers to take on this identity and assume the role of listener—not passively, as eyes scan over the page, but actively, sitting face-to-face with Holden. If we are to take on this role, we at once begin the journey of befriending Holden by participating in his narrative with open minds and hearts and reading in accordance to what Alan Jacobs refers to as a form of reading that understands that not only books themselves but also their characters become neighborly beings during and after the act of reading.[12] Therefore, it is important for us to treat literary characters the way we would want to be treated.

            However, we may wonder why Holden appears to ask them to befriend him, and such an answer may lie in Holden’s desire to find an ideal parental figure. In the essay “The Saint as a Young Man,” Jonathan Baumbach discusses Holden’s attempts at finding an authority figure he can look up to. According to Baumbach, Holden not only seeks to defend the innocent but also seeks one who will also defend his own innocence. In order to be such a defender, Holden must be taught how to defend—a burden that the adults in Holden’s life must bear. In Baumbach’s words, Holden “is looking for an exemplar, a wise-good father whose example will justify his own initiation into manhood.”[13] Furthermore, Baumbach explains that Holden’s attraction to older women represents his need to find a motherly figure. “Where the father-quest,” says Baumbach, “is a search for wisdom and spirit (God), the mother-quest is a search not for sex but ultimately for love. They are different manifestations, one intellectual, the other physical, of the same spiritual quest.”[14]

            Unfortunately, the parental figures in Holden’s life fail to provide him with the answers he seeks and fail to show him what Baumbach refers to as a “God-principle,” which is essentially a system through which a metaphysical entity cares for physical beings.[15] Baumbach is clear that no adult is able to tell Holden where the ducks of Central Park go when the lake freezes over, a question Holden continuously ponders throughout the novel.[16] In The Catcher in the Rye: Innocence Under Pressure, Sanford Pinsker explains that by asking where the ducks go, Holden seeks to know if there is a God who will rescue him from corruption,[17] which, as Pinsker argues throughout his work, is adulthood. Essentially, Holden asks not only the other characters he encounters but also, by extension, readers, “Who is my father and mother?” and “Who will save me?”

            We have the opportunity to be the adults who befriend Holden and serve him by being the role model he so desperately seeks. Of course, readers cannot literally serve Holden—or befriend him for that matter. To serve and befriend a literary character like Holden, readers must allow him to play a part in shaping their “ethical agency,” defined by Marshall Gregory in Shaped by Stories as our ability to make moral choices.[18] Befriending Holden also involves what Gregory refers to as “reflective assent,”[19] or deep consideration for what has been read. And finally, readers must see Holden as what Gregory calls a “narrative companion,” or a character who rests in readers’ imaginations and has the potential to influence their decision-making even after their eyes no longer look at the page.[20] For Gregory explains that to imagine something is just as real as any other action one can take in real life, and that even our real-life friends (as opposed to fictional, literary friends) are also our friends when they are not around us because they are still on our minds—and still can influence the choices we make when we are simply thinking of or imaging them.[21] Friendship is both a physical and mental activity, and befriending Holden means allowing him to enter into our imaginations so that he may have a chance to influence us as we live out our lives.

            For these reasons, befriending Holden is quite possible, and it is, arguably, Christian readers’ duty to befriend him. The underlying theme of Jacobs’ Theology of Reading is to approach a text lovingly, just like one should approach a person lovingly, which is what Jacobs considers the “hermeneutics of love.” Granted, Jacobs is clear that it is agape as opposed to philia that allows readers to approach a text lovingly,[22] but, arguably, it takes agape to truly befriend Holden given his language and delinquent behavior throughout the novel.

            We must love Holden by befriending him and letting him dwell in our imagination—especially since Holden has not been loved in such a way by any other authority figures. According to Baumbach, Holden’s history teacher Old Spencer is too caught up in justifying his own actions. This self-concern causes him to act more childish than Holden, who, in spite of criticizing Old Spencer in his mind, treats him with respect—an example of a reversal of the roles of father and child and the catalyst that sets Holden off on his journey to find a true authority figure.[23] Old Spencer, Baumbach explains, fails to give Holden what he truly needs: someone who will come down to his level and see the world the way he does by claiming that Holden “knew absolutely nothing” in his history course,[24] which may be the case on the surface. But Old Spencer does not take the time to truly see—or read—Holden and listen to the questions Holden asks underneath the surface.

            The same can also be said of Mr. Antolini, who at first appears to truly care for Holden, but then proves otherwise. When Holden goes to Antolini’s to spend the night, Holden updates him on some of his adventures in Pencey, and Antolini offers sound advice.[25] Antolini appears to be speaking to Holden on the level that Holden has wanted others to speak to him the entire novel. However, while Holden is sleeping, Antolini is found “patting” Holden’s head.[26] Holden is obviously shaken by this, and as he is rushing out of Antolini’s apartment, makes the following heartbreaking statement: “That kind of stuff’s happened to me about twenty times since I was a kid. I can’t stand it.”[27] Holden, in a very sixteen-year-old way, suggests that he has been molested in one form or another many times in the past. Up until this point in the text, Holden has struggled with simply finding a person who can meet him on his level, but now one sees that he has also been violated by those around him. Baumbach, too, recognizes that though Antolini’s words are well intentioned, his violation of Holden causes him to lose respect for Antolini in particular and father figures in general, and Baumbach equates this loss of respect to a “loss of God.”[28] As Christian readers, we must act differently: we must not write Holden off by deeming him immature, ignorant, or subhuman. Instead, we must provide Holden with the love that has been denied him by befriending him so that, as we interact with children similar to Holden in real life, we may allow Holden to dwell in our imaginations in such a way that we choose to not write off these children as well.


                [1] And by “readers” I mean not only readers of books but also of any text—be it a video game, movie, TV show, or even a person.

                [2] German for “worldview.”

                [3] John 4:1-4 (English Standard Version).

                [4] Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John: ESV Study Bible Notes,” in ESV Study Bible, ed. Lane T. Dennis et al. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 2027.

                [5] John 4:7-26.

                [6] Köstenberger, 2027.

                [7] Luke 2:16-17.

                [8] Karen Swallow Prior, “How Reading Makes Us More Human,” The Atlantic, June 21, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/how-reading-makes-us-more-human/277079/.

                [9] Marybeth Baggett, “In Love with the Word: A Charge to Christian Literary Critics,” MoralApologetics, March 16, 2020, https://www.moralapologetics.com/wordpress/2020/3/16/in-love-with-the-word-a-charge-to-christian-literary-critics.

                [10] C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves, Signature Book (New York: HarperCollins, 1960), 102.

                [11] J. D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye (New York: Little, Brown, 1991), 1.

                [12] Alan Jacobs, A Theology of Reading: The Hermeneutics of Love (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001), 64.

                [13] Jonathan Baumbach, “The Saint as a Young Man,” in Holden Caulfield, ed. Harold Bloom, Major Literary Characters (New York: Chelsea House, 1990), 65.

                [14] Ibid., 69.

                [15] Ibid.

                [16] Ibid.

                [17] Sanford Pinsker, The Catcher in the Rye: Innocence Under Pressure, Twanye’s Masterwork Studies, ed. Robert Lecker (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993), 37-38.

                [18] Marshall Gregory, Shaped by Stories: The Ethical Power of Narratives (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 24.  

                [19] Ibid., 75.

                [20] Ibid., 81-83.  

                [21] Ibid., 81-82.

                [22] Jacobs, 66-67.

                [23] Baumbach, 67-68.

                [24] Ibid., 10.

                [25] Salinger, 187-88.

                [26] Ibid., 192.

                [27] Ibid., 193.

                [28] Baumbach, 66.

Editor's Recommendation: Cultural Apologetics by Paul Gould

/

Editor's Recommendation: Cultural Apologetics

by Paul Gould

Recommended by David Baggett

Reading this book is a pure joy. A breath of fresh air, Cultural Apologetics is one of the best books I’ve read in years. Paul Gould was meant to write it. His ideas having marinated, his prodigious teaching skills honed, his reading wide and deep, he was able to write with the fertile mind of a philosopher, capacious heart of a poet, vivid imagination of an artist, and the nimble hands of a passionate practitioner. This is essential reading for every actual or budding apologist; in fact, the book deserves a very wide readership among believers and skeptics alike. Not a book to be read quickly, but digested and savored. Read, relish, and reread it; use it in class; give it away as a gift. Culturally informed and sensitive, embodying what it extolls, eclectic in numerous respects, and punctuated with clever and telling illustrations—both verbal and visual—this remarkable book makes a powerful case for an expansive apologetic true to a good anthropology. Just the corrective to reawaken the imagination of a disenchanted age. Every page crackles with insight and erudition. At moments it’s veritably sublime and enchanting; as inspiring, persuasive, and moving as it is eminently practical. I simply can’t recommend it enough.

LBTS_david_baggett.jpg

With his co-author, Jerry Walls, Dr. Baggett authored Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality. The book won Christianity Today’s 2012 apologetics book of the year of the award. He developed two subsequent books with Walls. The second book, God and Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning, critiques naturalistic ethics. The third book, The Moral Argument: A History, chronicles the history of moral arguments for God’s existence. It releases October 1, 2019. Dr. Baggett has also co-edited a collection of essays exploring the philosophy of C.S. Lewis, and edited the third debate between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew on the resurrection of Jesus. Dr. Baggett currently is a professor at the Rawlings School of Divinity in Lynchburg, VA.


More Recommendations

Interview with Paul Gould

/

Paul Gould is the author of the recently released Cultural Apologetics. See our recommendation here.

1.     Paul, what is the problem you are addressing in your book Cultural Apologetics?

I want the gospel to get a fair hearing. The problem is that for many today the gospel is viewed as either implausible or undesirable or both. So, Christianity suffers from an image problem. Because many today no longer see the relevance of Jesus to all aspects of life, the Christian voice has become muted. We can add to this the fact that many of us are just as fragmented as our nonbelieving neighbors, and so the Christian conscience is muted. Moreover, many today fail to see the world in its proper light. Instead of perceiving the world as created and sustained by a loving God, we think that the world is ordinary and mundane. As a result, the Christian imagination is muted too. Add all of these factors together and the prospect for a genuine missionary encounter is significantly diminished.

2.     How would you characterize cultural apologetics? 

In the book, I defined cultural apologetics as the work of renewing the Christian voice, conscience, and imagination so that Christianity will be seen as true and satisfying. There is a global and local component to cultural apologetics. Globally, the cultural apologist works “upstream,” within the culture-shaping institutions of the world (the university regarding truth, the arts regarding beauty, and the city and cultural innovators regarding goodness) so that Christianity is seen as reasonable and desirable. Locally, the cultural apologist works “downstream” and is concerned with how the gospel is being received and understood at the level of individual lives. In all cases, the cultural apologist’s posture toward culture is one of creating and cultivating the good, true, and beautiful.

3.      Any surprises for you as you did research for this book?

One of the biggest surprises was the realization that we live in an unprecedented time. Every other culture in the history of the world prior to modernity believed there was a tight connection between the social order and the sacred order. Reading Philip Rieff’s book, My Life Among the Deathworks, helped me understand how urgent the need for cultural apologetics is today. Reading C. S. Lewis’s essay “Talking about Bicycles” was also a fun surprise. In many ways, that essay, which is not well-known, unlocked Lewis for me. He talks about four stages we go through regarding just about anything, and he illustrates using a bicycle. Those four stages—unenchanted, enchanted, disenchanted, and re-enchanted—organized a major theme in my book—the idea that re-enchantment is possible if we join with God and others. This shouldn’t have been such a surprise, but I was also blown away at the Apostle Paul’s brilliant speech in Athens. My whole approach to cultural apologetics is built out of Paul’s example on Mars Hill.

4.     Any suggestions about ways that apologists can expand on some of the suggestions you make in your book?

I’d love to see apologists pick up some of the themes of the book and fill in the details. We’ve done a ton of work establishing the reasonableness of Christianity, and that work must continue. I’d love to see apologists grow in two areas (at least), however. First, as we develop our arguments for God (in general) or Christian theism (in particular), I’d like to see more “imaginative reasoning.” In other words, let’s make our arguments, but do in such a way that those in our culture can understand. That will require us understanding culture and imaginatively helping others understand the gospel. Second, I’d like to see more work done on how we can walk the “planks” of the conscience and the imagination in our case-making (I see the work you are doing at MoralApologetics.com as helping us learn to walk the “plank” of the conscience in our quest for goodness). The means that we need to learn to use the aesthetic currency of our lives (music, story, dance, painting, cooking, tweeting (!!), and so on) in our apologetic efforts. There are a daily million signposts for God—all we need to do is learn to see them ourselves and then point them out in creative ways to others.

5.     Why do suggest that we need to cultivate a long-term mentality in apologetics?

We tend to focus on the short-term as evangelicals. And we tend to be very pragmatic. If we don’t see an immediate pay-off in terms of well-known metrics (such as gospel conversions or baptisms), we are quick to judge something as a failure. But when we incorporate a long-term vision and begin to think about the conditions of the soil (the culture) in which we hope to plant the seed of the gospel, our metrics shift to a more long-term horizon. The work of establishing the reasonableness and desirability of Jesus and the gospel in a disenchanted culture is going to take time. It is going to take fully committed believers faithfully present within all spheres of culture for the gospel to be viewed as viable. As I describe in the book, we must begin to think of ministry four-dimensionally instead of two-dimensionally. The idea, which I learned from my friend Greg Ganssle, is this. We typically think of ministry in two-dimensions. We look at a map and say, “how can we get the gospel to every point on the map—length and height?” But, there are other dimensions. There is the third dimension, depth, and the fourth dimension, time. I write this book because I’m not just concerned with the state of the gospel today, but I’m concerned with where our culture is heading and the state of the gospel in the future. 

6.     Can you say more about the way moral apologetics, in particular, occupies an important role in cultural apologetics as you envision it?

I think that the work you are doing at moralapologetics.com is crucial to a more robust case for Christianity in at least two ways. First, by helping others see how impressive the moral argument for God is, we awaken others’ rational faculties and set them on a journey that if faithfully followed culminates with Christ. As C. S. Lewis colorfully put it in the opening chapters of Mere Christianity, every human, if they think about it, is aware of two uncomfortable facts: there is a moral law and we fall woefully short of it. By helping others attend to the rich contours of the human experience of morality, the moral apologist can set others on the path toward Jesus. Second, as we work to right wrongs, live for a story bigger than self, and become whole, we help others see and understand the good life. We make the world a little bit better, and that is no small thing, and we encourage others to follow our example. This is especially important today. If we know anything at all, we know that the world is not right. We are outraged at injustice. This presents us with a genuine opportunity to be the hands and feet of Jesus to others. 

7.      Do you see any indications that there’s forming a recognition in the apologetic community for a broader approach of the type you’re endorsing?

I do. For one thing, I’m encouraged by the initial positive reception to my book. I think that many are looking for an approach that is more faithful to the actual contours of the human heart and the actual objections to the faith that people might have. I’m encouraged by those such as Holly Ordway and Michael Ward who are helping us understand the importance of beauty and the imagination for faith, and those such as Baggett and Walls, who are helping us see the strength of the moral argument. I’m encouraged by those who are wanting to utilize all the good gifts from God to show others the brilliance and beauty of the gospel (including many artists, storytellers, and filmmakers). Just to be clear, none of this minimizes the need for traditional apologetics—arguments for God, the deity of Christ, etc. But, importantly, I want us to continue to develop these arguments and do so in a way that might be understood or found appealing to those who might not have a PhD in philosophy. I think this is one way we can show love to our neighbor (I say this as someone who does have a PhD in philosophy and loves to give formal arguments for the faith).

8.     I know you enjoyed Eleonore Stump’s Wandering in Darkness, in which she uses a lot of insights from the field of literature. Would you say more about how and why literature, which you adduce quite a bit in your book, can be used in evangelism and apologetics?

One of Stump’s central insights in Wandering in Darkness is the idea that stories can provide for us a kind of lived-experience of others which in turn helps us to see and understand the world better. Her book explores key biblical narratives (of Abraham, Job, Samson, and Mary of Bethany) and applies them to the question of suffering. As we walk along the lived-experience of Job or Abraham, we begin to see and understand God’s loving care even in the face of suffering. More generally, as we read about the hero—or the villain—of a story, we learn from the inside what it feels like to be the hero or villain of a story. Moreover, stories awaken us. They remind us that we were created to live a dramatic life. Stories move us and invite our participation. This is important too because the gospel is a story—the true story of the world. Not only is it the true story of the world, but it is the best story, the best possible story in the world. It is a story that is alive and inviting and that understands us. So, as we awaken others—through stories—I believe we set them on a path that can lead, with some help along the way, to the true story of the world (the gospel).  

9.     Do you think that a cultural apologetic approach can break through the darkest and hardest of hearts—Mike Austin’s, for example?

Ha! Just as your question—and your friendly feud on Facebook—makes me and many of us who know you both laugh, it reminds us that there is comedy in the gospel story too. The truly comic is unforeseen. Who would have foreseen that God’s answer to man’s tragedy of sin is Jesus? And who would have foreseen that God’s answer to the tragedy of the Cross is the Resurrection? Yes, the beauty of the gospel story is that it’s freely offered to all and can break through the hardest of hearts—even Austin’s.