Photo by Sean Foster on Unsplash
(A seven-minute read.)
Every once in a while you read something that is an absolute grand slam. Such was the case two weeks ago when I came across an article, published on Patheos, by someone I’m now friends with (after reaching out to him in response to his article). The title of the article is, “From Truth to Trust: Reimagining the Future of Christian Apologetics,” and it is basically a short and compassionate plea to Christians to exercise more humility and repentance when trying to persuade people of the Christian faith.
Written by Daniel Montañez, who is a doctoral student at Boston University, researching the “intersection of theology, ethics, and migration,” it’s an absolute masterpiece and I wish I could simply re-post the whole article for you to read it. Just about every line is saturated with brilliance.
Go read the article! It’s remarkable.
In the meantime, let me try to also summarize it and highlight what I thought were the most important points.
In the article, Montañez tackles the question of “Christian apologetics,” which is a practice that can be traced back to the first Christians, when Peter encouraged Jesus-followers to be ready to give an “answer” (Greek, apologia) for their faith, doing so with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). Montañez happily acknowledges that there’s a place to publicly promote and defend the Christian faith, but he argues that our context is vastly different from Peter’s day, when he was writing in a pre-Christendom context.
Today, we are living in a post-Christendom context in the West, where most people have already had some exposure to Christianity and, as a result, have great suspicion toward the claims of the Christian faith because of the destruction it’s left in its wake. Comparing the pre-Christendom period, when Peter wrote, to our own era, Montañez notes that “what separates these two communities is a near 1700-year history of political turmoil, religious violence, and colonial domination that is often associated with the period of Christendom.”
Thus, what Christians need is much greater self-awareness. “Like a bull in a China shop,” he writes, “the apologist often enters into the room unaware, not only of its size within the historical narrative of Western thought, but also of the wreckage it has left behind, across marginalized cultures and communities, on its path to becoming a religious majority.”
As an example of this idea, Montañez cites the practice of Spanish rulers who, in their attempts to subjugate natives in the New World and convert them to the Christian faith, resorted to barbaric practices like cutting people’s hands off, trying to force them to convert. One indigenous person, responding to such threats, said he didn’t want to go to heaven anyway, lest he run the risk of encountering such “Christian” people. Hell was more appealing to him if it helped him avoid such people.
Montañez brings home the point here.
The problem with contemporary Christian apologetics is that in its attempts to give a defense of the Christian faith, it lacks the understanding that it is no longer perceived as the martyr, but as the executor. No longer the victim, but the perpetrator. As the Christian apologist enters into the postmodern public square, it does so with an audience that will no longer believe in [G. K.] Chesterton’s assertion that “the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting,” but instead the Christian ideal has been tried and found unwanted.
American Christianity, in Montañez’s telling, has only exacerbated this issue, with its nearly-endless train of leadership scandals, including Ravi Zacharias, who was known for much of his career as perhaps the world’s most famous evangelical apologist (before being “outed,” so to speak, for living a life of sexual debauchery and abuse). Again and again American pastors and evangelists have made Christianity literally unbelievable by the conduct of their lives.
As a result, in the twenty-first century, Montañez submits, “the new skeptic of the Church in our postmodern age is no longer the atheist, but the Christian. It is the brother or sister in the faith who has been hurt or abused by the family of God and calls the Church to account for its actions.” In one of the best lines of the whole piece, Montañez drops this idea: “Perhaps the greatest question Christianity should answer today is not whether or not it is true, but whether or not it is trustworthy. Perhaps the greatest threat to the Church is not the skeptic, but itself.”
What the Christian needs to do more than anything in promoting the faith, he insists, is to operate with humility and repentance, seeking “forgiveness, justice, and reconciliation for those who have been negatively affected” by the Church. Christians also need to move beyond the concerns of traditional apologetics, which answers questions—like the existence of God, the historicity of Jesus, and the veracity of Scripture—which were the product of the Enlightenment, when everyone was concerned with “rationalism and scientific empiricism.”
Not that we must abandon such concerns altogether, but Montañez proposes that the types of questions skeptics are really asking today related to Christianity are more like:
1. How do Christians account for the colonization of the Western world, the genocide of Indigenous peoples, and the enslavement of Black people, all in the name of the Christian faith?
2. Is Christianity the white man’s religion?
3. How should Christian leaders respond to the sex scandals, racism, and abuses of power that have left a generation of believers disenchanted with the institutional Church?
4. How should Christians respond to the cries for justice among marginalized communities, rather than merely dismissing them as liberal?
5. How can Christians preach a message of unity and reconciliation when the Church itself is so divided?
“These are the types of questions being asked by the postmodern skeptics of our time,” Montañez argues, “Christian and non-Christian alike.” But we need not fear such things. As Montañez says in his last sentence, “the same God that gave wisdom to the early Church and to the Christians of the modern era, is the same God that will give wisdom to the Christians of [the] postmodern era, and for whatever future era may come.”
A few reflections
As I said, I think this piece is a brilliant piece—and if you’ve been reading my newsletter for any length of time, you’ll no doubt recall similar sentiment in my writing. I really do think that to whatever degree Christianity is having a hard go of it in the postmodern West, it has no one to blame but itself for its own challenges.
What has been especially puzzling—and frustrating—to me lately, and is a theme I’m sure I’ll return to in the near future, is the sort of “Christian victimhood” that is present within many circles of American Christianity. There seems to be a narrative among conservative Christians which maintains that Christians in the West are the most, or among the most, persecuted people in the world. We play the “victim card” and feel sorry for ourselves, often using such a claim as a basis for grabbing for more political power.
There’s little doubt that Western society in general has less openness to the claims of Christianity than it did, say, 300 years ago. But to whatever degree that’s true, I think that, as Montañez has persuasively pointed out, engaging in a little “Step 4” work is what is required. We can’t control the way non-Christians react to the Christian message. We can only control ourselves, sweeping our side of the street and asking ourselves what we can do better to present a more persuasive apologetic to the onlooking world (which, most likely, will actually have very little to do with what we say and more to do with how we live).
In a little book called Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, which is my favorite book by Ellen White, she expounds upon this idea. I happened upon the quote this last week again soon after I read Montañez’s article. I’m tempted to quote the one sentence, full of punch, but I think the whole paragraph provides an even bigger punch:
The standard of the golden rule is the true standard of Christianity; anything short of it is a deception. A religion that leads men to place a low estimate upon human beings, whom Christ has esteemed of such value as to give Himself for them; a religion that would lead us to be careless of human needs, sufferings, or rights, is a spurious religion. In slighting the claims of the poor, the suffering, and the sinful, we are proving ourselves traitors to Christ. It is because men take upon themselves the name of Christ, while in life they deny His character, that Christianity has so little power in the world. The name of the Lord is blasphemed because of these things.
So let us move forward with humility and self-awareness, taking the posture of listeners rather than lecturers. Let us truly practice the “golden rule,” choosing to prioritize lives of other-centered love that put actions ahead of words. Only then we will become true apologists for the faith.
Shawn is a pastor in Maine, whose life, ministry, and writing focus on incarnational expressions of faith. The author of four books and a columnist for Adventist Review, he is also a DPhil student at the University of Oxford (what they call a PhD), focusing on nineteenth-century American Christianity. You can follow him on Instagram, and listen to his podcast Mission Lab.
I really love "Chesterton’s assertion that “the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting,” but instead the Christian ideal has been tried and found unwanted." Even if he was an apologist of yesteryear, I find much of his writings speak to me and the current world I live in.
I think the answer to Question 1 is that we as humans are often no different that the non-Christian who is equally or more so brutal...but that somewhere in the midst of everything, we search (if truly converted and in a personal relationship with Christ) in our hearts and we do the best we can in the culture we find ourselves in. Yes, I'm sorry such horrors were/are inflicted--I have been on the receiving end of no small number of brutalities by self-proclaimed Christians and clearly non-Christians--but I am not going to take responsibility for what others have done in a different age, time, and culture anymore than I can take responsibility for what those perpetrators inflicted on me. I can't. To even try to take other's responsibility is psychologically sick and induces mental illness. (After all, does the non-Christian take responsibility for Jeffrey Dahmer, since he was a non-Christian? Such logic is not only sick but absurd). No, I can only deal with what I am in here and now...I am only responsible for myself not others. God only requires of me the responsibility of my actions. To try and push or blame or shame me into a position of responsibility for other's actions is to replicate the very behaviors and believes one is claiming to remove.
Christianity is NOT a white man's religion, it never was and it never will be. To go down that rabbit hole is going to only fan the flames of racism. Racism goes every which way--it is based on the assumption that "I am better than you because of ___________." It is a victim position in which a person or group blames others for anything and everything. It isn't limited to the color of your skin, or culture, or ethnic group--unchecked it pervades the entire person in a pitiful way that will destroy them from inside. It is the failure to take responsibility for one's own actions by blaming others either justly or unjustly. It never leads to unity, nor is it a logically sound argument.
For me, the answers to the questions you raise can only be answered in how I personally live my life in Christ. The church, as any institution, is always flawed, but the way one views an institution is based on that person's experience with an individual associated with the institution on a personal level. And that is what I am responsible for. I can't change an institution, but I can reflect Christ in those I serve.
If you have the time, the 5 sermons preached by Randy Roberts @ LLU.org for their "Camp-meeting" series, addressed the very questions you are raising under the series title, "To Believe or Not to Believe: That is the question" (loosely adapted from Shakespeare's famous quote). Randy has a gentle approach to this difficult questions that has helped my understanding of some of the worst stories in the Bible, including the last one in the book of Judges.
Okay so let’s take a quick look at these five idiotic questions by Daniel Montanez, a typical what I call “ evil-goon-on-the-internet; writers scattered about the internet like rat poison around restaurants. Once you figure out that his arguments of making good people question themselves unnecessarily are all based on hate and lies, you get somewhat annoyed because it only adds up to a grotesque waste of your time.
1.) How do Christians account for the colonization of the Western world, the genocide of Indigenous peoples, and the enslavement of Black people, all in the name of the Christian faith?
When the Christians arrived they discovered abandoned crops planted by American Indians who died from famine. They took advantage of the tragedy to get them through the harsh winter months. Famine destroyed Indian populations completely. Reducing their numbers by 90 and even 95%. Those who remained were facing extinction. Peace plans were constantly and repeatedly offered to all Indian tribes and rejected. They were hostile to White men just as they were hostile to each other with fighting amongst tribes being brutal and barbaric. Barbarism and brutality was not at all uncommon around the world in those days. Atrocities were committed by Whites and Indians, and the Indians did not want to fight soldiers, they went after easy pickings; defenseless women and children, as an act of genocide. They’re numbers continued to decline until reservations were developed at which time their numbers increased dramatically. Some tribes refused to settle, having an all-or-nothing mentality, and were eliminated as the civilized world ensued.
The horrible racism in this country stemmed entirely from the Democratic Party. Led by Democrats the KKK had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Christianity is directly responsible for the ending of colonization in Europe, and the ending of slavery in the United States via the Republican Party. The Democrats are completely anti-American in that they do not support religious values in their Platform, their policies, or their heinous ongoing quest for power which is always based on fraudulent lies.
2.) Is Christianity the white man’s religion?
No, not according to God. Where in the hell did that come from?
A song in the early 20th century
Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Red and yellow, black and white
They are precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world
Author: C. H. Woolston
This is what American children grew up singing for the last 100+ years in the United States.
3.) How should Christian leaders respond to the sex scandals, racism, and abuses of power that have left a generation of believers disenchanted with the institutional Church?
This is no surprise to any Christian. Humans make up the church. Humans are fallen creatures prone to sin. Just as Jesus loves and forgives all, the devil tempts us all. And he’s good at it! Perfect people are only found outside the Christian faith. That’s where all the criticism comes from. Look no further than any gay-pride parade where they celebrate each other: love me, ignore God.
4.) How should Christians respond to the cries for justice among marginalized communities, rather than merely dismissing them as liberal?
Civil rights cases in the United States in recent decades have been exclusively lies. From Jussie Smollet to George Floyd. All frauds including:
Michael Brown, who’s hands were never in the air.
Travon Martin, who was not eating Skittles on his way home from school, but instead who attacked George Zimmerman on a dark rainy night and was endlessly punching him in the face looking for a “knock-out” like had been delivered to him a few weeks prior. He was shot dead only after his victim, who he (Trayvon) had referred to as a “nigger” and a “White Cracker” that night, had his head slammed into some concrete during the smack down.
Kyle Rittenhouse, who never “crossed state lines with a firearm,” who repeatedly tried to offer first aide to people of all colors that night, and who only shot at white people trying to kill him as they were actively trying to pretend that they were “white saviors.”
So to an ignorant goon on the internet it may appear that these cases are “dismissed” as being liberal when in-fact they are liberal lies, nonsense, and narratives and Cristians are just being honest. Remember honesty? Truth? Gods truth? You’ll find that in the Republican Party.
(Jussie Smollet, completely fabricated the whole incident, lied to police about everything, and was prosecuted for all of the above.
George Floyd, was overdosing and couldn’t breath before contact with police. The officer wrongly convicted of murder, removed him from the police car, upgraded the call for “medical help” to “emergency medical help,” was told by dispatch that the ambulance was close by and would be there quickly, identified Floyd’s condition of “exited delirium” {someone dying}, restrained him by pinning down the side of his head as instructed-and illustrated in his Police training manual to avoid choking. The chief of police testified in court that there was no illustration in the police training manual, but the family of the officer and other members of the Minneapolis Police Department provided proof. The officer was convicted in what can only be described as a modern-day lynching. The same procedure of restraining victims in “excited delirium” until handed over to medical personnel is still standard protocol in Police Depts. till this day!
And don’t forget OJ Simpson, who, during a jealous tirade, sawed his ex-wife’s head off with a knife, murdered her lover and lied his way out of jail! Tell me evil-goons-on-the-internet, was that justice?)
5.) How can Christians preach a message of unity and reconciliation when the Church itself is so divided?
This is what Hitler (the devil in shirt, shoes and a mustache) asked repeatedly as he tried to further the divide between Catholic and Protestant! As in any act, there are several ways of accomplishing the same thing whether you are removing a dent from a car, washing windows, doing laundry, cooking... No two people will do it the same way and some will swear their way is the best! Religious people are all looking up, wanting to praise our Father, all seeking to learn about love (with Shawn thinking that the study of love applies exclusively to 7th Day Adventists), and all seeking peace and harmony. With a few unfortunate exceptions of course; we have soldiers for God, just as we have soldiers for satan.