The reality of our day is that our cultural climate is increasingly ignorant of biblical teaching as well as hostile to those who adhere to the biblical faith. The need for a generation of careful thinking and articulate Christian apologists has never been greater in the history of our country than it is now. People are asking real questions, and they deserve answers of substance rather than clever rhetorical dodges. For many the task of the apologist may often seem like an overwhelming one. The apostle Peter set the bar pretty high when he commanded believers to “be ready to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope you have in Christ.”
How can a person be prepared to answer any question they might receive about anything related to our hope in Christ? The questions Christians receive from non-believing friends, family, co-workers and sometimes even complete strangers, will range from theological to scientific, to philosophical, to historical, to psychological and more. Indeed within those broad categories are many sub-categories because science questions are not just science they are geology or chemistry or biology questions. Questions about philosophy are not merely philosophy but they are metaphysical or epistemological or ethical.
To be prepared for any question we might receive from any category or sub-category is daunting. However in light of the challenge contemporary culture has set before us, many seminaries and universities have sought to rise to the occasion by creating apologetics programs. These programs have been developed to meet the needs of Christians who are intentionally and regularly sharing their faith and are most likely to be on the receiving end of a barrage of questions that could come from any direction. These programs are doing some very good work and making a noticeable impact in our culture. There is, however, something which can be done to improve our apologetics programs which will produce even more competent apologists. It is the purpose of this paper to argue that adding study of the humanities to our apologetics programs will aid significantly in meeting the difficult challenge of being prepared to give an answer to anyone.
Often, and for obvious reasons, apologetics is thought of in reactionary terms. Even so institutions with apologetics programs should not be reactionary but they should instead be preparatory. The best way to prepare students for attacks on the faith is not to only anticipate questions and objections but also to mold individuals into the right kind of people who are prepared to handle difficult questions and objections. In other words, instead of merely anticipating questions and objections that are commonly levied against the Christian faith and then supplying students with a methodological approach or a set of one-to-one answers to objections, we should focus first on developing the students themselves. Apologetics education needs to intentionally focus on the development of the student into the right kind of person and then, subsequently, give them tools and paradigms to work with. Studying the humanities is the way forward in developing students to become the right kind of people who will make good apologists.
The philosophy of ethics provides us with a good comparison as to what the humanities does for apologetics education. In the philosophy of ethics there are various paradigms which have been used to determine ethical decision making. Deontology, for example, is the approach to ethical decision making which argues that we must follow a set of rules or guiding principles. Deontology can appeal to something secular like the United States Constitution or something religious like the Bible or Qu’ran. The most ethical decision, according to this model, is that which most conforms to the authoritative rules. Another paradigm sometimes used for ethical decision making is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism attempts to anticipate the end result of a given decision or set of actions and asks what will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people? Whichever decision produces the most good for the most people is then considered most ethical decision one can make. In addition to these there are, of course, many more paradigms advanced as models for ethical decision making, but it is beyond our purpose to list them all.
There is, however, one more paradigm to consider for the purpose of our illustration, namely, virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is unique in the discussion of ethics because it does not primarily look to a rubric to follow in order to make ethical decisions, that is, it does not ask whether a person is following the rules nor does it look to the outcome of a decision and how will it affect other people, rather, it asks whether or not the person making the decision a virtuous person. Virtue ethics is more concerned about the kind of people we are than it is about the process by which we make ethical decisions. The argument is that a virtuous person is more likely to make the right ethical decisions because those kind of decisions are in accordance with his own character. The virtuous man does not do virtuous things because he followed a paradigm but because he is virtuous. This is not to discount the place of rules and order, nor to discount the idea that we should consider the consequences of our actions and how they affect ourselves or others but it is to say there is a question more basic which needs to be addressed first. The question is what kind of person am I?
Similar to the philosophy of ethics there are, within the larger apologetics conversation, three main paradigms that apologists implement and defend, namely, Classical, Evidential and Presuppositional. The majority of the apologetics programs today would more closely identify with one approach over the others, recognizing that some overlap is unavoidable and perhaps even desirable. Schools that teach a Classical approach to apologetics present a two-step methodology which seeks to first establish the existence of God and then seeks to demonstrate that the God who exists is the God of Christianity. Schools that utilize Evidential apologetics teach a one-step method in which a case is made directly for the truth of Christianity by compiling circumstantial evidence employing the use of inductive reasoning. Finally schools which make use of Presuppositional apologetics teach their students to examine the underlying assumptions competing theories and philosophies make in opposition to Christianity and then expose their faulty thinking, demonstrating that only Christianity provides a sufficiently consistent worldview that makes sense of the world we live in.
All of these methods of apologetics have great value. In fact one could argue that apologists ought to blend these methodologies more than they have in the past and yet there is a more basic issue than methodology. We need to address not only the questions of what is the best apologetics paradigm or even what is the best answer to the given question or objection, but first and foremost we must answer the question what kind of people are doing apologetics? We need to develop the character and humanity of the apologist at least as much as we need to teach them methodology and answers to common questions and objections. We need to develop and mold students into the kind of people who are more likely to have good answers to good questions. We need to focus on the development of the human people who answers human questions, and the path forward to meeting this task is through the humanities.
By way of analogy I am arguing that humanities education is to apologetics what virtue ethics is to the philosophy of ethics. The humanities are often misunderstood in today’s educational landscape simply as disconnected “subjects” of study which are outside the S.T.E.M. fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics). However the humanities, historically speaking, have been about more than just history, literature, philosophy, and art as disconnected disciplines. The humanities, properly conceived, are an interdisciplinary study of all of human knowledge and culture. As the name implies, the humanities are about our humanity and they force us to ask what does it mean to be human? The humanities teach us that all of history, and all of the academic disciplines, are connected and impact one another. All learning has at its base one common element and that connection is humanity itself.
Human beings, as image bearers of God, are rational and creative creatures. Underneath the Great Creator humans have flourished and learned and produced incredible works. We have discovered logic and mathematics, we have produced paintings that mimic the world God has made, we have built pyramids, basilicas and castles that have stood for centuries, we have thought deeply about the nature of the world we live in and who we are and why we are here, we have written stories that will last for ages in both verse and prose, and we have preserved and recorded as much of the story of mankind as we are able. There is no academic discipline which is not a human discipline; we are the common denominator in all of them.
It is in light of this commonality that the humanities tell us there are no individual subjects. Science is undergirded by philosophy, mathematics interacts with art and architecture, religion is largely passed down through literature, and literature draws from all of these things to produce fiction and non fiction, poetry and prose and all of these are part of human history. Studying the humanities would keep otherwise bright scientists from asking such foolish questions as who made God? It would silence those who have claimed the only way to know anything is through the empirical method which is itself a philosophical claim and not subject to empirical investigation. A greater understanding of history would produce more wisdom for our political leaders to make better decisions today. An appreciation for mathematics would help the artist see lines and shapes in a whole new way and help him to recognize patterns in the world that were previously invisible to his eyes. All of human knowledge and experience are intertwined and when we see and affirm this truth then, no matter what our major area of study happens be, we will begin to see more than we did before.
In view of all of that has been said I submit four reasons why schools should make humanities education a significant part of their apologetics training. First, the humanities expose students to knowledge outside of their normal areas of expertise and interests. Because of this the apologist becomes more versatile and gains a larger frame of reference for dealing with questions and objections that may come from any field of study. Often, for instance, the apologist makes reference to the second law of thermodynamics in making his defense of the Cosmological argument, but how much the better off is he if he actually knows the other two laws of thermodynamics as well because he has some understanding of science. The humanities allow the apologist who is primarily a philosopher or primarily a theologian, etc., to get cross-exposure to disciplines that have an impact on the kind of questions they face.
Second, studying the humanities allows the apologetics student to see how all subjects are related. It is important to see that there is no question, no objection, no single thought of any kind which has been produced in a vacuum. Many questions and objections to the faith posed scientifically or historically are actually philosophic. For instance, as alluded to earlier, some have suggested only that which can be empirically verified by the five senses can be considered true. But this claim itself is philosophical in nature and can not be observed with a microscope or tested in a lab. It is actually a philosophical claim and must rise or fall on those grounds. As it turns out the claim is actually self defeating because if the claim is true then it is also false. So then an rudimentary understanding of philosophy shows us that not all questions posing as science belong in the realm of science.
Furthermore there are cases in which religious questions will have scientific answers and scientific questions will have religious answers. What belongs more to science then the principle of causality? That every effect must have a sufficient cause is a truth that undergirds and drives the entire modern scientific quest. But what happens when scientific evidence leads to the supernatural causes such as in the big bang where whatever the sufficient cause for the creation event is it must be timeless, immaterial, intelligent, powerful and personal!? Suddenly we see science meet philosophy and religion (indeed Genesis 1:1) with this startling realization.
It is even the case that a work of art such as a painting, a poem or a story can communicate something to the beholder which transcends all their questions and objections. Take for example the many who have read The Chronicles of Narnia and, beyond their own understanding, have felt a longing too deep for words for Aslan the Lion to be real and to be in their own life. There are times where even a painting can reach deep into a persons soul and the notion of objective beauty transcend our doubts and we know there is something more in this universe than pure materialism.
The humanities teach the apologetics student that all human learning is connected and that one medium may answer the questions and objections of the other. What the highly specialized may be perfectly blind to the multi-disciplined may see with clarity. Students who see that the disciplines are not islands of isolation but puzzle pieces meant to be interlocked will be more ready to answer questions knowing that not all answers come from the same place.
Third, the humanities should be studied because it teaches the apologetics student that “there is nothing new under the sun.” When taking a class on the problem of evil the students should not think that this problem is new to our day or that no one felt its weight as we do now. Since Hesiod and before man has contemplated evil and suffering in the world and tried to explain it. When talking about arguments for God’s existence the student should not think that they live in generation which was the first to question how we might know. Questions about pain and suffering, how we can know God exists, the reliability of the Bible, etc., are all questions which have been wrestled with long before we arrived on this planet and will be wrestled with long after our generation is gone. The humanities allow us to see how humanity has wrestled with those ideas over the centuries and, in some cases, where those ideas first appeared.
It is for this reason that reading primary texts is so important. Rather than reading someone else talk about Homer, Plato, Aristotle or Aquinas why not read the men themselves? C. S. Lewis has said “The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavors as a teacher to persuade the young that first-hand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than second-hand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.” The humanities expose us to the ongoing conversation about the great questions of human existence which human people have wrestled with for centuries. Apologetics students who are well read in the humanities will hear questions and objections and be able to identify the root of those question and who posed them first and who posed them best. They will know the history of responses to those questions and be able to give their modern day interlocutor a meaningful answer.
Fourth, apologetics programs should include the study of the humanities because it is a humbling experience. Studying the humanities puts the student in a position to realize the vastness of human knowledge and experience and ought to lead to humility rather than arrogance when attempting to deal with life’s questions. It is a sad reality, and not one hard to observe, that some in the apologetics community become prideful and arrogant. Studying the humanities exposes the apologetics student to a whole world of ideas and disciplines outside of their primary area of study and/, much like the child who sees the vastness of the ocean for the first time and realizes he could never swim across it, the humanities teach the student that there is more to know than can ever be known. This should not humble a person into silence or to a point where they feel that they do not have anything to say, but it should bring them to a place where they will speak with humility and without a grandiose finality upon anything which they care to address. Humility is needed in apologetic engagement just as much as confidence and courage.
It is for these reasons that I suggest the humanities will help students to be the right kind of person to answer people’s questions as they will be more knowledgeable about other disciplines, they will see how all human knowledge and experience are intertwined, they will see that the toughest questions have already been asked and answered and they will be encouraged to walk humbly as one who knows but a drop of what there is to know. The best way forward in apologetics education then is not to stop the good work our schools are doing already but to enhance it with the study of the humanities. The task the apostle Peter has given us, to be ready to make a defense to anyone, is best met with intentionally developing students to be the right kind of people, which is to say to help humans be more humane. Our primary question as apologetics educators then should be what kind of person is most likely to make a good defense of the faith? This question is more basic than what methodology should we use.
To see that a commitment to the humanities creates the very type of apologist we are wanting our programs to produce, we do not have to look any further than C. S. Lewis. Lewis is the archetypal example of an ideal apologist because he has had such a lasting and transformative effect on our culture. Lewis communicated the Christian worldview through fiction and non-fiction, to children and learned men of the highest stature. We may ask what made Lewis so versatile, so able to communicate with power and precision? The answer is that Lewis was a man shaped by the reading of great books. If one reads the three volume set of the Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis they will quickly realize the unbelievable and voluminous interaction Lewis had with great books from the earliest years of his life until his death. By the time he was thirty years of age he had consumed more great works of literature than many in our generation read in their whole lives. And while Lewis was an exceptional case in many ways it is nevertheless the very fact that he was so conversant with great books which made him into the Christian thinker and apologist he was. Any seminary or university which effectively produced apologists after the pattern of C. S. Lewis would find themselves doing a fantastic work. To make Lewisian apologists we must develop individuals through the humanities.
With the help of thousands of years of human experience, which the student will gain through the study of the humanities, we can develop the student’s humanity making them better prepared for the apologetics task. After this primary responsibility we can add on the tools and paradigms to use to engage the culture for the sake of Christ and his kingdom but the apologetics task will never be fully met unless programs commit to developing people first. Through the study of the humanities seminaries and universities can form a new generation of apologists prepared to give thoughtful and meaningful answers to very human questions.
