A Defense of the “New Apologetics ”
Mark A. McNeil
Introduction
The New Apologetics and My Conversion
The recent America article by Professor Gaillardetz (vol. 190 No. 3, Feb. 2, 2004) analyzing the “new apologetics,” was of special interest to me. My own conversion to Catholicism resulted from a complex of experiences, books, classes and people. My journey to Catholicism in part was influenced by the so-called “new apologetics.” For instance, I remember some years ago watching Fr. Pacwa on the John Ankerberg Show answering the challenges of the well-known expert on Christian “cults,” Walter Martin. Pacwa, although outnumbered and disadvantaged by the format, offered reasonable explanations to the questions addressed to him. I later remember hearing Scott Hahn's conversion story on a tape given to me by a good Protestant friend who happened to hear the tape on a radio program. He was so intrigued and perplexed by the story that he wanted me to listen and offer a response. These experiences, along with countless others of different sorts, raised my awareness to the possibility that the Catholic Church, so vilified during my youth, might actually have a plausible explanation and defense of its teachings.
Gaillardetz: My Professor
In the mid-90's, although not yet a Catholic, I chose to study theology at St. Mary's Seminary in Houston , Texas . Gaillardetz was one of my first professors. Over the few years I studied at the seminary, I had a fair amount of exposure to his teaching in several different settings. Although I was largely unfamiliar with the subtleties of the Catholic spectrum of theology, it was clear that Gaillardetz had little tolerance for, what he perceived to be, fundamentalism in Catholic garb. It was also obvious that Gaillardetz was at least open to questioning matters that the “new apologists” tended to consider settled matters. Questions of homosexuality, women in the priesthood, gender-specific language with reference to God, are only a few of the topics that were raised at various points in the classroom. My point here is simply to make an observation, not to criticize. Such matters as these are well beyond the scope of a brief reply to Gaillardetz's article but they are relevant to describing the difference of orientation and mindset between the sides of this debate. At the very least, I think it is safe to say that Gaillardetz should be categorized as a speculative theologian who seeks to explore the boundaries of Catholic theology. The apologetics movement he is critiquing, however, by the nature of its task, is concerned with proclaiming and defending the “safe” areas well within the boundaries tested by Gaillardetz. This difference of purpose, I am convinced, is crucial to understanding and answering the challenge of Gaillardetz's article.
Purpose
Given my own background, I wish to offer a critical reaction to Gaillardetz's article. I sincerely owe much to Gaillardetz and others who taught me theology. I must also admit, though, that I owe much to the new apologetics movement. I believe both sides deserve criticism at times and therefore I have no intention of merely criticizing one side or the other. Some reply is in order, however.
The conclusion of my response, as will be seen, is that Gaillardetz's critique fails to discredit the substance of the new apologetics. The new apologists do include the valuable concerns expressed in the America article and also express the Catholic faith in an effective and substantive way. For these reasons, the new apologetics deserves a continued place in the evangelization efforts of the Church.
Strengths of the New Apologetics
Gaillardetz recognizes three particular strengths in the new apologetics movement: (1) The enthusiasm, passion and conviction with which the apologists present their faith. (2) Their bold and fearless willingness to speak of the doctrinal truths of Catholicism. (3) They often present effective responses to fundamentalist attacks on the Catholic faith.
It is not necessary to focus here on these points except to note that any apologetics methodology that does not include these strengths will fall far short of achieving its objective. For instance, it is difficult to see why someone would convert to Catholicism (or remain Catholic) if there is little passion and conviction present. In fact, the challenge of apologetics is significantly more difficult today, it would seem, than in prior generations. It is rarely enough today to be raised a Catholic. Our increasingly pluralistic and skeptical age demands that Catholics justify their existence. It is not enough to merely cite an authority or quote one's parish priest. Our partners in dialog want to know why they should listen to the message of Catholicism. More and more Catholics are willing to abandon the faith of their upbringing either to fall into some form of skepticism or to embrace some form of fundamentalist Christianity. The new apologetics movement, as a result of the strengths mentioned by Gaillardetz and, I would argue, others as well, has given numerous Catholics an alternative to fundamentalism while staying within the Church.
Perhaps it is worth noting that any apologetics must evidence these strengths in order to be effective. The very meaning of apologetics demands that we present the most compelling and persuasive reasons to embrace our faith.
“Weaknesses” of the New Apologetics
Methodology
Gaillardetz offers a series of criticisms of the new apologetics. His first concern is that the apologists often “mirror” the methodology of their opponents. This is especially evident, he writes, in their willingness to engage in debates about various biblical texts. As their “opponents” are anxious to cite texts that supposedly conflict with Catholic teachings, so the apologists cite texts of their own that, they believe, support Catholic faith. Gaillardetz thinks that the more basic problem is a faulty understanding of divine revelation itself. The apologists see divine revelation in an “overly propositional” way. He says there is “little sense” that divine revelation is “more” than a set of propositional truths.
Of course, Gaillardetz is making a subjective judgment about the level of awareness in those he is criticizing. In my own experience, all thoughtful apologists I have listened to or talked with have given no indication that they think our final beatitude will consist in the worship of a creed or the pages of the Bible. The Bible, creeds and conclusions of councils all direct attention to the reality of God and Christ. The function of the Bible and all other similar instructional mediums is that we may know and love God. Because the apologists emphasize the “propositional” mediums of our knowledge and experience of God does not mean that they think of them as the final goal of our Christian experience.
Perhaps the difference between Gaillardetz and the apologists is one of degree on this matter rather than kind. Since Gaillardetz grants that “divine revelation is encountered in a set of propositional truths,” surely he can understand why the apologists would want to argue for an accurate understanding of the propositions. Further, we must be careful that our emphasis on the experiential aspect in defining divine revelation does not relativize or function as a excuse for our failure to study and learn the propositions that express and serve as the foundation for our faith. I say foundation because we discover the truth of Christ as God's self-communication by way of the message of Scripture as understood in the Church.
Further, there is something to be said for interacting with the critics of our faith by using the approaches that are most effective in dealing with them. I dare say that anyone with significant experience with fundamentalists will know that a failure to know the Bible and cite biblical texts will be seen as a significant weakness. An ability to offer texts and offer reasonable explanations for texts offered in support of various non-Catholic perspectives will go much further than talk about an overemphasis on propositional revelation. Additionally, there are interesting biblical examples of Jesus accommodating His argumentation to the orientation and perspectives of His listeners. With the Sadducees (who accepted only the books of Moses), for instance, Jesus cited a text from the Law of Moses (Mt. 22:23-33). There are clearer texts on the resurrection in other Old Testament books (e.g., Daniel 12:2) but Jesus offered a biblical text that suggested the position He was defending from the books His opponents accepted.
Saying that it is possible to overemphasize propositions cannot possibly justify sloth and indifference with respect to the study and citation of the sacred page. Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants will find little reason to listen to Catholics if they cannot offer reasonable explanations of Scripture. This will necessarily involve some quotation and discussion of biblical texts. Our Protestant friends will find our lack of emphasis on the propositional statements of Scripture a sign of weakness. The willingness of Catholic apologists to engage Protestants and others by finding some point of contact and passionately interacting on that level also seems consistent with the depiction of the Apostle Paul “disputing” and “reasoning” with the Jews and Greeks in the book of Acts and elsewhere (e.g., Acts 17:17, 19:8).
“Emphasis”
In reading Gaillardetz's article, a general concern emerges that many of his points are rather vague and subjective. His concerns are primarily ones of “emphasis.” As pointed out above, I don't think he could find any thoughtful, recognized apologists who would deny that propositions are a means to something higher (i.e., God). Gaillardetz seems concerned with the level of this awareness. The new apologist, of course, would offer similar concerns in response. He would be concerned that Gaillardetz may have little sense that “divine revelation is encountered in a set of propositional truths.” The concerns about levels of emphasis cuts both ways.
The same concerns should be expressed about Gaillardetz's references to Dei Verbum in the subsequent paragraph. Although his carefully formulated description of the teachings of this Vatican II document merits consideration, his conclusion that dogmas are “truthful statements about the mystery of God—but,” he adds, “not in such a way that there is nothing more that could be said of that holy mystery,” is perplexing. Who said that we can exhaust the divine mystery with words? I've done a fair amount of reading in the current literature and have never read such a claim (or anything that could be construed as suggesting it).
Further, Gaillardetz's summation of the teachings of the Council may validly be accused of being based on a selective reading of the text. Not only does the council affirm the Scriptures “have God as their author” and that He “acted in them and through them” so that the human authors “consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted” (No. 11), but also that “since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” As I recall, Gaillardetz views these strong statements regarding biblical inspiration as “hold-overs” and compromise statements by the council fathers. These statements support the conviction that the propositional statements of Scripture must be viewed as divinely-given and therefore normative for the expression and development of the faith. Additionally, such statements as these show that reading the council statements in light of their historical context and background is no easy task. The council was conscious of its duty to express the faith in a way that is consistent with what had been taught before. If this is so, and it seems required by the nature of Catholic theology, Vatican II cannot be read accurately without reading it in the context of the whole tradition. For this reason, the traditional emphasis on propositional revelation must be factored into one's understanding of divine revelation.
“Hierarchy of Truths”
Gaillardetz concludes that a consequence of the propositional emphasis is a “leveling of the authoritative status of Catholic teaching.” This is opposed, he writes, to the “hierarchy of truths” and also leads to a disregard of the authoritative status of non-dogmatic teachings.
Presumably what is in mind here is the tendency to treat some theological affirmations like, let us say, the Assumption of Mary, as equal in importance to, say, the dogma of the Trinity. Further, he has in mind a failure to distinguish between those matters that have been made a distinct object of solemn definition and those that have not (e.g., celibacy of the priesthood).
To whatever degree this may be true in specific cases, several points must be made. First, I do think that apologists have a strong sense that the truths about God have a more central and foundational role in our faith than, say, the Marian teachings. Second, what Gaillardetz may be concerned about is the tendency of the apologists to consider all the Church's dogmatic teachings as equally necessary for the faithful Catholic. In other words, to be a Catholic is to believe that God guides His Church into the truth and therefore if the Church solemnly proposes something as true (regardless of where it falls in the hierarchy of truths), it must be embraced as true.
The same may be said of the non-dogmatic teachings. The apologists, due to their enthusiasm and conviction with respect to the Church, think that it is most appropriate for Catholics to treat such teachings with respect. In other words, the teachings of the Church that have not been defined in an extraordinary way are not simply “suggestions” by the Church but should be seen as reflecting the basic convictions of the Church that flow from our theological and moral foundations. Given the wisdom and experience of the Church through the centuries, it ought to be normative that I submit to her judgments. That the Church may incorrectly make a judgment in a given case does not mean I presume it has. As a consequence, the apologists tend to give the Church the benefit of the doubt. The apologists do not focus on the possibility that some teachings may be erroneous but rather they focus on the proper response of the faithful to the loving care of the Church, our mother. What concerns many of the apologists is the contrary attitude. Some, including Richard McBrien (later mentioned by Gaillardetz), seem to think little of publicly opposing the stances of the Church on various matters. Since the apologist's “reason for being” is to defend the Church, it is no wonder that his emphasis will be in support of the Church's teachings, whatever their level of authority.
Again we are confronted with the problem of “emphasis.” Gaillardetz is concerned about the emphasis of the apologists on defending all the Church's teachings which emphasis, he thinks, blurs the reality that all teachings do not function at the same level of importance or authority. The apologists, on the other hand, are concerned that Gaillardetz's distinctions are too often used as a pretext for dissent and disregard for the Church's teachings. This concern, I dare say, is not without significant empirical support.
Neo-Trumphalism
A further consequence, he says, of this approach to the teachings of the Church is a “ neo-triumphalism .” Examples of this are found in the various books that have appeared in recent years detailing the spiritual journeys of various people into the Catholic faith. Gaillardetz claims that these books give witness to a conviction “that other Christian traditions are fundamentally erroneous when compared to the truth claims of Catholicism.”
I suppose that Gaillardetz means by triumphalism, a term often bandied about among certain theologians, the strong confidence these writers have in the truth of the Catholic faith. Gaillardetz thinks that this confidence has become so great that humility is lost. No doubt, there are and have been converts to the faith who have become prideful and arrogant in their efforts at apologetics. When this does occur, it is to be lamented. Arrogance and pride are counterproductive and do not aid in achieving the goal of apologetics. We must balance this admission, however, by noting that the opposite of an excessive “triumphalism” is ineffective and counterproductive as well. The faith is not well-served by those who have little confidence in its truth. It is one thing to admit our limitations as human beings but another altogether to express doubt and unbelief in our presentation of the contents of our faith. It will be hard to convince others of the truth of Catholicism if we do not believe it ourselves.
I do not find an excessive triumphalism in the sources cited by Gaillardetz, however. He mentions, among others, David Currie's book, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic (Ignatius Press, 1996). Having read this book some years ago, I was surprised to find it in Gaillardetz's list. Currie in no way gives the impression that everything but Catholicism is “fundamentally erroneous.” Instead, Currie states, “The Catholic Church views Evangelicals as fellow Christians who agree with her on 80 percent of the issues” (33). The whole tenor of the book is certainly in favor of Catholicism, of course, but it is also a respectful book that expresses deep gratitude for the religious experience of his youth. Similar observations may be made concerning the other apologists listed.
Ecumenism
Gaillardetz's chief concern is the prospect of undermining ecumenical dialog. After admitting the remarkable success of the new apologists in strengthening Catholics and bringing many to conversion, one may wonder what the purpose of ecumenism really is. One gets the impression that, for Gaillardetz, ecumenism is little more than sharing our views with others, working very hard not to challenge them to consider embracing our faith. I am convinced that a powerful case can be made that this is the goal neither of the pre-Vatican II documents of the Church nor of the post-Vatican II documents. Dominus Iesus (2000), from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, should lay to rest any such notions. Not only does this important document reaffirm the Church's evangelical mission, rooting its claims squarely in biblical texts, but it also directly rejects certain “relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism” (No. 4). What is meant, of course, is any position which adopts a pluralism that leaves no room for the uniqueness and universal significance of Christ and His Church. Further, the document speaks of real “dialog” as one involving persons of equal dignity but not equality of “doctrinal content” (No. 22). The new apologetics movement found much more to support its mission in this document than to discourage it. The extensively- reported reaction to the document supports this judgment.
Ahistorical Presentations and Romanticism
Finally, Gaillardetz is concerned also about the ahistorical presentation of the Catholic faith and the corresponding romanticism that focuses on the “transcendent truth and beauty of the Catholic Church and its teachings” but “fails to acknowledge its pilgrim status as a human community.”
Once again, one is forced to claim that the issues raised here are ones of emphasis. With respect to romanticism, it is certainly true that converts to Catholicism usually focus on the divine preservation of the Catholic Church through the centuries and, consequently, do not dwell unduly on the fragile human vessels who, in all their sinfulness and frailty, have been instrumental in the process. This cannot possibly mean, however, that they are not familiar with the weaknesses and sinfulness that exist all about us. As I recall, it was Fr. Pacwa who told the story of his father trying to convince him not to become a priest. His father purchased a copy of, The Bad Popes , in hopes that it would dissuade his son from priestly ambitions. His son returned with thanks indicating that if God could preserve the Church though such sinful scoundrels had charge of it, it must certainly be of God!
With respect to the charge of ahistorical presentations, the empirical evidence would seem to support the conclusion that the new apologetics movement has generated a renewed interest in the history of the Church. One may disagree with some of the generalizations that are made or perhaps wish that a more nuanced perspective were advanced. When one considers the audiences in view, however, a strong case can be made that simplification for sake of emphasis is justified. I dare say that if we eliminate all teaching about the history of the Church that is not fully informed and explicitly conscious of the latest scholarly research, such teaching would virtually stop altogether. A better tact would be to offer clarifications of specific inaccuracies. I have found that most apologists desire accuracy and do seek to incorporate the best of scholarly research into their presentations.
Authentic Contemporary Catholic Apologetics?
Much benefit can surely result from reading Gaillardetz's final section that offers his proposal for a newer apologetics. In fact, I dare say that few apologists would find much to seriously question (with the obvious exception of some of the “ideal” apologists that Gaillardetz mentions) in this section. We must ever be open to ways of enriching our presentation of the faith and making it as attractive and compelling as possible. Apologists must also be wary of the constant temptation to confuse our defense of the faith with our personal “image,” degrading apologetics to an argument motivated by pride. We ought never to explain away or disregard warnings and admonitions that address our weaknesses and limitations.
Concerns
My deepest concern, however, with Gaillardetz's proposed “newer” apologetics is that, as conceived by Gaillardetz, it will usually fail to reach the audiences the new apologists are reaching: average Catholics, fallen away Catholics, and the various forms of Protestantism commonly labeled “Fundamentalists” and “Evangelicals.” What Gaillardetz does not seem to take into consideration is that the “culture” of many in these groups is, first and foremost, the Bible. Additionally, the average Catholic and, for that matter, most human beings, cannot rise to the level of historical responsibility or cultural engagement that Gaillardetz has in mind. A finely nuanced presentation about some aspect of the history of the papacy, for instance, will get little turnout at the parish. There is a certain level of simplification and generalization that is necessary to communicate with people who are not experts in a field. Most of those included in the new apologetics movement are popularizers of the faith. Although some have advanced degrees in theology, they are people who focus on the major claims of the Church and offer simple but compelling reasons to accept them.
Personal Reflections
Over the last fifteen years I have been involved in trying to communicate the Christian faith in a variety of different settings both as a Protestant and a Catholic. This has included functioning as a preacher, pastor, and teacher of high school and college students. I have stood before hostile crowds of college students, answered questions about Christianity on radio and television, stood before classes of sleepy, uninterested high school students, taught college students in philosophy and theology classes, parish adult groups, my own family, friends, and, last but not least, confronted my own interior challenges and struggles to understand, live and declare the Christian faith. My experience has taught me a few lessons I wish to offer as a conclusion.
First, it is easy to damage the faith of those we teach. The minds of beginners in the faith are easily confused and saddened by an excess of details and confusing questions. It is often wisest to offer generalizations and simplified explanations and encourage further investigation as maturity allows.
Second, scholars are almost always disappointed with popular presentations of the faith. Scholars are gifted with an ability to handle and, sometimes, create fine nuances that make almost any effort to present the contents of Christian faith “inaccurate.” One must nevertheless press on and declare the faith, recognizing that it is impossible to add every footnote that is required by scholarly investigation. Those so gifted with scholarly tendencies should also be aware of the fact that this “gift” also makes certain intellectual faults more likely. The so-called “quest” of the historical Jesus of the last century or so only makes this fact more obvious. We must all work hard to recognize that our intellect is strongly guided by our will. Those who wish to undermine the authority of the Church will “discover” supporting reasons in their investigation. Those who “will” to believe will see the same data in a very different way. This does not necessarily relativize the study of Church history but it does remind us that scholarly technicalia does not make a claim true.
Third, and last, although popularizing the faith is fraught with dangers, it must be done lest we end with a new form of Gnosticism. The Catholic Church has always resisted the powerful temptation to have, on the one hand, a faith of the scholars and theologians and, on the other, a faith of the common people. There will certainly always be different levels of understanding and appreciating the faith within the Church. It is the same faith, however, for all. The danger of scholarship is qualifying and nuancing our teachings so much that positive and certain affirmations are lost. They die the proverbial death of a thousand qualifications. The danger of popularizing the teachings of the Church is oversimplification. The ongoing challenge is retaining true meaning in our message in a way that encourages child-like faith among the scholars and maturity among the unlearned. The new apologetics movement has done much to answer this challenge for our generation. For this it should be praised. The failures of the movement should be lamented but, at the end of the day, there is no perfect apologetics. To demonize or define away the new apologetics from within Catholicism would be to impoverish the Church and likely exclude from the visible Church numerous people who think it is worthwhile to live in the triumphant hope of the final victory of Christ's Church and think it is not a vice to romanticize about the mysterious hand of God present through the ages preserving a Church that we are able to defend twenty centuries after its birth. If not for the new apologetics, I dare say that many who are working to pass along the Catholic faith in various settings would still be working in the Protestant movements from which they converted. I am one of those.
Mark A. McNeil
Houston , Texas