The Dartmouth Apologia began publishing in 2007 with the hope of reminding a generation of American scholars that Christians have sound reasons for the faith they profess, for that faith is true for all people in all times and all places.
THE DARTMOUTH APOLOGIA
This book is a product of nearly a decade of thought, detailing in over 30 short essays key frameworks for thought, leadership, and writing. It is the Apologia’s prayer that this book may be helpful for those looking to think and write in a way that is distinctly and unabashedly Christian, that is gentle and respectful in its interaction with secular thought, that is thorough and insightful, and that, most importantly, is biblically faithful and true.
Cover design by Chenguang Li
THE APOLOGIA TOOLKIT
NATHANIEL SCHMUCKER, EDITOR THE DARTMOUTH APOLOGIA
THE APOLOGIA TOOLKIT
C H R I S T I A N I T Y I S . . . R A R E LY U N D E R S T O O D B Y T H O S E O U T S I D E I T S B O U N D S . I N F A C T, T H I S I S P R O B A B LY O N E O F T H E G R E AT E S T TA S K S C O N F R O N T I N G T H E A P O L O G I S T— T O R E S C U E C H R I S T I A N I T Y F R O M M I S U N D E R S TA N D I N G S . — A L I S T E R M C G R AT H
I N S T E A D O F L A M E N T I N G O U R S TAT E O R D I G G I N G I N T O O U R T R E N C H E S, W E WA N T TO P O I N T TO S K Y L I G H T S I N O U R S U P P O S E D LY B R A S S H E A V E N . . . P O I N T T O L O N G I N G S O F T H E H U M A N H E A R T . . . M A K E P E O P L E S A Y, “ I D O N ’ T B E L I E V E I N G O D, B U T I M I S S H I M . " — JAMES K.A. SMITH
WO RT H Y I S T H E L A M B W H O WA S S L A I N , TO R E C E I V E P OW E R A N D W E A LT H A N D W I S D O M A N D M I G H T A N D H O N O R A N D G L O RY A N D B L E S S I N G ! TO H I M W H O S I T S O N T H E T H RO N E A N D TO T H E L A M B B E B L E S S I N G A N D H O N O R A N D G L O RY AND MIGHT FOREVER AND EVER! — R E V E L AT I O N 5 : 1 2 - 1 3
N AT H A N I E L S C H M U C K E R , E D I T O R
THE APOLOGIA TOOLKIT
THE DARTMOUTH APOLOGIA
Copyright © 2015 The Dartmouth Apologia. All rights reserved. published by the dartmouth apologia dartmouthapologia.org Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® ), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. All websites listed herein are accurate at the time of publication, but may change in the future or cease to exist. The listing of website references does not imply publisher endorsement of the site’s entire contents. Groups, corporations, and organizations are listed for informational purposes, and listing does not imply publisher endorsement of their activities. Typeset in LATEX using the “A Tufte-Style Book” template (the “Template”), provided by The Tufte-LaTeX Developers. The Template is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the “License”). You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0. The text and illustrations contained in this book are the work of The Dartmouth Apologia. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. First printing, September 2015.
Table of Contents Part I
Introduction Why This is Not a Cookbook
14
The Importance of Scripture
18 21
The Importance of Prayer
26
The Epistemological Matrix Part II
Frameworks for Thought 34
What is the Mission? 37
What is Success?
43
What is an Apologia?
47
Framing the Conversation Thick Doctrine, Deep Practice The Bell Curve Faith and Reason
50
53 56
Faith, Reason, Vocation First Things, Second Things
59 62
Dishonesty, Honesty, and Generosity
66
6
69
Fireflies and Beams of Light Part III
Frameworks for Leadership Rosenhan’s Law
76 80
Asking for Advice and Money 84
Sell People on the Vision
87
About the People, Not the Journal Learn by Doing Choices
90
93 96
The French Meal Principle Lessons from the Cheshire Cat
98
What Makes a Good Meeting
101
Find Your Successors Part IV
105
Frameworks for Writing Writing for Apologetics
110
Building an Intellectually-Respectable Journal 113 What Are, Will, and Should People be Asking? 116 The Art of Apologetics The Science of Apologetics The Spirit of Apologetics Guide to Choosing a Topic
121 124 128 131
7
Meditation on I Peter 3:13-17 Part V
Appendix Further Reading About
147
144
139
9
Soli Deo Gloria
Preface Many thanks to Andrew Schuman D’10, who founded The Dartmouth Apologia in 2006, and who cast the vision for the journal as one that would revitalize the role of Christianity in academic discussions on Dartmouth’s campus. This book is a continuation of what he began. Thank you to Gregg Fairbrothers D’76, the long-time advisor and mentor to the Apologia, who has helped to train every generation of Apologia leadership thus far, and who is the mind behind many of the ideas in this book. Thank you also to Charlie Clark D’11 and Hilary Johnson D’15 for the inspiration for this book and the encouragement to see it through to completion. The book was not possible without a team of writers who have a passion for interpreting Scripture, for understanding the Christian faith, and for defending the truth of Christianity in a world of moral and philosophical confusion. These writers include Charlie Clark D’11, Peter Blair D’12, Chris Hauser D’14, Hayden Kvamme D’14, Hilary Johnson D’15, Andrew Zulker D’15, Jake Casale D’17, Sara Holston D’17, Marissa Le Coz D’17, and Joshua Tseng-Tham D’17. It is these men and women who fight to guard the deposit entrusted them in the Lord. They are not ashamed of the testimony of the gospel but, strengthened by God’s grace, labor together boldly to proclaim the truth to the next generation. And we are confident in our work—not because of any misplaced trust in our ability to teach but because Christ, who conquered sin
12
and death, who is seated in power at the right hand of God the Father, and to whom has been given all dominion and authority, both now and forevermore, is able to guard until the day of his Second Coming the message of salvation, which he has so graciously entrusted to us. “To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” ~ Nathaniel Schmucker D’15
Part I
Introduction
Why This is Not a Cookbook
In April 2014, Charlie Clark D’11 and Hilary Johnson D’15 were chatting over a lunch of Chicken Tikka Masala and Vegetable Biryani in Hanover, NH, when Charlie suggested that the Apologia create a book of words of wisdom learned by its leadership since its founding in 2006. Charlie had been the Apologia’s second Editor-in-Chief, and in two months, once the Class of 2014 graduated and moved away, his relationship with Hilary would be one of the last remaining connections between the Apologia’s active members on campus and its founding generation. Charlie and Hilary did not want the original vision for the Apologia—or the subsequent development and maturation of that vision—to be forgotten as Apologia members graduated and moved on from their work with the journal. The Dartmouth Apologia has a rich tradition of passing on its mission, vision, and other organizational wisdom—how to lead meetings, to choose relevant article topics, to develop a passion for sound theology— from generation to generation orally, often, as Charlie and Hilary were even then doing, through informal mentorship over long, drawn-out meals. Many generations of students have come through the Apologia, each learning from those who came before and each adding to what was quickly becoming a vibrant intellectual history. Never, however, had the Apologia codified that history in writing. By the fall of 2014, Hilary had forgotten about her
why this is not a cookbook
lunch with Charlie and had forgotten their conversation, but she had not forgotten the idea he had planted in her mind of the importance of creating a resource for future generations. She introduced the idea of writing a book to the Apologia leadership team during—not surprisingly—a long, drawn-out breakfast meeting. Whether we choose to blame her meal with Charlie or the meal currently before the leadership team, Hilary and the others soon found themselves excitedly discussing writing not just any book, but what they affectionately called the Apologia Cookbook. They soon realized, however, that the book they needed was not a cookbook. It was a toolkit. It could not be a cookbook. The very name, “cookbook,” implies that within its pages lie a list of ingredients, a set of directions, and a foolproof guide to creating a distinct set of outcomes. This, however, is something we could never provide to future generations. Even in the eight short years of the Apologia’s existence, we have seen the life of the journal and the environment of the college change enough that recipes that were successful in the past would no longer work today. Although we cannot tell you, reader, what to do or how to do it, we can provide you a resource that may be more valuable that a how-to guide could ever be. We wish to help you to develop the tools necessary to think critically and act biblically in every situation. Moreover, a cookbook offers little room for creativity. A cookbook can give you step-by-step instructions for how to bake a cake from scratch from the finest of ingredients, providing perfect instructions on how to keep the cake light, moist, and full of flavor. Though you may make a vanilla, chocolate, red velvet, or even Black Forest Cherry cake, top it with homemade buttercream frosting, and decorate it with hand-shaved curls of German chocolate, in the end, all you have is a cake. We want you to dream big. We do not want you to be content building two- or three-tiered layer cakes
15
16
the apologia toolkit
but want you to build ice sculptures a hundred feet tall and to craft shimmering candy castles perched atop faraway mountains. Therefore, we present to you, not a cookbook, but a toolkit. We begin with a section entitled “Frameworks for Thought,” which gives an introduction to the modes of thought guiding the Apologia. This book starts with the philosophical because many people today—both outside of and within the church—lack an honest, thoughtful, and intellectually rigorous understanding of Christianity. We are primarily interested in showing people how to think about the world around them from a Christian perspective. The means of doing this is through publishing articles in a journal, but the purpose is to show others how Christians ought to use their minds in the hope that they might see more clearly the reasonableness and beauty of the faith. We must begin by being our own students, ensuring that we ourselves know how to be thinking believers and how to live accordingly. Our second section, “Frameworks for Leadership,” begins to show how to run an organization like the Apologia. This is not a catalogue of dos and don’ts but a guide to some of the tools necessary to run a healthy organization, allow it to grow and thrive, and keep it focused on its mission. Finally, we close with “Frameworks for Writing,” which looks at how our frameworks for thought can best be applied to the context of journal writing. Although this might be the most practical of the sections, we hope you will find that we have tried our best to avoid prescriptive directions, showing not what or how to write but how to approach the art of journal writing in the context of the Christian mind. More broadly, we hope these three sections help you to develop an understanding of how to think about
why this is not a cookbook
life as a Christian and, from that perspective, to enter the cultural dialogue, speaking confidently and with sound doctrine and theology. We recognize that our understanding is incomplete, but we humbly offer our thoughts, praying that they may be useful to many who seek to think critically about the faith they profess. At the end of this book, you will find a brief section with suggested further reading. These articles and books are ones that Apologia members past and present have found helpful in formulating their thinking, and they are the inspiration for many of the articles found in this Toolkit. We hope that these same articles and books, as well as this Toolkit, will help many Christians present and future to develop their minds and to learn to better love and serve their Lord, Jesus Christ. ~ NS
17
The Importance of Scripture
So many questions in today’s world revolve around meaning and truth. Can we ever really know truth? Is there meaning in the world? How can we know what an infinite, divine God is really like? In the midst of all of these questions, God has provided us possibly the best tool to navigate our uncertainties and our walk with him: the Bible. At the Apologia, we affirm the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God, infallible and authoritative on spiritual truths. The Bible is not just one book; it is an entire library of writings from different people from all different eras and places, each with a unique background and perspective on God and his world and people. Scripture, then, provides us with thousands of pages full of stories about God, explanations of his character, and details of his interactions with humans, which form the foundation for other points of doctrine and theology. All of life and history is part of God’s great story for his creation, and that story is most clearly explained in the Bible. Seen in this light, the Bible is the foundation for the metanarrative that encompasses the entire universe throughout history. It provides us with the template for understanding God’s character, as well as the map for continuing to learn about him and his plans for us. The Bible also tells us, as people of God and as beings created by him, where we began and how we have progressed from there towards where we
the importance of scripture
are as a culture today. Recognizing this about the Bible, it becomes pivotal that we remember the value of truly cherishing, studying, and understanding the text. As a library of sixty-six different books about the divine Creator, the Bible is not only huge—covering thousands of years of history and the greatest story every told—but it is also necessarily complex. Our culture is so different today from that of the authors of the different books of the Bible, and to grasp the authors’ meaning in what they wrote requires in-depth knowledge of their culture and history. The story itself is so rich in meaning and messages that the full scope and intricacy of it cannot be appreciated without close reading and time spent reflecting on the people and events contained in the story. A great deal of study, therefore, is needed to understand the teachings and message of the Bible, and we will never reach a place of complete and perfect understanding. But as we carefully read and consider the best interpretations, knowing the context of the stories and writings, we approximate this perfect knowledge, arriving in an asymptotic manner.
Prayer also comprises a significant part of our approaching a true understanding of the Bible. As stated, at the Apologia believe Scripture to be God’s Word to us. They contain his historic verbal communications and instructions with his people. As Christians we also read the Bible as a living document, which continues to illuminate truth to us in our lives today. Given how remarkable and wondrous it is that the God of universe speaks to his people in Scripture, it is unfathomable that through prayer, we have the ability to speak back, making the Bible not just a set of rules or teachings on how to live a moral life and not just a book about God himself, but one side of an eternal, intimate conversation between God and his creation. Given that we, as humans, are imperfect, we will
19
20
the apologia toolkit
likely never agree completely on the right interpretation of the Bible. Even as contributors to the same journal we often disagree in our readings. But, we also recognize the value of these differing opinions in sparking discussion and creating opportunities for us to learn and grow closer to God and to each other. We love and respect each other despite our differing interpretations, holding each other accountable when necessary, and therefore strive first and foremost to understand each other’s points of view and seek truth together. ~ SH
The Importance of Prayer Psalm 127:1 Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain. This book might appear to give the pretense that we at the Apologia possess all of the tools necessary for building a successful organization. While we certainly want to catalogue the intellectual frameworks that successfully have helped to establish and run the Apologia, these tools are fundamentally limited, for they operate exclusively on a horizontal, human-to-human plane. Our tools are limited in their efficacy, as are all other human tools, since God holds sovereign control over all things. As the word of God coming through the prophet Isaiah says: . . . for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,” calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.1 If what we seek to accomplish is not something that God has purposed, no human strategies will make it come to pass. As the Psalms say, “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all,” and “Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.”2 Or, as Job says to the Lord, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”3 The Bible is clear that neither is God lim-
1
Isaiah 46:9-11.
2
Psalm 103:19; 135:6.
3
Job 42:2.
22
the apologia toolkit
4
II Timothy 4:2,5.
5
8
II Timothy 4:7.
6
Luke 18:1.
7
Luke 18:7.
Matthew 7:7-11.
ited in his ability to act nor is anything outside of his control. One of the mysteries of the faith is that at the same time that God is sovereign, we are not absolved from responsibility to act. The Bible is replete with examples of the importance of human action, and we turn to Paul’s epistles for one example. In his second letter to Timothy, Paul commands him to act with fervor in his pastoral work, saying, “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” in order that you might “fulfill your ministry.”4 Paul writes of himself, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race,” and he instructs Timothy to have the same attitude toward his work.5 Timothy ought not sit passively, waiting for God to bring to pass what he has purposed but is to fight resolutely for the spread of the gospel. The Bible commands us to pray continuously. While Jesus was with his disciples, he told them the parable of the persistent widow, which was meant to show them and us that we “ought always to pray and not lose heart.”6 In this parable, a widow of a certain town sought justice because of oppression by an adversary, but the resident judge refused to hear her pleas, for he neither feared God nor respected men. The widow came to him time and time again, bothering him continually to do his duty as judge and hear her case. In the end, her persistence wore down the man so that he listened to her and gave her due justice. When we pray, we are to be as persistent as this widow. If incessant asking can induce sinful humans to act, so persistence in prayer is all the more effective with God, who is a righteous judge and promises to give justice “speedily.”7 Likewise, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clearly says regarding prayer:
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. . . If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!8
the importance of prayer
In his apostolic letters, Paul reiterates even more strongly what Christ taught about the importance of prayer, saying that we are not merely to be persistent in prayer but to even “pray without ceasing” and be “praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.”9 This is a command that we cannot ignore.
The Bible provides specific direction to pray for many different things: that God’s name would be glorified (I Chronicles 17:25), that God would raise up evangelists (Matthew 9:37-38), that many will be saved (Romans 10:1), that we would not fall into temptation to sin (Luke 22:46), that we would receive forgiveness when we do sin (Luke 18:13), that we would be healed from sickness (James 5:14), and that we would gain wisdom (James 1:5), among much else. These are not futile requests or mere symbolic actions, for, as James writes, “The prayer of a righteous person has great power.”10 James reminds his readers of the example of Elijah; when Elijah prayed for drought in order to show Israel its idolatry, God withheld rain for three and a half years, and when Elijah afterward prayed for rain, God sent it. Or, if we look to another Old Testament story, when Hezekiah prayed earnestly for healing, God responded by saying, “I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you.”11 Thus, the Bible is clear that God is sovereign over all human events, that we are nevertheless to act wisely and prudently, and that we are asked to pray, not merely when we are in immediate need, but continually for all things. In any given event, we see both divine providence and human faculty at work. We cannot ignore human responsibility and rest wholly in divine providence, nor can we assume full human control to the exclusion of God’s sovereignty, but both are at work always. Full comprehension of this truth may be beyond our human ability, but the Bible is clear
9
I Thessalonians 5:17; Ephesians 6:18.
10
James 5:16.
11
II Kings 20:5.
23
24
the apologia toolkit
in its teaching that both God and humans are at work in any activity. And we must submit to the Bible’s authority.
It is tempting to overemphasize human activity and ignore God’s sovereignty. We as humans are planners and like to be in control of our own futures. We want to know what we will be doing an hour, a day, a week, or a month hence, or, as may be most pertinent for this book, to know practical Christian frameworks for thought, leadership, and writing that will help our activities to thrive. In the Apologia’s case, we want to improve our articulation of the relationship between faith and reason, understand the bell curve nature of our audience, find a good mentor, and know the art, science, and spirit of apologetics. These are all in the horizontal realm of human activity, and there are better and worse ways to approach them. This toolkit helps to show the best human ways to achieve our ends. In this, however, we are always at risk of ignoring God’s sovereignty. We are tempted to think that if we practice everything in this book, we will necessarily achieve results. This is our sinful nature tempting us to pride. Instead of falling into this trap, we would be wise, first, to remember that our activities are only successful if God blesses them and that if he does not, no amount of planning on our part will ever bring success. Second, we would be wise to pray. As I have already explained, the Bible commands us to pray earnestly at all times, and God hears and answers prayer. We ought to pray for the decision-making of the leaders of our organizations, that our activities would faithfully present and represent the gospel, and that many would hear the message of the gospel and come to saving faith. Prayer also has a second benefit in that it helps to keep us from excessive pride. If we bow before our Maker and echo the words of the psalmist, “I lift up
the importance of prayer
my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come? My help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth,” we cannot help but humble ourselves before our great and powerful God.12 We have confidence that, although the season for our work may someday come to an end, and although that may mean that the tools in this book do not produce the effect which we intend for them, yet God still works for us. As Paul says to the Philippian church, “I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”13 It is not we who work, but God. We have no reason to glory in what we do, for it is God who works in us. But, we see it as our duty to strive to guard the deposit entrusted to us. We pray that through this book, God would be pleased to bring many who are in the church to mature faith and to bring many who are not in the church to full repentance and eternal life. ~ NS
12
Psalm 121:1-2.
13
Philippians 1:6.
25
The Epistemological Matrix
Throughout history many of the greatest philosophical thinkers have asked, “What do we know? How do we know it?” In their pursuit of these questions they invented a branch of philosophy they called epistemology—from the Greek episteme (knowledge, understanding) and logos (study of). Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. The Apologia is fundamentally committed to sound epistemology as the foundation of meaningful understandings of life and our place in it. We believe in the unity of truth. This means not only that understanding truth by faith and by reason should lead to the same truth, but also that the two paths can illuminate each other and deepen our understanding through the integration of them into one whole. Again and again we find that many of the most important questions of faith require us to ask, “What do we know? How do we know it?” Further, we believe that while there are ultimate and unambiguous truths, in our finite, human state our knowledge of such truths can never be ultimate and absolutely certain. Epistemologically speaking, determining what we know is not so much a matter of discovery, as it is a pursuit of confidence—an assessment of the probability that something is indeed true. At the Apologia we look to maximize our confidence in any given piece of knowledge by thinking
the epistemological matrix
about a proposition along two different dimensions. Along one dimension we set up a contrast between abstract and tangible. Abstract, conceptual knowledge can only be conceived in the mind and perceived by symbols. It is what Bertrand Russell calls “knowledge by description.” Tangible knowledge, “knowledge by acquaintance,” perceives things concretely with our senses.14 The other dimension, has at one end shared knowledge: those things that can be agreed between people based on common observations and conclusions. On the other end is individual experience: things we know only through our own individual experience and cannot share with others except by our descriptions.
27
14
Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959).
Figure 1: Tangible v. Abstract and Shared v. Individual form the basis of this epistemological quadrant.
These two dimensions form a matrix with four quadrants of epistemological ways of knowing, as illustrated in Figure 1. The ways of knowing that we
28
the apologia toolkit
use every day to make sense of our world fall into each of these quadrants. Each is qualitatively distinct from the others and each individually contributes to the confidence—or the probability—that something is true. Reason is abstract knowledge that we can share through symbols and language. Logic, philosophy, and mathematics are fields of pure reason, guided by the structure of premises and conclusions. We can conceptually understand, justify, and communicate Reason to others, and we can agree on what we think we know. Observation is shared, tangible knowledge of material things we can see, touch, taste, hear, and smell. This is the exercise of empirically measuring, describing, and making findings available for inspection by others whose impressions can confirm our own. It is the realm of empiricism. Throughout history the extremes of Reason and Observation, rationalism and empiricism have often found themselves pitted against each other—a priori versus a posteriori knowledge. For centuries in the West the philosophy of nature was epistemologically handicapped, drawing preferentially on reason not disciplined by shared observation and controlled, replicated experiments. Thus could the Greeks assert on the basis of reasonableness that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones or that the planets move in circular orbits. Only from the time of Galileo and Bacon in the West were reason and observation married, forming the birth of “science” as we define it today. Replication—the essence of the scientific method—is simply shared observation and a documentation of confirming cause-and-effect exercises. Experience is individual, tangible knowledge. It is both the concrete interaction we have with the world around us and the inner world of our thoughts and emotions. These encounters, however, cannot be unambiguously shared and they can never be shared
the epistemological matrix
completely. We can talk about our senses and perception of the world, but we cannot know for sure if we all see color the same way, or if we all feel “cold” the same way. The best we can do is to agree to name our respective experiences “red” or “cold.” Our individual experiences enrich our understanding of the world in a way that reason and observation cannot. Love can be studied through psychology or neuroscience (Reason and Observation), or heard about in poetry and song (Observation), but the Experience of being in love is very different yet again. Lewis demonstrates the difference between the analytical and experiential ways of knowing in his essay, “Meditation in a Toolshed.” He imagines an observer in a dark toolshed on a sunny day. Lewis asks the reader to picture a beam of sunlight streaming through a crack in the door. He points out that his observer can think about this beam of light in two qualitatively different ways. He or she can study this beam of light, describing it, taking measurements of it, analyzing it, and examining the dust particles it illuminates floating in the air. On the other hand, he or she can lean into the beam and gaze out along it, through the crack in the door, and experience the radiant world outside. Lewis succinctly contrasts these two ways of thinking about the beam of light: looking at, versus looking along.15 Moderns do their thinking with varying combinations, restricting themselves, for example, to Reason and Observation in the some fields of science or to Reason and Experience in the name of Existentialism. So-called materialism or scientism asserts there is no reality beyond what shared Reason and Observation can examine and measure; subjective experience and the supernatural do not exist in this worldview. Yet, the matrix framework we have developed leaves an open quadrant—a means of knowing that is abstract but individually experienced. See Figure 2.
15
29
C.S. Lewis, “Meditation in a Toolshed,” originally published in The Coventry Evening Telegraph, 17 July 1945. Reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Eerdmans, 1994), 212-15.
Figure 2: We often operate as if only three of the four quadrants exist.
30
the apologia toolkit
16
Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (Boston: Beacon, 2006).
We can think of Revelation as an abstract, existential, conceptual, and yet uniquely personal means of knowing. It is a way of knowing that does not lend itself to objective sharing, for it is not based on observable fact, repeatable experiments, or logical deduction. This is often an uncomfortable concept for us in our modern age. Many circles delegitimize such mystical ideas, divorcing faith and reason. Revelation is similar to Reason, in that it is abstract, and Revelation is similar to Experience in that it is personal. Yet, it is distinctly different from either of these. While modernity would have us believe there is no such thing as Revelation, with all three of our other ways of knowing we see a modern world steeped in Revelation thinking, language, and behavior. If such a means of knowing does not exist, why do so many people act as if it does? We are told it is all mass ignorance and delusion, but this requires that we disregard what our ways of knowing are telling us. In the Apologia we believe that Revelation is God’s disclosure of himself and his will to us. Revelation is where teleology, purpose, and faith coexist. The impact of Revelation can be reasoned about and observed. It can be experienced. Viktor Frankl, a student of Freud, observed during internment in Auschwitz that he could predict within three days when a man would die. The defining moment was when they gave up believing that their existence had purpose and meaning. Frankl found that “those who have a ‘why’ to live can bear with almost any ‘how.’”16 Transcendent, personal meaning cannot be found in the secular, materialistic, relativistic modern worldview. Yet men cannot live without it. To argue that life is without meaning—which is another way of saying that Revelation does not exist—is to get on the road to secular existentialism and nihilism. And as Frankl saw, in that way lay death.
the epistemological matrix
31
We believe that the rule of epistemological crosschecking, or accumulating knowledge from multiple ways of knowing, is the way to know the most about a given thing, and the means to being most confident in that knowledge. Is a conclusion reasonable? Do we share observations and conclusions about it in common with others? Does it square with our own past experience? Is it conformable with revealed spiritual truth and our own spiritual sense of the divine?
Figure 3: The completed quadrant allows for a holistic approach towards discerning truth.
Sloppy epistemology ignores one or more of the means of knowing by succumbing to intellectual pride or laziness. Epistemological pride can tempt us to become over-confident in the probability of a truth and can lead us to invent knowledge beyond what is supported by our means of knowing. Psychologist David Rosenhan wrote in 1973, “Whenever the ratio of what is known to what needs to be known approaches zero,
32
the apologia toolkit
17
D.L. Rosenhan, “On Being Sane in Insane Places,” Science 179 (1973): 257.
18
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).
we tend to invent ‘knowledge’ and assume that we understand more than we actually do. We seem unable to acknowledge that we simply don’t know.”17 Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman warned of the danger of epistemological laziness—“This is the essence of intuitive heuristics: when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”18 In the pursuit of truth, difficult questions without immediate answers may tempt us to substitute easier questions, or invent knowledge. But at The Dartmouth Apologia we strive to practice a posture of humility and a rigor of patient epistemological investigation to discern what is valuable and what is true. This is an epistemological discipline of rational and spiritual thought, the reunion of faith and reason. As you continue through the rest of this toolkit, keep in mind the four ways of knowing: Reason, Observation, Experience, and Revelation, the epistemological framework essential for thinking, leading, and writing. ~ HJ and GF
Part II
Frameworks for Thought
What is the Mission?
As a group, the members of the Apologia often speak of “integrating faith and reason.” Yet, as we talk with our friends from a variety of backgrounds, it is clear that a lot of people on do not see the value of that endeavor. We commonly hear reactions such as, “You can’t prove God exists, and I don’t really feel like the articles I have read succeed in doing so.” Regardless of whether one can prove that God exists, however, at The Dartmouth Apologia we do not make it our goal to do so, at least not primarily. Instead, one of our main goals is to demonstrate the intellectual viability of Christianity. Put another way, through all we write and do a the Apologia, we seek to answer the the question: “How can belief in Christ and Christianity enhance and illuminate life in the academy rather than hinder it? How can Christianity enrich our academics and the rest of our lives?” So, when successful, an Apologia article provides support for a much simpler claim: Christians think. As Dartmouth students and writers for the Apologia, we do not only look for ways that what we claim to know about God can affect what we are learning in the classroom, but also for ways that what we are learning in the classroom can affect our understanding of who God is. Consider, for example, a class discussing David Hume’s moral philosophy. On the one hand, his account of how reason and emotion work together to make decisions (and especially moral decisions) is in-
what is the mission?
credibly helpful: in short, he argues that reason can help lead to action only insofar as it can either help us determine what the means might be towards an end we already desire or help determine when the object of our desire does not actually exist. So in this way, Hume enhances our understanding of how some of our moral decisions might work. On the other hand, a Christian understanding of humanity as created good by a loving God but broken on account of sin causes us to wonder whether the desires with which we often begin could be flawed or in need of change, and how that change might come, something Hume does not talk much about apart from a discussion of whom he calls the “sensible knave.� We can find a potential answer in a Christian understanding of grace as transformative from within, having the ability to change otherwise poorly directed desires not by showing that their objects do not exist as much as by opening our minds and hearts to even better alternative objects of our desire. Thus, what we learn in the classroom can be informed by our Christian understanding of the world and also have the ability to correct and modify it. To convince our readership at this time of either of these points with respect to an understanding of Hume would require a longer treatment; our goal here in bringing them up is simply to provide a picture of how this process might look. Plenty of other examples of this can be found in the Apologia archives and in the vast larger body of Christian literature regarding, for instance, history, political philosophy, education, and biology. What the best of these share is a desire to avoid compartmentalizing the knowledge we acquire in different disciplines and a desire to demonstrate the relevance of Christianity to the entire life of the mind. Of course, some connections between different areas of study will be stronger than others; but, if the acquisition of truth or genuine knowledge about the world is a potential product of a student’s studies, whether
35
36
the apologia toolkit
the subject be theology, philosophy, math, science, history, or art, then some attempt to integrate or relate this knowledge is required unless it is to become entirely subject-relative, which hardly seems practical. For these reasons we at the Apologia find such a holistic approach within a Christian framework appealing, and aim to demonstrate its appeal from a variety of starting points within the Christian tradition both in our writing and in the discussions it produces. Together, we may not necessarily prove the existence of God, but we hope instead to demonstrate why belief in the Christian God might still be intellectually attractive. ~ HK
What is Success?
The first step in defining measures of success is to develop a clear understanding of what the goal is. For the Apologia, it is to use the medium of the journal to show the intellectual viability of Christianity and reintroduce a Christian perspective into the academic discussion at Dartmouth College. At what point, though, have we shown the intellectual viability of Christianity? And at what point has Christianity become a part of the discussion? We must resist easy metrics of success. If we become fixated on easy—but faulty—metrics, we can unconsciously drift away from our original vision and instead chase after numbers. Therefore, we are not concerned with the size of the Apologia, the frequency with which we publish our journal or update our blog, the size of our readership, or whether we are revolutionizing campus culture. First, we are not concerned with the number of people coming to Apologia meetings each week or with the number of people who write for us. We always wish to have as many people as possible involved in the Apologia, but that is not our primary goal; organizational growth is a secondary goal behind that of creating an academic culture that respects the views of Christianity. Growth can be, and generally is, an important means toward that end, but it is not the end itself. So, we should not fret over size. One might object that in order to change the academic dialogue, we need
38
the apologia toolkit
to have a lot of voices “on our side.” The work of the Apologia, however, has never been about “us” versus “them” but about engaging in friendly dialogue, and counting numbers fosters an attitude of competition rather than of collaboration in a search for truth. One might also object that numbers are important because we are not only interested in altering campus dialogue but also in helping as many Christians as possible to think well. While this is true, it can be helpful to remember that training mature Christian thinkers is not purely about numbers either, for broad reach is not synonymous with effective communication of ideas. Second, we should not make it our goal to publish the journal twice annually or the blog daily, twice weekly, or weekly. In the early years of the Apologia the very act of publishing was a mark of success, since forming a journal, establishing its presence on Dartmouth’s campus, and creating a sustainable model for future publishing was the first necessary step in the more important long-term vision of changing the nature of academic discussion. At this point in the history of the Apologia, however, the organization is established and the fall-spring printing cycle is taken as a given (though it is never easy to pull off). Similarly, the blog has been established long enough to publish at a reasonable frequency. Although it is a noble goal to seek to improve the frequency and consistency with which we publish the journal or update the blog, obsessing over that goal may cause us to lose focus on the maturation of our thought, the preservation of the Christian academic tradition, or the quality of our engagement with campus. We do not want to confuse the mere act of writing with writing something worth reading or with changing campus dialogue. And, the time may come when the Apologia may need to put its blog on the shelf in order to focus on more important matters. Third, we must remember that our goal is not about
what is success?
readership. Given the nature of our on-campus distribution, it is extremely difficult to gauge how large, consistent, or diverse our readership is. We do not have a good means of tracking who picks up our journals from the library or student center, let alone how many of those people read our articles. Even if we did have perfect knowledge of our readership, increasing its size is not a good metric of success. All else equal, more readers is better, but we would rather have a small readership made up of cultural influencers who think critically about what we say and engage with our writing than have a large readership that does not bring our ideas into the campus dialogue. These influencers are the cultural elite. They are the small set of people who hold a disproportionately large amount of sway over campus climate: opinion writers for the newspaper, editors of other magazines, professors, administrators, or anyone who has influence in a large social network of people. Rather than seek to overthrow this cultural elite and establish ourselves in their former positions, which would be an uphill battle against long-entrenched institutions, we should target them as our conversation partners. If these influencers respect Christianity and engage with our perspective, then we have made an important step towards realizing our goal.19 Finally, we should not confuse joining campus dialogue with radically changing campus culture. We should not expect to some day live in a culture where all people find the Christian worldview compelling, let alone decide to adopt it for themselves. We should not expect to see mass conversions or expect to see Dartmouth return to its original Christian vision. Although it would be wonderful for any or all of these to happen, we have no right to expect that they will. Rather, we must heed the scriptural warning that Christianity is unpopular, uncomfortable, and unreasonable to the non-Christian. As Paul writes to the Corinthian
19
39
Note: for further discussion of Christianity engaging with culture, see James Davison Hunter’s To Change the World: the Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (2010).
40
the apologia toolkit
20
I Corinthians 1:23; John 15:19.
church, “we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,” and as Jesus cautions his disciples, “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”20 If we preach a “Christianity” that is nothing more than means of self-realization or emotional comfort, we may find a receptive audience, but if we are faithful to the gospel, presenting the sobering reality of sin and the beautiful message of salvation, we will find that the world as a whole will not understand us and will detest what we say. People do not like a Christianity that tells them of their faults. This, of course, does not give us license to act or write with an abrasive personality but merely cautions us that we should have no expectation of a warm reception. Though the Holy Spirit may do a great work on campus, that is not something we can ever ensure will happen. We should not expect to be loved. The most we can ask for is to be respected. Unfortunately, the best metric of success we have found comes through the not-so-scientific measure of anecdotes. As we write, publish, and distribute, we every so often hear stories of the effect that our writing has on Dartmouth’s campus. A few examples might serve to illustrate the types of anecdotes I have in mind.
The fraternity brother Our 2011-2012 Editor-in-Chief, Brendan Woods, was one of the few Apologia members then actively involved in the Dartmouth Greek system. His house did not have many Christians in it, and although some of his fraternity brothers knew he was involved in leadership of the Apologia, he had never been particularly vocal about his work. One morning, however, a fraternity brother approached him holding a copy of the
what is success?
Apologia and said, “I just happened to be reading this and found your article very interesting.” It is encouraging to know that we have a readership favorable to our opinions within the Greek system. It is a sign that we are gaining a reputation for scholarship for many people across campus, building a good name for the Christian faith.
The (almost) joint project In 2014, we tried to create a joint publication between the Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, the Aporia (then-defunct journal of philosophy), and the Apologia. We wanted to unite what many people today view as the three separate and competing approaches to knowledge: observation/experimentation, abstract deduction, and faith-based reasoning (or lack thereof). Although the project never came to fruition because of administrative hurdles with the College, we counted it a success that the science journal was happy to work with us and the philosophy club was willing to resurrect the Aporia for the sake of this project. They saw us as equal and important members in the campus discussion of knowledge and truth.
The professor’s email I once was doing research for an article on a Christian view of history and emailed a few non-Christian history professors, asking for their opinion on what the grand narrative of history is. I had been a little timid in my request and did not mention that I was with the Apologia. One professor responded with a suggestion that I read a book she had published, but she added at the close of her email, “You don’t say what ‘Dartmouth journal’ you write for. Is it Apologia? Interesting journal, you should feel alright about telling that to people you ask for quotes. Good luck with this.” I never did read her book, but I was thrilled to hear that
41
42
the apologia toolkit
she thought we were an “Interesting journal.� We had won the respect of at least one professor, a sign that we are making progress toward our goal of establishing Christianity in the intellectual culture of the College. ~ NS
What is an Apologia?
We at the Apologia are Christians unified in our desire to give a reasoned apologetic for our faith, ever since the journal’s founding in the fall of 2006. “Apologetic” is a word that unfortunately has passed from common use. The noun, “apologetic,” or “apology,” can sometimes carry the sense of admitting a mistake and asking forgiveness, but in another context it simply means a reasoned defense. The word derives from the Greek apologia, which came out of the Greek legal system. After the prosecution had made its charges and reasoned its case, the counsel for the defense would stand to give a formal speech known as the apologia, replying to and rebutting the charges raised against the defendant. In the same way, a Christian apologetic seeks to give a clear, logical defense to charges raised against the faith. These charges may come from atheists, agnostics, adherents of other religions, or even heretical strains rising within and against orthodox Christianity. As individuals or groups try to point out logical fallacies or other faults in the Christian worldview, the apologist responds with careful reasoning, for, Christianity is a logical, coherent system and can and ought to be defended as such. Christian apologists try to show that Christianity is the only internally consistent religion that accurately describes the surrounding world and that Christianity can withstand any attacks made against it. The defense counsel’s apologia, however, was not
44
the apologia toolkit
21
Jess Tong, “The Art of Reconciliation: Grappling with the Tragedy and Gravity of Suicide,” The Dartmouth Apologia 8.2 (2014): 37.
22
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/ ccel/calvin/institutes. iii.viii.html, 71.
merely reactive. Although a strong apologia responded as well as possible to the charges brought by the prosecution, the strongest speeches would also give a positive case for the innocence of the defendant. Likewise, a good Christian apologetic both rebuts charges and offers a proactive case for the faith. For example, it can be a powerful argument for Christianity to show that a Christian understanding of beauty (or human rights, individual freedom, work, etc.) is more comprehensive, accurate, and desirable than any other alternative. For example, one of our writers, Jess Tong D’17, wrote a beautiful piece entitled “The Art of Reconciliation: Grappling with the Tragedy and Gravity of Suicide,” which sought to explain how a Christian view of suicide allows us to both cherish individual freedom and mourn the loss of life in a way that a common secular view struggles to imitate.21 This did not respond to any particular attack on Christianity but instead tried to build a positive case for Christianity.
In making this apologia, the Christian apologist has three goals. First, he hopes to stop or slow the pace of attacks made against Christianity. In the famous words of John Calvin, the apologist wants to “stop [the] obstreperous mouths” of those who despise God and make arguments against him.22 As apologists throughout the years and across the world write, lecture, and debate, their hope is that their words will convince those attacking Christianity that their own arguments are unsuitable. Although adamant critics such as Bertrand Russell or Christopher Hitchens will rarely admit defeat publicly, Christians hope that they will recognize the insufficiency of their arguments and therefore be less frequent, vocal, or confident in their attacks. The apologist will not necessarily convince these people of the truth of Christianity, but he will at least make it more difficult for them to find objections they are comfortable raising against the faith.
what is an apologia?
Second, the Christian apologist hopes to break down barriers to faith and drive people to Christ through his work. On the one hand, it is not in man’s power to convert the souls of unbelievers; that is the work of the Holy Spirit, without which the best of arguments will fall on deaf ears and hardened hearts. The apologist prays, however, that the Spirit would use his words as a means of evangelism. A good apologetic is both reactive and proactive. It both responds to arguments against Christianity and provides arguments for it. The Holy Spirit can use apologetics to show people the consistency of Christianity, convince them of the truth of it, drive them to pursue a deeper understanding, and lead them to salvation. Through this, the apologist hopes to fulfill the Great Commission to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”23 Finally, the Christian apologist seeks to strengthen the faith of those who are already believers. Those who are new to the faith or immature in their faith—and even those who are more mature—can see the arguments raised against Christianity and begin to doubt what they believe. Many people can speak convincingly and raise clever arguments that might begin to shake the belief of some Christians. As Christians begin to lose confidence in what they believe, the role of the apologist is especially important. The apologist shows Christians that they do not need to fear tremors in their faith, for Christianity does have answers to objections raised against it. Christianity is coherent. It does properly describe the world. It is worth believing. Christians can know that their faith is not foolish or futile.
Christian apologetics is by no means an obscure or unnecessary world of scholarship, but it defends
23
Matthew 28:19-20.
45
46
the apologia toolkit
the truth of the gospel to both non-Christians and Christians. Apologetic writing can vary from the dense and scholarly to the easily accessible. Each style targets a different intellectual demographic, but each carries the same goal: apologists believe that despite what anyone might say, Christianity is rational, consistent, and the only worldview worth believing, and they hope to make that truth abundantly clear to as many people as possible. ~ NS
Framing the Conversation
In the 2009 Logos Lecture at Dartmouth College, Professor Lindsay Whaley compared the relationship of reason and faith to a marriage on the rocks. If we are to reconcile the alleged differences between reason and faith, we must consider the interests of the two parties. What must we do to be reasonable? What must we do to be faithful? While the compatibility of reason and faith has been evidenced in our experience, we want to consider to what propositions we must be dedicated if we are to realize an integrated intellectual life. To this end, we propose the following two principles that we hope will guide the dialogue between faith and reason.
Follow reason In The Republic, the manifesto penned for him by Plato, Socrates is asked whether he will consider a certain idea. He replies, “Perhaps I will sail further into these matters. I do not know. I will let the wind set my course. I will follow reason wherever it leads.”24 This attitude of intellectual tenacity, this willingness to “follow reason,” shapes his whole life. Socrates has an uncanny ability to navigate the philosophical problems posed to him by his questioners and to demonstrate the foolishness of his opponents. He does this by asking some good questions, by refuting some bad answers, and by freely admitting what he does not know. Nothing is spared his scrutiny: from the founda-
24
Plato, Platonis Opera, ed. John Burnet (Oxford University Press, 1903), 394d. Translation from the Greek by CC.
48
the apologia toolkit
tional dogmas of contemporary politics to the accepted wisdom of the Sophists, to the aesthetic aspirations of the poets. His is the quintessential life of reasoned reflection.
Follow Jesus
27
25
John 1:43.
26
John 14:6.
Philippians 2:6-7.
In the Gospels, Jesus calls his disciples out of their ordinary lives. His command is simple: “The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, ‘Follow me.’”25 This call to follow Christ is the call to faith, dedication to his purpose, submission to his authority, and trust in his kindness and love. For Philip, faith was not wishful thinking, nor was it a desperate clinging to an unintelligibly abstract idea of God. It was trust in something undeniably real and unavoidably important: a human being who claimed to be God in the flesh, who described himself as “the way, and the truth, and the life,” and who simultaneously displayed unmatched humility and gentleness.26 Teaching wisdom, he offers answers to many of life’s questions, yet his own paradoxical, ostensibly miraculous person poses the greatest question of all: “Will you follow me?” As we enter this conversation, let us emulate Socrates. Let us question. Let us challenge our assumptions and those with which we are presented. Let us follow reason wherever it leads, in confidence that it leads us to the truth. At the same time, let us consider Christ’s example of one “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant.”27 Let us approach our discussion humbly with an attitude of service. For those of us already following Jesus, let us love God with our minds (Matthew 22:37) so that we may better understand the gospel and be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason
framing the conversation
for the hope that is in you.�28 Let us help those who seek the truth but have not yet found Christ to follow reason wherever it leads, urging them to carefully consider the questions posed by both life as we live it and the person of Jesus Christ, as well as the answers that Christianity offers to each. Thus, we enter an intersection of discourses, a place of dialogue between reason and faith. ~ CC
28
I Peter 3:15.
49
Thick Doctrine, Deep Practice
29
“Thick Doctrine, Deep Practice,” Fare Forward, farefwd.com/about.
In 2012, a collection of alumni from the Apologia and other Christian undergraduate journals founded the national journal, Fare Forward. This ecumenical Christian journal is a quarterly review of ideas and cultural commentary, which aims to “connect emerging Christian thought leaders and spiritual seekers to each other over rigorous reflection on faith, reason, and vocation.” The common vision of the writers and editors of Fare Forward is to pursue “Thick Doctrine, Deep Practice.” In brief, “Thick doctrine points to the rich, historical depths of Christian belief, while deep practice refers to the embodied practices and visible habits that make up the Christian life.” We at the Apologia have found this statement to be a concise and compelling summary of the way in which Christians ought to approach intellectual life and daily practice in an increasingly secular American society—one that has tried to sideline Christianity as historically irrelevant and intellectually weak and to sideline the church as a relic of a past culture, good for nothing more than whitewashed community and weak emotional support. We quote at length from Fare Forward:29
What is “thick” doctrine? 1. Our journey to a faith based on “thick” doctrine began with the desire for an intellectually rigorous
thick doctrine, deep practice
Christianity. Growing up in the 1990s and 2000s, the prevailing image of Christianity was anti-intellectual and fideistic. Our non-Christian friends were often surprised to learn that Christians think. Church teaching was limited to “how to get to heaven” and “how to be a good person.” In our teens, we were fortunate to discover writers like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton who integrated faith and reason in a way that was foreign to our Christian experience. 2. In our pursuit of an intellectually rigorous Christianity, we discovered a wealth of resources in historical and ecumenical sources. The intellectual fragility of contemporary Christianity was tied to its ahistoricism and its ignorance and suspicion of other traditions. By recovering thinkers like Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, as well as many smaller names in between, we could construct a far more robust tradition than that which we had inherited. 3. Having set out to become intellectually rigorous Christians through engagement with historical and ecumenical sources, we found that Christianity provided a comprehensive perspective, a foundation for all of life and thought. Christian doctrine was not limited to morality or evangelism or social justice; it provided an intellectual framework for addressing any issue. Therefore, “thick” doctrine is about reweaving the diverse strands of Christian tradition that have become unraveled from one another into an integrated life of the mind.
What is “deep” practice? 1. Our journey to a faith based on “deep” practices began with a desire for a truly transformative Christianity. In America, Christianity has been accom-
51
52
the apologia toolkit
modated to a mainstream lifestyle, where, if its demands are acknowledged at all, they are easily spiritualized and compartmentalized. We believe that following Christ should be a distinctive and disruptive way of life. 2. Two ways in which we aspire to live transformed lives are by living intentionally and incarnationally. Intentional living involves cultivating relationships and community while rejecting ironic detachment. Incarnational living is characterized by awareness of and availability to others, especially the poor and marginal, in living out the way of Jesus. 3. In seeking a transformative Christianity characterized by intentional and incarnational living, we have developed a strong interest in liturgy. Christian tradition attests to the fact that practices have the power to shape us. We are committed to exploring the role of liturgical practices in both the church and the world. Therefore, “deep� practice is about the reintegration of head, heart, and hands with a special attention to vocation and public Christianity. ~ NS and the Fare Forward editors
The Bell Curve
One helpful tool that we at the Apologia use to describe our target audience is the classic “Bell Curve Model,� as illustrated in Figure 4. In this model, the x-axis goes from little interest in Christianity or spirituality at the left to high interest at the right, and the y-axis goes from few students at the bottom to many students at the top. On these axes sits the graph of a standard normal bell curve, which is a shape characteristic of many naturally-occurring distributions, such as heights of people or number of pretzels in a bag. In this case, the graph shows the relative portion of individuals at various levels of receptiveness to discussion about Christianity and exists to remind us that most people have a moderate level. Relatively few are either extremely committed nonbelievers or extremely committed believers. We write our articles not for either of the extreme audiences but for the middle of the bell curve. These people comprise the target audience of collegiate apologetics journals like the Apologia, for they are most likely to engage with us in productive conversation. It would not make sense for journals like the Apologia to write for the extreme audiences. Not only are these audiences small in number, but they also are tangential to our goal of reintroducing Christianity to the public discourse. For example, the militant atheists who have made up their minds that belief in God is ridiculous likely will be unreceptive to anything
Figure 4: The Bell Curve Model of engagement.
54
30
the apologia toolkit
Andrew Schuman, “Letter from the Editor,” The Dartmouth Apologia 1.1 (2007): 1.
we publish, no matter how rationally-written it is. Their current antagonism is detrimental to our mission, for that attitude of antagonism will stir up strife and polemical discourse rather than foster respectful dialogue between individuals with differing views. On the other hand, although extremely devout Christians will be receptive to what we write, they are still not our target audience. As an apologetics journal, we strive to defend Christianity, and it is not as if we have to defend Christianity from Christians themselves. We strive to articulate a Christian perspective in the secular academic community, and directing our writing towards a Christian audience sets up a barrier for non-Christian readers, thus furthering the Christiansecular divide. This is not to say that Christians should not read journals like the Apologia! In reality, Christians comprise a fair portion of the Apologia’s readership, as our articles are useful as a tool for Christians to learn how to defend the faith in their everyday lives against those who oppose it and to better understand the rationality of the faith they profess. We write our articles instead for the middle of the bell curve: for those who are neither firm atheists nor firm believers. These are the people who are open to and interested in exploring different faith systems. Though they may not agree with us, they are willing to hear our perspective and consider its viability. In the words of our first Editor-in-Chief, the Apologia does “not exist to proselytize, but to discuss,” and we seek a counterpart for our discussion.30 It is the duty of journals like the Apologia to offer an academically rigorous presentation of Christianity to aid these people in their spiritual exploration in a way that might bring them closer to the Truth. As such, we target the people most willing to join us in friendly discussion.
You may ask whether this audience really exists or is as large as the middle of the bell curve suggests. A
the bell curve
recent survey conducted by the Apologia supports our case. The survey found that 88% of Dartmouth College students consider themselves to be on a “spiritual quest,� 50% feel disillusioned with their religious upbringing, and 45% increased the extent to which they discuss spirituality with their friends once they came to college. Thus, we have confidence in our hope to foster discussion and enter the academic dialogue. ~ ML
55
Faith and Reason St. John Paul II “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”31 31
St. John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, Encyclical letter on the relationship between faith and reason, Vatican Website vatican.va/holy_ father/john_paul_ii/ encyclicals/documents/ hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_ fides-et-ratio_en.html.
32
Christopher Hitchens, “Holier than Thou,” Season 3, Episode 5 of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, 23 May 2005.
Figure 5: Faith and Reason on a single axis.
Prominent atheist philosopher, Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, once said, “Faith is the surrender of the mind. It’s the surrender of reason. It’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals.”32 Unfortunately, Hitchens’ misconception is widespread in modern society. How many times have we heard people make comments (even non-maliciously) that imply that Christians are simple-minded? Or how many times have some nonChristians expressed surprise when they discover that Christians have intellectual reasons for what they believe? These misconceptions are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between faith and reason—a misunderstanding that journals like the Apologia are, at their core, intended to address. Members of the Apologia have found it helpful to explain the journal’s philosophy on the relationship between faith and reason using two visual representations, which we will examine here. The first representation, shown in Figure 5, is a one-dimensional graph with faith at one end and reason at the other. This graph represents the common misconception regarding the relationship between faith and reason,
faith and reason
such as the one espoused by Hitchens and secular society at large. In this model, faith and reason are opposed. If you travel in the direction of faith, you must relinquish your reason. If you go in the direction of reason, you must forfeit your faith. By this model, faith and reason are incompatible, rendering the person of faith as necessarily unintellectual. It should not take much to convince our Christian readership that the aforementioned model is faulty. As apologists, we have assumed a degree of rationality about Christianity, or else there would be no use to our laboring to craft well-reasoned arguments in defense of what we believe. And as we at the Apologia so often remind ourselves, many individuals throughout history serve as counterexamples to this model. For example, it is impossible to argue that St. Thomas Aquinas, the great thirteenth-century Christian theologian and philosopher, was an individual of only either high faith or high reason. One look at the Summa Theologica shows clearly that he possessed a large amount of both reason and faith. So what is our counterproposal for the model of the relationship between faith and reason? As shown in Figure 6, we use a two-dimensional graph with faith on one axis and reason on the other. The horizontal axis goes from low reason on the left to high reason on the right. The vertical axis goes from low faith at the bottom to high faith at the top. This model gives a more complete picture of the possible combinations of faith and reason. Those in the upper left hand region of the graph are people of high faith and low reason. Those who view faith and reason as incompatible see this region of the graph as the only option for people of faith. Those in the lower left hand region of the graph, close to the origin, are individuals of low faith and low reason. Those in the lower right hand region are people of low faith and high reason, such as materialists or many intellectual atheists.
57
Figure 6: Faith and Reason on a two-dimensional plane.
58
the apologia toolkit
The upper right hand portion of the graph is where the Apologia aims to be. We endeavor to have high faith and high reason, recognizing that there is always room for more personal growth in both areas, and we want our journal to reflect that. We strive not only to defend directly the doctrines of Christianity, but also to show that faith and reason are compatible. This is a particularly important task in the collegiate setting, where a stumbling block for many of those seeking God is the false belief that Christianity has to be unintellectual. As we know, however, Christianity can be treated very intellectually, and it is our job to illuminate that fact. ~ ML
Faith, Reason, Vocation
At the Apologia, we seek to be “Integrating Faith and Reason,” but this falls under the broader framework of, “Faith, Reason, Vocation,” which forms one of the core tenants guiding the philosophy and actions of the Apologia. As humans, they are the three parts of our lives that define much of who we are and what we do. Many people tend to see them as three separate spheres: Faith and Reason as inherently contradictory, and Vocation in its own place that cannot, or should not, interact with Faith. We are told to leave our faith at the door when entering moral debates or politics. These three spheres struggle, therefore, for our time and attention, each vying for superiority over the others as the main focus of our lives. We struggle with the question of how to balance these different aspects of our lives, but the real question should be whether we have to see them as at odds with one another or whether they should be viewed as interconnected and mutually reinforcing parts of our lives. At the Apologia, we see Faith, Reason, and Vocation as fully integrated. First, Faith and Reason are not, as they are often believed to be, mutually exclusive concepts. From the start, the Apologia has set out to demonstrate that Faith and Reason are not inherently opposite but integrally connected. As Christians, we can and, in fact, must think rationally about our beliefs. Understanding what Christianity teaches and how that affects the way we live informs the decisions we make and prepares us to
60
the apologia toolkit
practice our faith more fully. This grasp of Christianity further helps us to stand more firmly on our faith, because we are much more confident in the truth of the gospel. Not only are we called to be able to defend Christianity to ourselves, but also to those around us. We are meant to be able to engage the world in conversation about Christ and share with them the good news of the gospel. The Apostle John writes of his gospel account, Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.33 33
John 20:30-31.
In the same way, we write that others may believe. The teachings of Christianity are neither implausible nor indefensible, and we can therefore be people of faith who also reason. Yet, this merely shows that reason is an important part of faith; it is important to note that the reverse is equally true. Reason requires some degree of faith, whether we recognize it or not. One common example of our reliance on faith is the everyday action of sitting in a chair. Reason can tell me that a chair will likely hold under my weight: it looks like a perfectly good chair, others have sat in it before, and I, myself, sat in that very chair only this morning. Yet, there is still no reason to think that the chair necessarily will not collapse under my weight this time. I cannot know for sure until I sit down what will happen. I have to have some small amount of faith before sitting down. Reason, apart from faith, cannot lead me to any action. We cannot ever dismiss all faith claims, for reason and faith must continue to go hand in hand. Finally, Vocation is a crucial part of the whole picture as well. We are not meant to live our faith lives in private and our work lives in public, leaving our faith at home when we enter the office building. Christianity cannot be done halfway. Christ does not ask for the part of our life that is not taken up by school or
faith, reason, vocation
by work; he asks for all of it. Our faith should infuse everything we do and inform our decisions and understanding of the world. For it to do so, we must think carefully about Christianity and fully understand what it is teaching and what those teachings mean for our daily lives. We are meant to do meaningful work and to give back to the world. When we let faith guide our lives and our choices we can follow this path more easily, finding these meaningful roles and fulfilling them. In doing this work we lead more satisfying and joyful lives. Psychology has shown that we need purpose in our work to be happy—we need to be challenged and to have purpose in order to have a satisfying life. In tying together Faith and Reason, we find a richer walk with Christ, and in connecting our faith lives to our work we transform it from a job to a Vocation, a meaningful calling that infuses our lives with purpose and joy. ~ SH
61
First Things, Second Things
We all strive to have a coherent worldview that accounts for what we experience in reality. The implication of this desire for us as Christians is that many of our beliefs are interconnected, deriving from and informing one another. For instance, many Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and, therefore, everything that the Bible says must be true. Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, thereby relegating humanity to an inherent state of sinfulness. Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation and, therefore, we ought to evangelize and spread his message to the corners of the earth. At the same time, as a result of our inherent inability to reach the lofty goal of an accurate, coherent worldview, many of our beliefs are not interconnected. They exist in a place within our minds consisting of a curious blend of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. In most of our day-to-day experience we ignore these contradictions. We know that Christ commands us to serve the poor, and yet we often ignore the plights of those in developing nations. We believe in the intrinsic value of man, but that belief dissipates when evaluating our peers. When these contradictions are brought to light, however, the question immediately becomes how to reconcile the differences. At the Apologia, one solution we have found is to try to “put First Things first and Second Things second.� We place a large emphasis on this concept of First
first things, second things
and Second Things because it gives us a framework by which we can examine the coherence of Christian thought. But more importantly, the concept of First Things and Second Things helps us prioritize our thinking in a way that resolves many of our contradictions. First Things and Second Things, as suggested by its self-evidential title, is merely the plea to examine the axiomatic assumptions behind every belief and to examine those foundational views along with their implications, rather than to deal with their implications in a vacuum. In doing so, it elevates discourse to a level that deals with substantive rather than superficial claims. This method of thought works because of the way that beliefs are structured within human thought. As mentioned earlier, in a coherent worldview, beliefs about reality rarely exist in isolation. Nevertheless, while all beliefs are interrelated, they are not necessarily on the same “level.” The concept of First Things and Second Things states that behind most beliefs are fundamental axioms or claims about reality. These presuppositions are known as First Things, and beliefs derived from these presuppositions are referred to as Second Things. Second Things are necessarily tied to First Things, since in order for Second Things to hold true, their corresponding First Things must be true as well. This clear demarcation between First and Second Things is extremely important for anyone hoping to engage in religious discourse.
In many ways, it lifts a huge weight off our shoulders because it forces us to focus on a small set of First Things, instead of engaging in an abundance of Second Things. Indeed, C.S. Lewis explains that by “[putting] first things first. . . we get second things thrown in,” but warns that if we “put second things first. . . we lose both first and second things.”34 Thus, merely acknowledging that there are First Things and Second Things
34
C.S. Lewis to Dom Bede Griffiths, 23 April 1951.
63
64
the apologia toolkit
are not enough. Properly identifying what beliefs are first and second is essential. C.S. Lewis, using examples of pets and alcohol, explains that the failure to recognize what things are first and second leads one to lose out on both: The woman who makes a dog the centre of her life loses, in the end, not only her human usefulness and dignity but even the proper pleasure of dog-keeping. The man who makes alcohol his chief good loses not only his job but his palate and all power of enjoying the earlier (and only pleasurable) levels of intoxication.35 35
C.S. Lewis, “First and Second Things,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Eerdmans, 1994), 280.
In practice, this means that when examining the validity of various tenants of the Christian faith, we must first investigate the underlying assumption or assumptions behind the claim. A classic example confronting Christians is the rationality of miracles. A common mistake made by supporters and opponents of miracles is to isolate miraculous claims from the question of God’s existence and the backdrop of scriptural context. Many skeptics who assume God’s nonexistence would argue that miracles are irrational by definition. Many Christians claim to believe in miracles “by faith.” A helpful approach to resolving opposing views is to recognize that the rationality of miracles is determined by God’s existence. If God exists, then miracles are rational. If God does not exist, miracles are irrational. To elevate miracles to a First Thing when it in fact is a Second Thing detracts from a substantial debate about the nature of God and turns it into a superficial debate that causes both sides to argue past each other. The greatest value of First Things and Second Things, however, is its ecumenical qualities. Even within the primary branches of Christianity, there are dozens of denominations. Each denomination has different approaches to doctrine, liturgy, and Christian living. Thus, a question that all Christians must consider is how to be unified in the face of such differences. As members of the Apologia, we believe that unity requires knowledge of First Things. That is,
first things, second things
to be a Christian, one has to affirm the truths articulated in the Nicene Creed, the divine inspiration of Scripture, and the necessity of Christ for salvation. All other beliefs, from predestination to evolution, are merely Second Things. While these Second Things are important, they must not take the place of First Things. To do so risks falling into the trap foreseen by Lewis. Like the man who loses his livelihood because of his alcoholism, so a Christian could lose the strength of his faith if Second Things are placed above First Things. Instead, by placing First Things first, and Second Things second, we can approach issues with clarity and conviction, without sacrificing the potential for enlightenment. ~ JT
65
Dishonesty, Honesty, and Generosity
Contemporary society teaches that honesty does not pay. This mindset is a natural consequence of the culture of competition that exists in today’s universities and today’s work environments. When a high premium is placed on knowing how to “work the system” and manipulate the outcome of situations for one’s personal benefit, the value of truth becomes proportional to its utility in a given set of circumstances— and in the majority of circumstances, the whole truth is an inconvenience. Thus a rigid dichotomy is created between honesty and dishonesty, in which the former is seen as a morally positive endeavor with negative practical consequences, and vice versa for the latter. Of course, in an ideal world, pursuing the morally good action would reap the best results, both for an individual and those around him—but it appears that, with regard to this particular moral quality, society has codified as a social law that this ideal scenario is impossible. Yet, the dichotomy between honesty and dishonesty is not necessarily an accurate representation of the options that are available for an individual to pursue. In particular, contrary to what the presence of the prefix “dis-” may imply, honesty is not the true opposite of dishonesty. That honor goes instead to generosity,
dishonesty, honesty, and generosity
which is a more suitable counterpoint to dishonesty in terms of character and identity. This does not mean that honesty is not related to dishonesty, but rather, it is the middle ground between dishonesty and generosity. It is helpful to think of these three qualities as describing different points along a spectrum, with honesty lying in the middle, fixed squarely between dishonesty and generosity. But, what is the greater quantity that this spectrum describes?
To answer this question, it is necessary to slightly reframe how one conceives the action of dishonesty. Dishonesty, at its core, is an act of withholding. It is not only the mechanism through which people conceal the truth but also a mechanism that is used to store up benefits and treasures for the individual who wields it. It is an utterly self-focused endeavor. Honesty is somewhat of a remedy to this, but it does not go far enough. Being truthful is merely a start to rectifying the internal posture fostered by a lifestyle of dishonesty. After all, it is entirely possible for one to speak the truth for the sole purpose of accruing benefits for oneself, which only encourages the same internal posture that is nurtured by dishonesty. To truly change one’s posture—to become other-focused instead of self-focused—requires adopting a spirit of generosity, which by its very definition does not withhold. Instead, it pours out that which it knows will benefit others, even at the expense of itself. But, it also gains rewards that are wholly inaccessible to a spirit of dishonesty because they are counterintuitive to the entire worldview that such a spirit nurtures within the human soul. That is the irony of the false dichotomy, because it obscures the reality that living the opposite of a dishonest life (which is not simply an honest life, but a generous one) does, in fact, pay quite a lot. Moreover, it pays in all the ways that society as a whole cannot comprehend because society has yet to uncover the
67
68
the apologia toolkit
biggest secret of all: one has to lose oneself to find oneself. By giving instead of withholding, people start to realize that true identity and security are not found in possessions, status, or achievement, which in turn begins a process of liberation that gives people the capacity to pour into others and thereby experience real joy, friendship, and satisfaction. People become the most human when they give instead of withhold, and a culture of giving produces a community that is able to give more to the world (and themselves) than they ever dreamed was possible. It can be intimidating to undertake an endeavor like publishing a journal of Christian thought on a secular campus. Intimidation leads to reticence. Reticence leads to withholding. Withholding leads to a community spirit that is closed to any possibility of fulfilling its mission of engaging a campus in a crucial dialogue. So, respond to intimidation with generosity, and watch as a spirit of joy and power blossoms into being, ready to handle any challenges that come its way. ~ JC
Fireflies and Beams of Light
George MacDonald, a nineteenth-century Scottish author and Christian minister who influenced G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien (if you have read The Great Divorce, you will recall that in this meditative novel, Lewis makes MacDonald his moral and spiritual teacher), once wrote, “Let a fairytale of mine go for a firefly that now flashes, now is dark, but may flash again. Caught in a hand which does not love its kind, it will turn to an insignificant ugly thing, that can neither flash nor fly.”36 This profound passage can teach us much about epistemology and how we ought to understand knowledge, particularly knowledge about metaphysical truths. Imagine for a moment a child frolicking in the backyard field on a starry night, playing and exulting and laughing and moving, when suddenly he notices a little flash. The child stops, poised on one toe like an ice skater, and stares at the now darkened spot where the flash had occurred. And then there’s another flash! The child sets out after it, but, alas, arrives too late, for the glimpse of light has ended. There’s the flash again! The child leaps and arrives just in time to wrap his pudgy palms around the little firefly before its lamp goes out once more. Slow and cautious, wide-eyed with curiosity, the child lifts up a thumb and peaks inside at the little insect. One glimpse is all he needs before he’s off, running over to the porch with his
36
George MacDonald, “The Fantastic Imagination,” A Dish of Orts: Chiefly Papers on the Imagination, and on Shakespeare (1893).
70
the apologia toolkit
hands clutched together, the firefly held gently inside. The little boy thrusts himself in front of his mother, interrupting his parents’ conversation, and cries out excitedly, “Look what I found!” And then with much ceremony, warning his mother with that amusing seriousness particular to children that he must be careful not to let it escape, he unveils his fingers and reveals the little firefly, eyes blazing with awe and wonder. The mother smiles sweetly and pats his head, feigning excitement at her son’s discovery—her smile is genuine though, for she is amused by his innocent antics. The little boy, glowing with pride, with a sudden whoop opens wide his hands, letting the little firefly zip away, and then goes back to his play, twirling and laughing. How do we approach learning or knowledge? The Greek word, philosophia, from which we get philosophy, describes true learning as “love of wisdom.” What does it mean to love wisdom? The little story above, inspired by MacDonald’s writing, captures what love of wisdom really is, revealing the essential character of a true student: wonder, love, and humility. The child approaches the firefly with an earnest awe and desires to grasp it, to hold it, to clench it in his hands. Enveloping the firefly in his hands, the child does not clutch it as one clutches a prisoner, dragging him by the scruff of his neck, but rather clutches it as one clutches something precious, something special, something loved. Then, the child comes to his mother. But, what desire impels the child to show the firefly to his mother? One might at first suggest that it is a sort of pride, for the child hopes to please his mother by showing what he found, but indeed, I think this critic would be mistaken. For it seems to me rather that the child goes to his mother not out of a selfish desire for praise and acclaim but rather out of an earnest desire to share what he has discovered, to hold the firefly, the amazing creature he finds wondrous and beautiful, before his mother’s eyes and say, “Look! Look at this marvelous
fireflies and beams of light
71
thing!” And then the child lets the firefly go, which is not to say that we should let what we have learned simply flit through one ear and out the other but rather to say that we must not become too possessive about knowledge: for if we greedily hold too tight, clamping our hands around the tiny firefly, not only will we no longer be able to look at it but also we will be in danger of crushing it. But does that matter? What would be left would still be a firefly. . . right? Would it be, even though it could, in the words of MacDonald, “neither flash nor fly”? In his essay, “Meditation in a Toolshed,” C.S. Lewis accuses the modern world of making an erroneous epistemological assumption that often produces a sort of “rotten” knowledge, just as the “unloving hands” leave only the squashed firefly. This false assumption is that “looking at” is always superior to “looking along.” To explain what he means, Lewis uses the image of a beam of light splaying through the crack in the door of a toolshed: I was standing today in the dark toolshed. The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place. Everything else was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it. Then I moved, so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.37 Lewis then poses the question: which experience, “looking at” or “looking along,” is the truer description of what is really there, what is really going on? The modern epistemological assumption is that “looking at” is clearly better and truer, for only it can give the “objective” and “unbiased” account of things. Indeed, Lewis notes that the whole popular world seems to be taken in by this assumption:
37
C.S. Lewis, “Meditation.”
72
the apologia toolkit
It has been assumed without discussion that if you want the true account of religion you must go, not to religious people, but to anthropologists; that if you want the true account of sexual love you must go, not to lovers, but to psychologists; that if you want to understand some “ideology” (such as medieval chivalry or the nineteenth-century idea of a “gentleman”), you must listen not to those who lived inside it, but to sociologists.38 38
Lewis, “Meditation.”
Lewis challenges this assumption by pointing out the “rottenness” of the reasoning which justifies it: if indeed “looking at” is superior to “looking along” in every case, then the analysis of the psychologists— who concluded that love is merely gray matter moving around in the brain—could itself be subject to analysis from an “objective” perspective, a “looking at” perspective. Likewise, the conclusions of anthropologists about religion and sociologists about chivalry could themselves be subject to a “looking at,” an external and deconstructive perspective which similarly reduces those conclusions to irrelevance. Lewis’ conclusion, then, is that we must get rid of our ridiculous, “scientific” epistemological assumption that “looking at” is always better than “looking along” and rather consider everything from both perspectives. Let us return to the story of the boy and the firefly. It is critically important that we approach learning and knowledge as a lover of wisdom with a certain epistemic humility and wonder. We must not forget that we are incarnated human persons (i. e., subjective creatures with bodies) and that, no matter how hard we try, we cannot and should not attempt to totally detach ourselves from ourselves. For, as Lewis’ critique of “looking at” reveals, we cannot escape our own embodiment: all our thoughts are conditioned by the fact that they are the thoughts of an incarnated person. Contrary to Cartesian dualism, the mind and the body are not entirely separable: both are unified in the human person. Furthermore, even if we could detach ourselves entirely and view reality from a purely “objective, scientific” viewpoint, we must question
fireflies and beams of light
whether that perspective does in fact provide a truer view of reality. Could an abstract, disembodied mind truly understand what it means to witness the flash and flight of a firefly? ~ CH
73
Part III
Frameworks for Leadership
Rosenhan’s Law Whenever the ratio of what is known to what needs to be known approaches zero, we tend to invent “knowledge” and assume we understand more than we actually do. We seem unable to acknowledge that we simply don’t know.39 39
Rosenhan, 257.
Thus psychologist David Rosenhan opens the conclusion of his famous 1973 study on the validity of psychiatric diagnoses. In the study, entitled “On Being Sane in Insane Places,” Rosenhan had eight individuals who had never exhibited the slightest symptoms of abnormal psychological behavior admitted into twelve psychiatric hospitals under feigned diagnoses of schizophrenia in order to test the ability of the hospitals’ staff to identify sane individuals. Although the patients exhibited normal behavior at the time of and after admittance, staff at the hospitals consistently interpreted their personal histories and actions as clear signs of psychological abnormality, eventually releasing them (after an average of 19 days) with diagnoses of schizophrenia in remission. Not one was identified as sane. In a follow-up experiment, a hospital that had heard of Rosenhan’s first experiment and doubted that such a base mistake could occur at its own esteemed facility agreed to work with Rosenhan in a repeat trial. Rosenhan informed the hospital’s psychiatrists and staff that in the next three months, he would attempt to admit one or more sane patients, and the hospital employees would attempt to identify the sane individual or individuals. Rosenhan, however, did not send any sane
rosenhan’s law
patients to the hospital. Nevertheless, the staff identified forty-one “sane” patients and the professional psychiatrists identified twenty-three, with an overlap of nineteen. Just as the first experiment had shown that expectations of insanity mask sanity, so the second experiment showed that expectations of sanity mask insanity. Rosenhan used these two experiments to question the validity of psychological diagnoses. Context and applied labels greatly influence and distort our ability to judge correctly. We see what we want to see and expect to see, rather than what actually is there. This is not fundamentally a question of weaknesses in the science of psychiatric practice; it is a question of hubris. “We seem unable to acknowledge that we simply don’t know,” writes Rosenhan.40 In our pride, we blind ourselves to the fact that there are things we cannot see and questions we cannot answer. To admit our lack of knowledge is to admit weakness, to shame ourselves, to break down our post-modern sense of independence and self-reliance, and to admit before the world that there are things beyond our grasp. Rosenhan writes that “rather than acknowledge that we are just embarking on understanding,” we act as if we had “captured the essence of understanding.”41 What good does this hubris bring? In hospitals it might preserve the reputation of psychiatrists among their peers, but it results in incorrect diagnoses and a labeling that creates a permanent negative stigma. At the cost of our own reputations we hurt those around us.
This hubris, however, is not restricted to psychiatric hospital workers, but it is symptomatic of the human population as a whole. In all areas of life, the less we know, the more likely we are to invent knowledge and act as if we know. This has two important practical implications for leadership. First, it warns us to be cautious in taking advice from others. Seeking advice
40
Rosenhan, 257.
41
Rosenhan, 257.
77
78
the apologia toolkit
42
43
Rosenhan, 257.
Proverbs 11:12; 26:12.
is certainly a good thing, but sometimes those who seem most sure of their advice are those who know the least. Rather than admit that they are a poor advisor in a situation, people will grasp at straws to provide even the smallest piece of “advice” and then defend their position with the firmest resolution possible. A good advisor, on the other hand will frequently act with caution, will take careful time to examine the scenario, and will qualify whatever suggestions he or she has. Good advisors recognize their own weaknesses, for despite whatever knowledge they have, there is much more that could be known. “Whenever the ratio of what is known to what needs to be known approaches zero”—and the ratio is always much smaller than we think—“we tend to invent ‘knowledge’ and assume we understand more than we actually do.”42 Seek out the opinions of those who humbly recognize this truth. Second, we must be humble in our own thinking and decision-making. The hubris does not lie only with external advisors but also with ourselves when we need to make important choices. The first step in avoiding this error is to admit that we do not know as much as we think we do. We may be ashamed to admit this to ourselves, and even more so to admit it publicly, but you will find that doing so does not bring disgrace but respect. The greatest leaders understand that they are humans, limited in understanding and fallible in decision making. We close with two verses from the book of Proverbs: “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom” and “Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.”43 True wisdom comes in the recognition that we do not have knowledge. Rosenhan noted in his study that, curiously, the inmates in the psychiatric hospitals fairly often accused the pseudopatients of being sane, sneaking into the hospital as undercover journalists or professors. The patients, rather than the
rosenhan’s law
experts in the field, could identify the sane from the insane. Truly, there is more hope for those who have no illusions of grandeur, no reputation to save, and no invented knowledge to vigorously defend. When we strip ourselves of our pride and choose to view the world as it truly is—a world that is much more complex than our brains can readily comprehend—we then have the ability to discern truth, to see right from wrong, and to make informed decisions. ~ NS
79
Asking for Advice and Money
In the world of startups and venture capital, “If you want advice, ask for money. If you want money, ask for advice” is a common phrase, often thrown around without much thought. It is worth considering whether there is truth to this counterintuitive adage or if following it will lead you into trouble. When we imagine an entrepreneur, we think of people working in Silicon Valley as app developers or at other small tech startups, all fighting tooth and nail for venture capital support. We think of entrepreneurs as recent college graduates sitting in coffee shops, garages, and too-small rented spaces, with one brilliant (hopefully) idea and a go-get-‘em, never-saynever, do-it-yourself mentality. But, entrepreneurship is not a career path. It is a way of life. We are all entrepreneurs. Being entrepreneurial means being visionand development-focused, seeing opportunities for growth where others might see only threats to the status quo. The adage that began circulating in startup circles that, “If you want advice, ask for money. If you want money, ask for advice” thus has relevance for all of us, if it is true. As with any adage, there are always exceptions. Sometime you have good councilors eager to give you advice, and sometimes you may be fortunate enough to have someone with money eager to support your projects. What these cases usually have in common, however, is that the advisor or financier
asking for advice and money
already knows the organization. He or she already understands and appreciates the mission and vision and is eager to help. For the case where you are asking for advice or money from people unfamiliar or marginally familiar with the your organization or project, the adage holds true.
If you want advice, ask for money If you approach someone and ask for money directly, the typical person’s gut reaction is to say no. He will be hesitant to give his hard-earned money to something about which he knows very little. As you continue the conversation, he will likely have many questions about what you are trying to do, and he will try to find many reasons to justify his initial reaction against giving money. In so doing, he will list why he thinks your plans will not work. This, however, is just the advice you are looking for! He has given a harsh, negatively-biased look at your venture and have acted as a better-than-impartial advisor. With an overlycritical eye, this “advisor” can find things that need changing that a friendly advisor might overlook. If we know anything about human nature, it is that people are generally proud and self-confident when it comes to giving advice (see our chapter, “Rosenhan’s Law”). It runs against our natures to admit that there are things we do not know, and we like to offer our own solutions to every given problem—and more so the less we actually know about the problem. For this reason, people are likely to not only point out the flaws in your plans but to also offer suggestions for how to fix them. Thus, by entering the conversation with the pretense that you want money, you prod people to critique your plans and offer their own suggestions. In their attempt to avoid giving money (which they thought was your aim) they have given advice (which was your true aim).
81
82
the apologia toolkit
If you want money, ask for advice The corollary is perhaps even more counterintuitive than the initial statement. We have a tendency to think that since people are so hesitant to give away money, we need to make the ask directly. Eventually there may be a need to make an ask for money, but to get there you must often lead with a request for advice. If you eventually want to ask for money, begin by giving an update on the state of your venture. Explain what you are trying to accomplish, why you are working on the venture, and what progress you have made so far. Do not be afraid to openly talk about outstanding issues. You want to give a truthful representation of where you stand, but also to highlight your successes and ask for advice in one or two areas, demonstrating a level of trust. The benefit of this is that you may receive useful advice, but, more importantly, it gives the person with whom you are talking a taste of your venture and a desire to learn more about it. If you leave a positive impression, she is left wanting more. The idea grows in her brain, becoming increasingly attractive, and, after more positive updates on the state of your venture, she will be sold on the idea of supporting it financially. By asking for advice, you show that you value her and her opinions. In so doing, you woo her into financial support. That is one way the conversation could turn. The other is that, when you ask for advice, the person you are talking with senses that you want a long-term intellectual commitment to your venture. While she might support what you are doing, she does not want to become too involved and the easier alternative is to write a check. This adage is not a foolproof trick for getting what you want, whether that be advice or money. Not everyone has an interest in giving either one or the other, and so sometimes you may need to talk with
asking for advice and money
many people before you see any results. Success in entrepreneurship, though, largely requires a good understanding of human nature and a large network of people. If you build many strong relationships as you talk to people and update them on the progress of your venture, you may win some people over for help in other projects later on, especially if you yourself are willing to help them when they need it. ~ NS
83
Sell People on the Vision
44
Simon Sinek, “How Great Leaders Inspire Action,” TEDxPuget Sound, September 2009, ted.com/talks/ simon_sinek_how_great_ leaders_inspire_action/.
What is the secret to success? For every business, success involves persuading individuals to come to you rather than your competitors. You want them to buy your computers, read your magazine, or drink your coffee. The same holds true for organizations, clubs, event planners, or anyone else looking to be persuasive. You need to convince people to come to you with their time or money, rather than pursuing the alternative, whatever that might be. Some people possess and astounding natural talent for persuasion. But, their secret to success is not a mystery beyond all seeking out. In the words of author and speaker, Simon Sinek, the great leaders and organizations of the world “all think, act, and communicate in the same way.” Their secret is that they communicate from the inside out. They emphasize why over how over what, as Figure 7 illustrates.44 Most everyone knows what their organization does. We at the Apologia publish a journal biannually, keep a running blog, host campus forums, and sponsor lectures, all discussing the intersection of faith and reason in the academic sphere. A subset of these people knows how this gets done. In our case, it is through the application of the tools in this book. But very few people know, let alone communicate, why their organization exists. The why is along the lines of a mission or vision statement, which, in our case, is that whereas the Christian worldview has been banished
sell people on the vision
from academic discussion under the pretense that it is anti-intellectual, not only are faith and reason compatible, but the Christian faith is also the only true and comprehensive worldview and thus ought to be present in academic discussion—we seek to revitalize the tradition of biblically-oriented thought at Dartmouth College. In all this, we seek to be uniting faith and reason. What we want at the Apologia is not people who will come and participate in meetings. Participation is fine, but the Apologia will neither survive difficult times nor thrive and grow when opportunities about if all we have is participation. Instead, we want to have people passionate about what we do, who will stay up late to ensure we publish quality work on time, and who will give their last full measure of devotion in order to carry on the vision of the Apologia. This sort of devotion is only achievable if people know why we exist. What and how generate participation; why generates passion.
To give an example, we can look at Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which is arguably the most memorable Presidential speech in history.45 In less than three minutes, Lincoln powerfully articulated why the Union Army fought and why so many men were fought and died at Gettysburg. He began: “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” The first 30 words—more than 10% of the entire speech—make no mention of disunion, the Civil War, Gettysburg, or even how crucial it was that the Union Army had repulsed General Lee’s deepest excursion into Northern territory and now had him on the retreat. Rather, Lincoln’s opening talks about the great experiment of American democracy and of equality.
85
Figure 7: Why your organization exists shapes how it does what it does to fulfill its mission.
45
Abraham Lincoln, “Gettysburg Address,” Avalon Project, avalon.law.yale.edu/ 19th_century/gettyb.asp.
86
the apologia toolkit
Lincoln continued, mentioning war but remaining focused on why it was being fought: “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.” After a few lines about dedicating a burial ground for the fallen soldiers (which was the reason he had been asked to speak), he closed with another discussion of why the war existed: It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. Lincoln had come to memorialize fallen soldiers and dedicate a burial ground, but two-thirds of his speech—and the more memorable two-thirds—reminded his audience of why the soldiers were willing to give their “last full measure of devotion.” He understood that to capture the minds and hearts of his audience, he needed to remind them of his vision for the country. The important matter for Lincoln, as it should be with any great leader, is to help people believe what he believed, not just to do what he wanted them to do. If people have been captured by the vision, they will do whatever is necessary to see it through to completion. That is the secret to great leadership and organizational growth. And, of course, it requires that the leaders themselves know the vision, which is sometimes the most difficult thing. ~ NS
About the People, Not the Journal
One of our biggest secrets is that, thought the Apologia publishes a journal, we are not all about the journal. The Apologia is about people. We strive first and foremost to build a community of faithful thinkers, of students who come together each week to learn and grow closer to God. While the journal is an important part of who we are and what we do, the focus of the organization is not merely on producing a journal twice each year but on preparing students to operate as Christians the academy, and helping them develop tools for living and thinking well. C.S. Lewis argues that there are First Things and Second Things, and that we can only get Second Things by putting First Things first. If we try to put Second Things first then we lose both the First and Second Things (see our chapter, “First Things, Second Things”).46 At the Apologia, the people are one of our First Things, while the journal is one of our Second Things. More than just write for the journal or blog, members of the Apologia meet each week with questions or challenging topics to discuss, come together over lunch to discuss books that they read over the term or during breaks, and spend time together in fellowship. If you put twenty passionate and brilliant students in an old college library to discuss matters of faith and life, they come away inspired with new ideas, clearer arguments, and greater confidence in their own
46
C.S. Lewis, “First and Second Things.”
88
the apologia toolkit
abilities as apologists. As they learn, they grow, and as they grow they not only become able to put their thoughts on paper and publish, but they also develop a desire to do so. Once you build a fellowship of strong individuals, the publication of the journal naturally follows as they will have ideas they feel confident sharing. The first step is always to get those people in a room together and talking. Caring about their personal development is more important than publishing a journal. Often times, providing for the first leads to the second, but even when it does not, it is always better to help other Christians to develop and mature and at the expense of publishing than to publish at the expense of the spiritual development of the writers. Second, the very process of writing the journal challenges and teaches students, for the journal is not only a Second Thing behind spiritual development, but it is also a means to the end of preparing people for thinking and living well. The writing process is long, the topics students choose to tackle are complex, and publicly writing to defend a sometimes unpopular opinion is challenging. The bonds that form over supporting each other through each essay’s background thought work, through helping edit and revise articles, and in celebrating successes strengthen our community and prepare students for the difficult conversations they may face in the broader Dartmouth community and beyond. In thinking, writing, and editing, we learn by doing and the journal is the perfect way to do it. Third, the journal is a place for the development of leadership skills. Overseeing writing, editing, design, funding, and publishing takes a tremendous amount of coordination. While it may at times be faster and easier for the experienced members of the group to manage the details themselves, it does the organization as a whole less good than training up new people to fill those roles. Practically speaking, it helps to ensure that the day-to-day operations of the organization con-
about the people, not the journal
89
tinue to work smoothly from generation to generation of leadership. More importantly, however, training younger members helps to develop their skills. Why settle for one person who is adept at leading a discussion, editing papers, or raising funds when you could teach many to do those things? Here again, publishing a journal may seem to be primary, but we do best to view the process as a means to an end, namely, the development of leadership skills. Finally, the post-publication focus should still be on the people. A journal is meant to be read. It is not published just so that we can congratulate ourselves and say we produced a journal. Once it is published the organization has a tremendous opportunity to hold group discussions on individual articles led by their authors, bring in special guest speakers, and otherwise engage the wider community where it publishes with what its members are thinking and writing. Apologia founder, Andrew Schuman D’10, first lays out the mission of the organization in his inaugural Letter from the Editor, saying: We endeavor to think critically, question honestly, and link arms with anyone who searches for truth and authenticity. The Dartmouth Apologia does not exist to proselytize but to discuss, and I warmly invite you to join us in this discussion.”47 Schuman does not talk principally about the journal or publishing, but about forging connections with others who are asking the same questions we are. He does not invite others to merely read the journal and contemplate our thoughts, but to join us in community. Forget the journal, come join the community. ~ SH
47
Andrew Schuman, “Letter from the Editor,” The Dartmouth Apologia 1.1 (2007): 1.
Learn by Doing
There is a kinesthetic learning element in all people. Regardless of what their official results are on the “This-Is-My-Learning-Style” inventory, or how much theory they are taught, or how closely they observe and record the minutiae of an organization’s inner workings and processes. . . people are unable to master a craft strictly through observation. Active participation must occur in order for the most valuable lessons related to the task in question to be imparted. We learn by doing. At the Apologia, this is an essential reality to take into consideration when training up leaders who may soon play a crucial role in running the publication. Indeed, it is essential for equipping anyone for any role they might play in the journal’s work, formal or otherwise. Consider the freshman who is nervous about writing her first article. Of course, it is important to walk her through some of the fundamentals of apologetics. Refer her to the seminal works in the rich tradition of Christian intellectual inquiry—Lewis, Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton, and others. Give her the frameworks for thinking contained in this book. Encourage her ideas and build her confidence. But most of all, recognize that even if she eagerly receives and is strengthened by these various forms of support, she will still feel nervous when she sits down in front of her laptop with a blank page staring mockingly back at her.
learn by doing
That is fine, though, because the goal is not to instill perfect confidence in her before she begins writing. Such a goal is as unrealistic as it is undesirable. To approach her assignment with an overly inflated perception of her own abilities would be foolish. It is appropriate to feel a sense of being in over one’s head—it gives the individual a proper sense of her present relationship to the task at hand, which fosters a spirit of humility and gives a vision of towards which she can work. Unfortunately, it can also nurture a fear that this vision is impossible for her to reach. This fear tells her that she does not know enough—or is not clever or savvy enough—to move beyond her current state of effectiveness. Ultimately, it convinces her that she is stuck. Herein lies the key decision that she must be encouraged to make: she has to decide to ignore the voice of fear and believe instead the voice that says to step forward—in the faith that lessons and knowledge will come through action. It is important to acknowledge that fear is persistent. The voices whispering destructive words of doubt and uncertainty will continue to nag at her as she sets her fingers upon the keys and begins to type. They probably will not go away completely. But they will get quieter.
The reason that knowledge is obtained through action is because it is only through action that mistakes are made. Theory is brilliant, but humans are not naturally brilliant practitioners of theory. Mastery is a process, not an innate gift. It takes time, patience, and a willingness to discover the areas where one is weak and to confront them honestly. But, the wonderful thing is that this confrontation leads to fortification. Each mistake will lead to a wiser decision the next time around, as well as a greater understanding of how to shepherd others who will face the same challenges. The best leaders have an intimate understanding of
91
92
the apologia toolkit
how to do things well because they also know what it looks like to do them poorly. This dual knowledge can only be developed through consistent, effortful striving toward the vision. Staying in one place never got anyone anywhere. Even staying in a book full of wonderful advice and helpful frameworks does not truly get anyone anywhere unless they take the wisdom from the book and try to apply it to real-world actions. So, learn by doing, learn well, and encourage others to do the same. ~ JC
Choices
One of the big questions in life that people frequently ask is: How do we make good choices? This is especially true in the university environment, where for the first time students are making decisions about how to live their daily lives on their own, and they are also facing much bigger choices about their lives than they ever had before: what classes to take, what to major in, whether to study abroad, what internships to pursue, and what direction to take after graduation. What makes this especially difficult is that many university environments encourage a moral relativism and discourage the idea that any truth is absolute. How then can we decide anything, let alone find answers to life’s toughest questions? All throughout life we will face difficult and important choices. So perhaps the best question for us now to ask is: How do we prepare ourselves to make good choices? First and foremost, we must rediscover the pursuit of moral knowledge and absolute truth. Speaking at the 2014 Wheelock Conference at Dartmouth College, Gary Haugen argued this point, recognizing that the university today has relegated moral truth and knowledge about reality to the realm of the abstract, unable to be proven empirically, and therefore relative. Our twenty-first century era is the first to be proud of its moral confusion. Yet, we cannot truly make decisions unless we can say that we know things about the universe and good and evil for certain. If all moral truth
94
the apologia toolkit
is relative, then does it even matter what we choose? Why are we so concerned with making good choices? The best way to prepare ourselves to make good choices is to decide what are our boundaries and values before they are tested. We cannot wait until after we are offered to smoke or drink to ask ourselves whether we are open to trying it. We cannot wait until after we have been invited to someone’s room to decide how far we are willing to go with them. In the flurry of the moment, making good choices is difficult and stressful. But when we decide beforehand how we judge what is good, where to draw the line, or what we are willing to do, we are better prepared in the moment to make the right choice. The first step in doing this, however, is to see moral truth. By seeking moral truth, we can understand on our values. Only once we feel comfortable with our understanding of the world and the values that leaves us with can we trust that when it comes time to make those difficult decisions, we will know where our boundaries are: what we are willing to do or risk or give up. Making good choices comes down to looking far ahead of ourselves down the road to the choice we may someday be faced with, and deciding now what is right and wrong, which values we care to uphold and maintain, so that when we are called to make decisions, we are not deciding on the spot which values are important and those on which we are not willing to compromise. Does this advice help with all of the practical needs of running a journal—with how to choose a journal name (choose one that can be easily pronounced), how to find a printer (the choice reduces to one of cost and proximity), or how to set a production timeline (start at the end and work backwards)? No. Those choices, however stressful they may seem, are not the most difficult ones to make. The most difficult decisions are moral ones—how to respond to opposition from other
choices
student groups, how to act with grace when people speak disparagingly of our work, or how to remain faithful to Scripture in what we write when doing so might spark controversy. These test our character and are directly related to our Christian witness. We ought to prepare ourselves to understand the good and to know how to act when we face choices such as these. ~ SH
95
The French Meal Principle
48
Miguel de Cervantes, The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha, Part II, Book III, Chapter 5.
Simply seeing the names of French foods is enough to make the mouth water. Warm, crusty baguettes, fresh from the bakery; puffy croissants with butter and jam; endless kinds of cheeses: brie, chèvre, roquefort, bleu, matured and cured over months and even years; choice wines, fine foie gras, hearty bœuf bourguignon, sizzling raclette for cold Alpine nights; a mighty little espresso for an afternoon boost; and for dessert, crêpes, mousses, crème brûlée, and éclairs. . . Every mouthful is a work of art. But the quality of the food is not the only thing that stands out. My first night with my host family as an exchange student in France, at about eight o’clock, the four of us sat down for dinner, and my host mother brought out a quiche—one quiche, a small quiche, a very good quiche but, still, a small one—and that was dinner for all four of us. A little salad afterwards, some bread and cheese, a yogurt for dessert, and that was all. By the end of dinner my American belly still had plenty of room. It was not a great deal of food, and snacks were not a part of the culture either. In the weeks that followed, however, I grew to appreciate the French way. The hour or two the family spent at the table was special. When we were á table, we were entirely á table. The food was excellent and our appetites were not spoiled. “Hunger,” Cervantes said, “is the best sauce in the world.”48
the french meal principle
We have found that the same idea works well when applied to journals, classes, and reading groups. We call it the French Meal Principle. Simply put: Do what you do really well, and do not try to do too much. Do not make more than people are actually going to eat, and do not overwork the chefs; but what you do make, make it high quality. Quality over quantity. It is often easiest to evaluate success in terms of numbers. How many people are involved? How much did we publish? How many events are we hosting? How many hits did we get on our blog this month? These questions certainly have their place. But we also need to ask: What is the nature of our impact, and how deep does it go? How much do we have the capacity to do well? The French Meal Principle helps us acknowledge our limits and focus our energy on not merely doing a lot of things, but doing strategic and valuable things, and doing them well. It helps us to be reasonable about quantity and ambitious about quality. Sometimes you will have more ideas than you can realistically accomplish. You want to make a meal for which you do not have the time, energy, or ingredients. So, pick the best one or two ideas and execute them excellently. On the other hand, you may want to make more food than there are people to eat it. In that case, pick what will best serve your guests. And if it is not big and flashy, do not be discouraged. A little of something good goes a long way. Think espresso. ~ AZ
97
Lessons from the Cheshire Cat “Cheshire Puss,” she began, rather timidly, as she did not at all know whether it would like the name: however, it only grinned a little wider. “Come, it’s pleased so far,” thought Alice, and she went on. “Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?” “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat. “I don’t much care where—” said Alice. “Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat. “—so long as I get somewhere,” Alice added as an explanation. “Oh, you’re sure to do that,” said the Cat, “if you only walk long enough.”49 49
Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1866), 89-90.
Alice in Wonderland is, to say the least, a strange and confusing story. But in the world of smoking caterpillars, mad tea parties, and games of flamingo croquet, Lewis Carroll buries some gems of truth, including one in the above conversation with the Cheshire Cat. Alice laments to the Cat that her journey through Wonderland is largely without direction, and the Cat replies with a grin that if all she wants to do is to get somewhere, it does not matter very much what path she takes, for every path will get her somewhere, provided she keep at it long enough. We so often are like Alice in our thinking. Rather than take careful time to consider where we wish to go, what we wish to achieve, or what success in a meeting, project, or organization looks like, we think only about what we must do to get us going. We are quick to remember the adage, “A journey of a thousand
lessons from the cheshire cat
miles begins with a single step,” and we get on with the walking, forgetting that before we take the first step, we must figure out where we want our travels to take us. We confuse activity with progress, action with improvement. If we ever wish to succeed, we must first be careful to define our measures of success. At the founding of the Apologia, we had to ask ourselves what success meant. Was it publishing twice each year? Increasing the body of Christian academic work? Increasing the number of writers? Increasing readership? Changing the academic culture at Dartmouth? Attaining recognition at Dartmouth? Attaining recognition beyond Dartmouth? Until we decided where we wanted to go, we were simply on the path to somewhere and were no better than Alice. Traveling somewhere is no better than traveling nowhere at all. We must be careful, however, not to fall into the opposite idiomatic trap: if you ever lose your way in Boston and ask a stranger for directions, you might get the response (shrouded in a thick accent transforming r’s into h’s), “You wanna go there? You can’t get there from here.” Or, the response might be, “Well if that’s where you wanna go, this isn’t where I would start.” What your less-than-helpful friend usually means is that you are wildly lost and it will take a bit of travel to get back to where you made your first wrong turn. When we think about our own projects, we can fall into the trap of thinking that what we want to achieve really is impossible to get to from where we are. If we set a high goal for ourselves, we might later lament that we will never reach it. Sometimes, our fears are true—it is possible to set impossible goals. Usually, however, with the right team of people, the right mentors, a good plan, and enough time, we can reach those goals. So, do not be like Alice and begin working without knowing where you are going. You will get places, but they will likely not be what you wanted. Define
99
100
the apologia toolkit
your goals, set firm metrics of success, and devise a plan to get you there. Revisit those goals frequently, as you may be likely to lose sight of them otherwise. And also, do not be like a discouraged traveler, for the path to success may be long and difficult, but the right leadership will equip you to succeed. ~ NS
What Makes a Good Meeting
Let us begin at the beginning: you need frequent meetings. Meetings are an essential part of the life of an organization, for they provide a space to discuss mission and vision, remind those in leadership of their responsibilities, and provide accountability to ensure that those responsibilities are met. Meetings provide an opportunity for people to discuss the current state of events and to plan for the future, while at the same time ensuring that all people remain united in their understanding of the organization’s vision. Without meetings, momentum lags and the speed of activity slows. There are two primary types of meetings. First, there are leadership meetings. These meetings convene all or a subset of an organization’s leadership to plan events— to plan both what to do and how to do it. One example would be a meeting to discuss the publication of the next issue of the journal: create a theme, set deadlines, divide responsibilities, and create a list of actions to be taken once the meeting disperses. Second, there are discussion meetings. These can be visionary (e.g., What is the audience for which we write?) or merely based on interest (e. g., What do you think is the best response to the Problem of Evil?). Of course, many meetings are a blend of these two categories. Whatever the type of meeting, the following are helpful tips for how to best lead the conversation.
102
the apologia toolkit
Be prepared Put time into preparing for the meeting. Think through the main issues ahead of time, how you want to open the meeting, where you would like the discussion to go, and how you will get it there. Anticipate how long each portion of the discussion will take, and anticipate questions or points of disagreement. As much as you can, prepare yourself such that nothing takes you by surprise. If you, as the head of the meeting, appear lost or confused, the group will lose any sense of cohesion.
Start promptly, but do not start on time Whether you begin by calling the meeting to order, by prayer, or by any other means, do so promptly. You communicate to the rest of the room both that you respect their promptness and that you have high expectations. Promptly, however, does not necessarily mean on time. It can be helpful to group dynamics and to the flow of conversation if you allow room for some casual conversation before the meeting settles into its agenda. Ensure, though, that the meeting dynamics do not devolve into one where late arrival is acceptable.
End before you are ready Provided everything that needs to has been covered, do not be afraid to cut a conversation short. If you end a lively conversation before it has worn itself out, people will wish that the meeting could have run longer. It is better for them to have this burning desire than to allow the conversation reach its conclusion. In the former case, people will feel like the meeting was productive and too short, and they will be excited about the next one. In the latter case, most people will feel satisfied that everything has been covered but will leave without a sense of momentum and enthusiasm.
what makes a good meeting
Engage your audience You are not in the meeting to give a presentation but to facilitate conversation. This means that you should encourage every person in the room to participate. Make eye contact with everyone, listen attentively to anyone who speaks, and show that you value his or her opinion. If necessary, you can direct pointed questions at quieter people in order to engage them in discussion, and you can gently interrupt anyone who monologues so that the conversation remains a discussion.
Balance active and passive leadership Active leadership is characterized by declarative statements. Active leaders display an overt sense of control of the room, and they clearly direct the discussion from one point to another as they help everyone in the room arrive at a consensus. Passive leadership is characterized by questions. Rather than state their opinions directly, passive leaders ask questions to shape the way everyone in the room thinks about the issue at hand. Although these leaders still direct the conversation, they give it a more organic feel and give all members the impression that the end result of the discussion was their own idea, rather than the leader’s. The best leaders will understand when it will be profitable to exercise each type of leadership during the course of a meeting. To illustrate briefly, an active leader might counteract a suggestion that the group organize a new event with the statement that the event is tangential to the group’s mission. While this may be true, it is often more productive for everyone if the leader instead asks how everyone thinks the event would align with the group’s vision. Although the room will still conclude that the event is tangential, they will now see why and will feel ownership of the decision to cancel the event.
103
104
the apologia toolkit
Do not be afraid to make decisions Remember that you are running the meeting. In any difficult decision-making scenario, people will look to someone to exercise leadership and make the final decision. That person will be you. Do not shy away from this role, because it is truly yours. Be confident in your choices and do not be afraid to make mistakes. ~ NS
Find Your Successors
I cannot tell you how often the refrain, “Find your successors,� arises in our meetings. The importance of early preparation for leadership transition is one that we always discuss at the Apologia, for, perhaps the greatest problem facing the Apologia and all other college organizations is that its members and, more importantly, its leadership turn over every four years. This makes us keenly aware of the transitory nature of leadership and that every organization, regardless of the length of its leadership cycle, must begin to groom its future leaders as early as possible. Finding and preparing successors is more an art than a science. There can be no checklist for spotting good leadership, for what an organization needs from its leaders changes over time, and the way that a leader achieves his or her goals can take many forms. Sometimes a leader needs to be a visionary, thinking about the future with his head in the clouds, crafting the mission and vision that future generations can follow. Sometimes a leader must be a taskmaster, ensuring that the proper steps are taken to meet the grand vision of the organization. Sometimes a leader must be a cheerleader, encouraging members to press forward when the vision seems distant and hard to attain. Sometimes a leader must be a recruiter, selling outsiders on the vision of the organization and inviting them to join. And sometimes a leader must be a mix of all of these. Identifying the characteristics that prepare individ-
106
the apologia toolkit
uals for success in any one of these types of leadership positions is like trying to describe a perfect song. As soon as you determine that perfection in musical composition requires knowledge of harmonic progression and of melodic construction, you find a song that is sublimely beautiful yet has the most boring harmonies and cliché melodic figures. Your ear can identify a beautiful song with thirty seconds of listening, but hours of study will leave you as confused as ever about what makes that song so emotionally satisfying. The same is true with leadership. Spotting a good leader is easy, once you have some practice at it, but defining good leadership is much more difficult. This, again, is why you are reading a toolkit, rather than a cookbook. We have set out to identify tools for success rather than outline a specific route to it. We close the “Frameworks for Leadership” section of this book with a summary of some of the themes upon which we have elaborated and how they apply to leadership transitions: 1. Keep an eye out for talent. It is never too early to be looking for talented leaders. Whenever you find natural leaders, nurture that talent, giving them responsibility and, if necessary, creating new positions for them to fill. 2. Sell people on the vision. Very few people want to know what you do or how you do it. They want to know why you do what you do. Sell people on the vision and the organization will thrive. Look for leaders who understand the vision. 3. It is about the people, not the organization. Although you run an organization, nothing is more important than the people in it. Do not think that you can sacrifice the development of people in order to focus on the organization, for the organization does not exist without is members.
find your successors
4. Test, nurture, and develop. Feed people with jobs to test their leadership skills. Do they thrive when given an opportunity? Nurture that skill by giving it more room to exercise so that it will develop and mature. People learn by doing. 5. Transition before you leave. If, say, the leadership sits with the junior class rather than the senior class, the organization’s leadership will have a natural set of mentors who filled their shoes the year prior and know the trials of leadership. When trouble arises, and it always will, you have an expert nearby to help you out. 6. Leave a vacuum. If people perceive a need for leadership, they will be much more likely to step into that role than if they think everything is taken care of without them. It can be scary to ask others to do what you might feasibly be able to do yourself, but if you do not give them the opportunity, you will be forced to do much more than you can or should. ~ NS
107
Part IV
Frameworks for Writing
Writing for Apologetics
When we write for apologetics, whether that be for a journal, blog, or other medium, there are two key features of the nature of apologetics that we must keep in mind: apologetics is inherently evangelistic and is always personal. First, apologetics is evangelical. By this, I mean that apologetics should never be divorced from the message of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Christianity, at its core, is a message about right being. Christianity says that what matters is who we are—either in Adam or in Christ. All other religions, and all less than biblically-faithful versions of Christianity preach a message that says salvation can be found through right thinking, right feeling, or right doing. Christianity that is reduced to a philosophy, a quest for happiness, or a moral system is no Christianity at all. If we are to defend Christianity, we must remember that what we defend is a message about being and that if it is to be understood correctly, it must be understood through the lens of salvation, the only way by which our being changes. Second, Christian apologetics is deeply personal. It is very rare that the questions people have about Christianity are purely intellectual and devoid of any personal opinion. Most questions asked about Christianity pertain to some emotional root. Take, for instance, the question, “Why does Christianity say that good people go to hell?� Before we can begin to answer
writing for apologetics
that question, we must understand the motive behind it. We must answer why the question was asked in the first place. The motive could be one of perceived inconsistencies—the questioner thinks that Christianity is in conflict with itself, calling us to be good while at the same time punishing some good people anyway. The motive could be one of personal fear—the questioner fears that he might not be good enough to make it into heaven and is worried about his future. Or, the motive could be one of personal worry—the questioner has recently lost a family member and is trying to cope with the thought that the loved one might be suffering in hell. Each of these motives can prompt the same question, but each motive requires a different answer. Providing the right answer to the wrong question will never satisfy the questioner but will lead a discussion in circles.
What I have said in the paragraph above is most clearly applicable to apologetic conversations, but it also should shape the way we write. While we do not have the luxury of directly asking our readers what their motives are before we write our pieces, we can nevertheless write with these motives in mind. There are two ways to do this. First, we can shape a piece that outlines the many possible motives. It would seek to show that when people ask about hell, they really mean one of three (or five or twelve) things. Second, we can pick one of these many motives and respond to it. Such a piece would say that, although the question of hell might spring from many motives, such and such is one motive that many people have, and here is a Christian response to that underlying question. Both of these approaches keep apologetics personal. They refrain from placing all people asking a given question into a box and saying that there is one response to the question emanating from that box. It answers a specific version of the question and leaves room for answers to
111
112
the apologia toolkit
other versions of the same question. One final note on keeping our writing personal: this takes work. We must keep our ear to the ground, and we must talk to people (non-Christians!) to see what they are thinking. Apologetics is generational. Although doctrine is unchanging and we would be remiss to neglect any doctrine, we must nevertheless respond to the questions that a given generation of people is asking. We must not shy away from the touch points. We must not shy away from the hard questions. These are the questions that people have and if we want them to see the truth of Christianity, we must answer the questions they have. And there are no questions that are too hard to answer. Christianity is the truth, and we do not fear that we will run into unanswerable questions or indefensible positions. ~ NS
Building an Intellectually-Respectable Journal
At the inception of the Apologia, we made a conscious decision to pursue a highly academic tone in our writing, and we have continued to pursue that tone to this day. All of our published articles, with a rare excursion into other genres, are thoroughly researched, scholarly essays. While we are not opposed to publishing personal reflections, creative fiction pieces, poetry, or any other genre that can be adapted to an apologetic purpose, our genre of choice has always been the essay. If we were to summarize the goal our writing in a phrase, it would be “intellectual viability.” A brief history lesson on the founding of the Apologia is in order. When our founding Editor-in-Chief, Andrew Schuman D’10, first came to Dartmouth, he brought with him an enthusiasm typical of starryeyed freshmen. At a liberal arts college with a long history of academic excellence and of preparing men and women to think critically about the world around them, he was prepared to engage his fellow students in thoughtful discussion, to excite the life of the mind, and to develop a holistic understanding of what it means to be human and with what purpose we ought to live our lives. Schuman was prepared to engage in this discussion from the perspective he believed to be the only true understanding of the world: the Chris-
114
the apologia toolkit
tian one. In a conversation with a floormate his first fall on campus, however, his dreams came to a sudden halt. “Wait one moment,” said his newly-made friend, “You’re telling me that Christians think?” Although Dartmouth and most other early American colleges were founded by Christians on Christian principles and under the assumption that professors held a Christian worldview in their academic discourse, the Christian perspective has now been pushed out of the discussion. In fact, many do not know the rich history of the life of the Christian mind. They have forgotten that the Apostle Paul had received the best Hebrew education, that Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz, and Max Planck were all Christians, and that Augustine of Hippo, C.S. Lewis, and Alvin Plantinga are all among the greatest philosophers throughout history. A fundamental part of the Apologia’s mission is to reintroduce the tradition of Christian scholarship into the academic discussion. At the Apologia, we join a long tradition of men and women who not only call themselves Christians but also are firmly convinced that Christianity is true, that it has implications for all people in all times, and that only through Christianity can we find true and satisfactory answers to our deepest questions about the world. Without Christianity, the academy has no hope for complete, accurate knowledge or wisdom. Yes, Christians think. We think well. One of the best ways to show this is through academic scholarship. Our goal is to show the members of the academy that Christians think, and so we must play by the rules of the academy. We must research thoroughly, treat our subjects honorably, do justice to all sides of the discussion, and give a thoughtful defense of our arguments, anticipating any objections that might arise. We must not be unfairly critical or judgmental; neither may we confuse acquiescence or undue compromise for graciousness. We must stand
building an intellectually-respectable journal
our ground for what we believe while still treating those who disagree with respect. There is also a second reason for academic rigor. Academic rigor earns respectability and respectability earns liberty. Although some ideas related to Christianity mesh well with a secular worldview (e. g., the call to serve the poor), much of what Christianity teaches seems like foolishness to a secular audience (e. g., the firm adherence to the reality of the resurrection). If we establish respectability with our peers by doing good scholarship, we then have somewhat more credence when we do write things that outside of Christianity are perplexing. It gives us the liberty to tackle the difficult truths of Christianity while not losing our audience. There are some things that can best be conveyed only through personal testimony, poetry, or other genres, but if those genres are our primary means of communication, we will never gain respectability but will be written off as amusing people with funny religious views rather than as peers whose funny views might actually be worth considering. There is a time and a place to visit every idea. If we travel in the right order, we will have the opportunity to visit many of them. If we rush, we may find we will never leave home, or, that even if we do leave, we will do so without an audience. We wish to travel the world and bring our audience with us. The only way to do so is to show them that we are worth following. They, like us, are rational creatures and will follow only that which they can trust. ~ NS
115
What Are, Will, and Should People be Asking?
So you have a vision, a journal, editors, writers, a publisher, and an audience that (hopefully) is eager to read your writing. But what will you write? How do you choose a topic? Researching, narrating, and perfecting an idea is, in a sense, frequently the easy part; the most difficult part of the writing process can often be the generation of those ideas. It is of only marginal help to suggest choosing a topic about which you are either passionate to research or already knowledgeable, for that still leaves a wealth of ideas for you to explore. Passion and knowledge are never enough—you need relevance. Even if you are the world’s expert on the moral lessons in Dante’s Inferno, if no one in your audience is interested in classic literature and if you doubt you could quickly convince your readership to become passionate (if just for fifteen minutes) about epic poetry, you are wasting your time. You are better off saving your energy or putting it to use writing about more relevant topics. In the search for relevance, you must ask yourself three questions before you dare to write. What questions are people asking? What will people be asking? What should people be asking?
what are, will, and should people be asking?
What are people asking? Ernest Hemingway once said, perhaps apocryphally, “Close observation of life is critical to good writing.” One reason why academic writing is frequently so dry, boring, and uninteresting is that authors do not put forth the energy to closely observe the trends of life. Understanding human nature and following the flow of cultural discourse takes effort. It is often much easier to write for yourself rather than for your audience, but if you write for yourself at the expense of remaining culturally relevant, you will never have a sustained body of interested readers. When you write, you must instead do so to engage culture. You must watch the news, read the popular blogs, and note the conversations bubbling up in coffee shops, allowing those discussions to inform your writing.
What will people be asking? One of the benefits of today’s digital age is the speed of transmission of news, with 24-hour news stations, mobile applications with push notifications, Twitter feeds, Facebook updates, and so much else. But, speed of transmission also brings with it speed of transition. What is breaking news one day is stale the next. In the time it takes to research a historical event, read and review a book, or fully understand the Christian implications of a certain philosophy, and then to condense that into a thesis, craft beautiful supporting arguments, and revise, edit, proofread, and proofread again, you are at risk of publishing a piece that has long ago lost its relevance. A good author is not merely a close observer of life but is a predictor of life. A good author is always a step ahead of the cultural beat, anticipating that which will be relevant a week, a month, or a year in advance.
117
118
the apologia toolkit
What should people be asking? It is not enough to know what people are and will be talking about, for the author is then merely a passive analyst of culture. A great author is one who shapes the cultural conversation. One of the guiding principles of the Apologia and one of the premises of this book is that Christianity provides the only consistent, coherent, desirable, and—most importantly—true worldview, and that this worldview affects all aspects of life. One of the lamentable changes to American society in the last few decades is the isolation of Christianity from its historical context. We forget that Christianity has an incredibly rich history of intellectual excellence and deep, thoughtful inquiry into questions of the nature of God, the nature of man, morality, politics, cultural participation, and much else. Beyond the likes of Augustine, C.S. Lewis, and G.K. Chesterton, there are many other thinkers—some of whose writing you will find in our suggested further reading section—such as Herbert Butterfield, Dorothy Sayers, or James Davison Hunter, who have developed Christian perspectives on history, work, social action, and many other topics. Historically, these Christian thinkers were not the exception but the norm, for Christianity calls us to a rich life of the mind. This call is not mere pretense: Christianity is theologically rich and has real implications for how we think and act about every area of life, for Christianity is true, God exists, and he is sovereign over all things. Any attempt to understand the world without this framework will fall short. Christianity, then, provides a means for understanding and interpreting everything that bubbles into the cultural conversation. Whereas there may sometimes be overlap between a Christian and secular interpretation of a situation, there is frequently an opportunity for Christianity to insert its voice into the conversation and to bring clarity where confusion reigns.
what are, will, and should people be asking?
This, however, is still in the “What are. . . ” and “What will. . . ” categories. The Christian worldview can and should offer much more. We as Christians must help people to ask the right questions about life. It is not enough to talk about, say, the morality of assisted suicide (though that is certainly a topic that is becoming an increasingly relevant and does not yet have any cultural consensus), if we do not also bring into that discussion questions about life after death. The secular conversation might focus on morality, individual liberty, and the freedom of choice, confining the discussion of assisted suicide to its effects and repercussions in the natural world. The Christian conversation, however, ought to turn people’s gazes onto the supernatural world, too, saying that although morality, liberty, and freedom of choice are important questions that need addressing in a fair, rational manner, they do not comprise the entire discussion. We must also ask questions about whether and why human life is sacred, about whether and why life has intrinsic value and purpose, and about what happens to the soul after death. Bringing sin and its eternal consequences before God into the cultural discussion is difficult. The question of eternity is one that all should be discussing, but secular culture prefers to sink the question deep in the ocean, where it is easy to ignore and where it will never uncomfortably float into our sight. We as Christians must help these questions rise to the surface in the cultural conversation, for we believe that they must be addressed.
To conclude, we ought to understand our job as writers is not only to provide a Christian response to the questions people ask, but to show them that there are aspects of the conversation that they have been ignoring. Broadening the scope of the conversation not only will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the subject, but also will help to inform
119
120
the apologia toolkit
the answers to the existing conversation questions. We need to help people to see the questions they should be asking. ~ NS
The Art of Apologetics
Allow me to set a scene: You are sitting in a coffee shop, catching up with an old friend you have not seen for two years. You talk about family and work, and you relive some of your great experiences together, but, through it all, your friend seems restless, like there is something weighing heavy on his mind. Suddenly, with a look of resolve on his face, he interrupts: “So tell me,” he says, “are you still involved in this Christianity thing?” As a committed Christian, you instinctively respond with a yes, and you begin to talk about an excellent church Bible study you recently joined, but your friend quickly continues. “Christianity is a bogus religion. Who in their right mind could actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead?” How do you respond? Last you knew, your friend was ambivalent about Christianity, attending services on Christmas and Easter, but not caring one way or the other about faith during the rest of the year. What caused this sudden, intense disapproval? Herein lies the “Art of Apologetics.” The questions that people ask are rarely, if ever, the question they want or need answered. Although the questioner himself may not always recognize it, there is usually a deeper issue at stake than what is raised in ordinary conversation. Before a question surfaces, there is a subconscious cause and effect relationship, or, more likely, a sequence of causes leading to a single effect. These causes build up like waters behind a dam, increasing
122
the apologia toolkit
in pressure yet remaining still and quiet, until a small crack in the structural soundness of the dam appears and the waters burst forth. Responding at face value to a question about Christianity is often like trying to stop the dam’s floodwaters by putting plaster on the crack. We need instead to tackle the underlying concerns. To return to our coffee shop example, there are many causes that could have resulted in your friend’s criticism of the resurrection of Jesus. He could be operating from a scientific naturalist viewpoint that objects to the possibility of divine interaction with the world. Or, he could be reading a book by an atheist trying to debunk the resurrection. Perhaps he had been trying to reconcile the gospel accounts and decided that major parts of Christ’s life had been invented. Perhaps he had recently suffered the loss of a loved one and was now deeply feeling the permanency of death. Or maybe he had merely had an irksome family dinner at which his boorish uncle talked of nothing but the resurrection. All of these or any combination of these could have led to his outburst in the coffee shop. What a mistake it would be to begin to talk about the validity of the Gospel accounts if he was mourning the loss of a family member! The first step whenever we face questions about Christianity is to ask why the question has arisen. If we want to present the gospel in the best light, we must have conversations that recognize and respect the deepest, most pressing questions of our audience. To do otherwise is to reinforce the stereotype that Christianity is irrelevant, unintellectual babble. When we write about Christianity, however, we do not have the ability of conversing with our audience to understand their deepest questions. Instead, we have the luxury of inventing a conversation partner. If we wish to write about the resurrection, we must picture a specific audience and write to that audience,
the art of apologetics
addressing the imagined audience’s underlying question, whatever we choose that to be. Of course, this luxury also raises the burden placed on the writer, for the writer must work much harder to remain culturally relevant, for the last thing you want is to be so imaginative in your selection of audience that you have created a reader who does not exist in real life. Thus we return to the fundamental questions, which we raised and discussed in the previous chapter, of what people are, will, and should be asking. ~ NS
123
The Science of Apologetics
In the process of writing, after we practice the “Art of Apologetics” and arrive at a specific audience with a specific question to address, we progress to the “Science of Apologetics,” which is the skill of crafting an essay (if that is your genre of choice) that best communicates the point you wish to argue.
Sources 1. It is only natural to cite the Bible in our writing. Indeed, it is almost expected that we cite Scripture, since we claim that it is true. As much as possible, we ought to be consistent in our choice of translation. 2. Just as we are expected to cite the Bible, so we can be expected to cite biblical commentaries. We do not need to re-do the work of past scholars and place the entire burden of interpretation on our own shoulders. 3. We may likewise cite other Christian theologians, who have valuable insight on matters. In this, we need not be afraid of the tradition of past scholarship as if it were less valuable merely because of its age. Indeed, its age makes it all the more valuable. As G.K. Chesterton writes in Orthodoxy, “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradi-
the science of apologetics
tion refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”50 If we do not give a voice to the past, we fall prey to generational narcissism and let the lens of our age blind ourselves to our erroneous thoughts. 4. We may also cite other Christian authors who write novels, short stories, or poems, as truth is not only to be found in theological treatises. For every Augustine there is a Tolkien, and the author of Orthodoxy also authored The Man Who Was Thursday and the Father Brown mysteries. 5. Nothing prevents us from citing non-Christian sources either. We may agree with what they say, for there is a level of truth that God in his providence gives to all people. Christianity is not a gnostic religion that holds exclusive claim to truth. We may also disagree with what non-Christian sources say, and we may use their writings to show flaws or inconsistencies within the secular worldview. These non-Christian sources may be scientists, poets, or anyone in between. If we are diligent in our work as authors and if we seek to reach a wide audience, we will interact with all types of sources over time.
Method of argumentation 1. The first broad class of articles shows the rationality of the faith. These discuss “defeater beliefs,” giving a reasoned defense of Christianity in response to its critics. This shows that faith is rational, appealing to the mind of the reader. 2. The second broad class of articles shows how compelling the faith is. This is “Christian humanism,” which seeks to show that a Christian life is better than the secular alternative. It elevates the beauty
50
125
G.K. Chesterton, “The Ethics of Elfland,” Orthodoxy (New York: John Lane Company, 1908), 85.
126
the apologia toolkit
of the Christian perspective on science, art, music, family life, and everything else. This shows that the faith is beautiful, appealing to the heart of the reader. (For a more detailed breakdown and explanation of article classes, see our chapter, “Guide to Choosing a Topic.”) 3. As we write, we must think about the epistemological matrix of knowing, explained in the introduction of this book. We must think of which and how many means of knowing we will appeal to in our writing. Although all four means are valid, not every one will be of equal utility in every article or for every audience.
Tone and style 1. We must always treat our audience with utmost respect, assuming they will bring the most rigorous, careful critiques of Christianity. Responding to a weaker version of an argument or to a straw man might be easier, but it carries an impression that we either do not trust our readers’ intellects or that we do not have a response to the stronger version of the argument. 2. Respecting our audience means writing with intellectual rigor. Failing to address relevant objections, failing to interact with the most important historical and contemporary literature on the subject, or writing with sloppy grammar weakens even the best argument. 3. Writing with intellectual rigor is not at odds with being clear and concise. The best writers support their theses with a deftness that is at once scholarly and a pleasure to read. Very few topics are dense enough to require a tortuous, abstruse, and convoluted style inaccessible to the lay reader.
the science of apologetics
4. Writing with respect and intellectual rigor also requires that we consider the assumptions we make in our tone. For example, to a secular audience, supporting a claim by appealing to the authority of Scripture appears non-rigorous, for the secular reader may not consider the Bible a valid source of truth. While we can and ought to support our claims with Scripture, it must be done carefully, with a tone that says, “we as Christians believe this to be true because of the authority of Scripture, and if you begin where we do, we trust you will arrive at the same conclusion.� ~ NS
127
The Spirit of Apologetics
51
52
Matthew 10:34; II Timothy 3:12.
I Corinthians 1:23.
53
I Peter 3:15-16; Colossians 4:6.
We have discussed the “Art of Apologetics” and the “Science of Apologetics,” and now we must discuss the final leg of the stool: the “Spirit of Apologetics,” which concerns how we act towards others and, more generally, how we act in all of life. First, the “Spirit of Apologetics” shapes how we act towards others. The Bible is clear that the message of the gospel is divisive when presented to non-believers. Christ says in Matthew, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword,” and Paul affirms that “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”51 This is because the message of the crucified Christ is “a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.”52 If persecution is to come, however, we want to be persecuted because of the message of the gospel, not because of our presentation of it. We have no excuse for an abrasive personality or a haughty attitude. We are to present the faith with “gentleness and respect, having a good conscience,” and, as Paul says, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”53 In all things, we must act with tender care towards others, love them, and pray for their salvation. Were it not for God’s graciousness, we too would be unrepentant and in need of salvation. Second, the “Spirit of Apologetics” shapes how we act in all of life. The gospel calls us to a higher standard than the world does. The gospel shows us what
the spirit of apologetics
true love looks like (I John 4:19), it calls us to care for the poor (Proverbs 14:31), to respect our government regardless of who is in political power (Romans 13:17), and to pray for our persecutors (Matthew 5:44). Indeed, God commands us to “be holy in all your conduct.”54 If we as Christians wish to pursue thick doctrine and deep practice; if we wish to be both thinking well and living well; if we wish to be both high in faith and high in reason; if we wish to integrate faith, reason, and vocation; and if we wish to give a true representation of the gospel, then we ought to show both that we are called to a higher life and that the life to which we are called is beautiful and desirable. Our lives should be a powerful testimony of the gospel message. We greatly weaken the power of that message if we say that Christianity calls us to a higher life but fail to live accordingly. It is one thing to know we are called to a higher life, it is another to believe that this call is true, and it is yet another to give a full defense of that call, but this is all meaningless if we forget that we ourselves must act differently. If people hear us talking about brotherly love yet our family lives are broken, or if they hear us talking about the unity of the body of Christ but see churches split over petty concerns, we have failed to show them the beauty of the gospel. Everything we fight for intellectually will fail to resonate emotionally. The life-shaping reminder of the “Spirit of Apologetics,” however, is not merely about presenting a compelling case about Christianity to unbelievers. Although we ought to care about how the world sees Christianity, we ought to be even more concerned about our own spiritual lives. The thinking Christian always runs the risk of reducing Christianity to a system of thought, when Christianity is much more than a philosophy, a worldview, or a set of practices. Christianity is about the worship of the triune God.
54
I Peter 1:15.
129
130
the apologia toolkit
55
56
Micah 6:8.
C.S. Lewis, “The Apologist’s Evening Prayer,” in Poems, ed. Walter Hooper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1964), 129.
Accursed be we if we forget this. All that we do in the Apologia and all the tools contained in this book have earthly uses, but these uses are all second things to the worship of a mighty, awesome, glorious God. We publish a journal not for our own sakes but in order that many would see and believe. We do not glorify our own achievements but what Christ has accomplished in his death and resurrection. The “Spirit of Apologetics” is a reminder that in the Bible we are told what is good, and, that as Micah says, “what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”55 We close with a poem by C.S. Lewis reminding us of the humility required in life as an apologist or more generally in life as a concerned, thinking Christian.56
“An Apologist’s Evening Prayer” From all my lame defeats and oh! much more From all the victories that I seemed to score; From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh; From all my proofs of Thy divinity, Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me. Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head. From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee, O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free. Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye, Take from me all my trumpery lest I die. ~ NS
Guide to Choosing a Topic
The aim of this guide is to provide concrete advice about how to develop an idea for a journal article (or blog post). First, I will review the six most common types of Apologia articles and point the reader to examples of each type.57 Second, I will mention three “off-limit” topics and explain why we strictly avoid publishing anything on them.
The six most common types of Apologia articles 1. Explore an idea, work, or figure from the Christian intellectual tradition A major part of the Apologia’s mission is to rekindle interest and discussion of what is sometimes called the “Christian Intellectual Tradition.” This tradition includes church fathers and patristic writers (e. g., St. Paul, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.), Christian theologians and philosophers of late antiquity and the Middle Ages (e. g., Boethius, PseudoDionysius, Anselm, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, etc.), leaders of the Reformation (e. g., Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), and so on up through popular nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christian writers such as MacDonald, Chesterton, and Lewis. Articles of this type can focus on exploring (i) an idea found in the writings of one or more of these figures, (ii) a
57
Note: The journal issues in which the below articles appear are available online at dartmouthapologia.org.
132
the apologia toolkit
particular work of one these figures, or (iii) themes and trends found throughout the corpus of one of these figures.
Examples: 1. Macy Ferguson, “Becoming Oneself: C.S. Lewis’ Allegory of the Afterlife” (Spring 2013) 2. Robert Smith, “Salvific Suffering and the Dark Night of the Soul” (Spring 2013) 3. Chris Hauser, “Recovering the Metaphysical Character of Truth” (Spring 2012) 4. Suiwen Liang, “Christians, Pagans, and the Good Life” (Spring 2012) 5. Aaron Colston, “Instructive Ghosts: ‘Christian’ Nihilism and Symbolic Renewal in A Good Man is Hard to Find” (Fall 2011) 6. Chris Hauser, “The Rationality of Fairy Stories” (Spring 2011) 7. Peter Blair, “A Proof for the Existence of God” (Winter 2011) 8. Peter Blair, “Reason and Faith: the Thought of Thomas Aquinas” (Fall 2009)
2. Explore the role of faith in a historical figure’s life This second type of article takes a famous historical figure and explores the role that figure’s faith played in his or her life, especially in the discoveries, actions, or writings for which they are famous. The goal of this type of article is to showcase the crucial importance of faith to many prominent figures in secular history, an importance which is often unrecognized in secular and academic historical narratives.
guide to choosing a topic
Examples: 1. Steffi Ostrowski, “Christianity and Feminism: a Look into the Work of Mary Astell” (Spring 2013) 2. Will Hogan, “Eliot’s Early Poetry and the Search for a Saving Faith” (Fall 2012) 3. Hayden Kvamme, “The Mind of God: Cantor and Augustine on the Nature of Infinity” (Fall 2011) 4. Steffi Ostrowski, “Nicholas of Cusa: Exploring the Intersection of Christianity and Scientific Discovery” (Fall 2011) 5. Grace Nauman, “Science and Orthodoxy: the Faith of Galileo and Kepler” (Winter 2011) 6. Emily DeBaun, “The ‘Passions’ of J.S. Bach” (Fall 2009) 7. Sarah White, “Genuine Responsibility: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the German Resistance” (Fall 2009) 8. Sarah White, “Faith Takes Action: William Wilberforce and the Abolition of the Slave Trade” (Spring 2009)
3. Explore events in the history of the Christian faith Unlike the previous group of articles, this type of article is explicitly focused on historical events and developments within the Christian church. Of course, it is not enough to just summarize a series of historical events; articles must have some kind of argument or thesis they aim to defend. Examples include (i) clearing up a misconception about an event in the history of the Christian faith, (ii) deepening our understanding of the historical genesis of Christian teachings or theses, and (iii) using the history to illustrate something interesting about the appeal or uniqueness of the Christian faith.
133
134
the apologia toolkit
Examples: 1. Timothy Toh, “Jesus: Temple Revolutionary” (Fall 2012) 2. Blake Neff, “Historicity and Holy War: Putting the Crusades in Context” (Fall 2011) 3. Suiwen Liang, “Gnosticism and the Meaning of Heresy” (Spring 2011) 4. Alexandra Heywood, “God in the Gulag: Christianity’s Survival in Soviet Russia” (Winter 2011) 5. Sarah White and Charles Clark, “Pure Religion: Revivalism and Reform in Early 19th Century America” (Spring 2010) 6. Brendan Woods, “Christianity and Culture: Lessons from China” (Spring 2010) 7. Anna Lynn Doster and Sarah White, “Comparing the Status of Women in the Early Christian Church” (Fall 2009)
4. Apply a Christian lens to an academic discussion or to a contemporary social/ethical issue The goal of these articles is to illustrate the relevance of the Christian faith to topics of academic research and debates about contemporary social/ethical issues. These articles can be quite difficult to write, since they require the author to integrate the teachings and ideas of the Christian faith into a discussion or debate that is often framed in only secular terms. It is crucially important in these articles that the author, even as she utilizes themes and teachings from Christianity, defends the appeal of her position with terminology and premises that can be appreciated by non-Christian interlocutors and readers.
guide to choosing a topic
Examples: 1. Jake Casale, “Christianity and Personality” (Spring 2014) 2. Jess Tong, “The Art of Reconciliation: Grappling with the Tragedy and Gravity of Suicide” (Spring 2014) 3. Nathaniel Schmucker, “Caspar David Friedrich and a Christian Understanding of Romanticism” (Spring 2012) 4. Hannah Jung, “On the Philosophy of Friendship” (Fall 2012) 5. Shengzhi Li, “Christianity and Meaningful Work” (Spring 2012) 6. Brendan Woods “Euthyphro’s Dilemma and the Goodness of God” (Winter 2011)
5. Defend the Christian faith from an objection or a misconception This is perhaps the most obvious and straightforward type of article. Unlike all of the others, these articles tend to be explicitly “apologetical,” i. e., aimed at defending the consistency, intelligibility, and/or truth of some aspect of Christianity. At the same time, the best articles of this form are not merely apologetical. Instead of simply trying to defuse the objection, the best articles of this form aim to deepen the reader’s understanding of some aspect of the Christian faith and thereby do not put an end to discussion but instead provoke new reflection and thoughtful discussion of issues involved.
135
136
the apologia toolkit
Examples: 1. Macy Ferguson, “Conflicting Interpretations: Debunking Galileo’s Science v. Faith Controversy” (Spring 2014) 2. Rachel McKee, “In Defense of Miracles” (Spring 2014) 3. Joshua Tseng-Tham, “Hurricanes and Animal Suffering: Law, Craig, and Lewis on the Problem of Evil” (Spring 2014) 4. Chris Hauser, “The Divine Attributes: Why an Imperfect God Just Won’t Do” (Spring 2013) 5. Peter Blair, “Epistemic Pluralism and the Christian Tradition” (Spring 2011) 6. Robert Smith, “The End of the World: Authentic Christian Eschatology” (Spring 2011) 7. Peter Blair, “The Christian Integration of Morality, Freedom, and Happiness” (Spring 2010)
6. Explore how the Christian faith can be reconciled with scientific discoveries Many people, both Christians and non-Christians, fall into thinking that there is at least a prima facie conflict between science and religion. Sometimes, this conflict is thought to be methodological: the rigor and objectivity of “The Scientific Method” is contrasted with the subjectivity and purported lack of rigor involved in discussions of faith. Other times, this conflict is thought to be substantive: the theories and discoveries of modern science are thought to undermine or debunk a wide range of religious claims. Apologia articles of this last type aim to confront this prima facie conflict head-on by illustrating how, upon closer investigation, a proper understanding of the relevant science and the relevant
guide to choosing a topic
religious doctrines reveals either no conflict or at least the possibility of reconciliation.
Examples: 1. Emily DeBaun, “Quantum Mechanics and Divine Action” (Winter 2011) 2. Charles Clark, “The Flattening of the Earth: How Two Men Forged the Conflict between Science and Religion from Bad History” (Fall 2009) 3. Peter Blair, “The Naturalist Dilemma and Why Christianity Supports a Better Science” (Spring 2009)
Off-limit topics: the “Big Three” As you can see, there is not only a wide-range of subject areas for articles but also a variety of approaches on offer. Nonetheless, there are three topics which should never be discussed in a published article: 1. Abortion 2. Homosexuality/Gay Marriage 3. Evolution/Human Origins Let us start with the first two: there are four main reasons to avoid publishing anything that explicitly touches on abortion or homosexuality/gay marriage. First, these are political issues, issues which are closely associated with political affiliation United States, but we as the Apologia want to avoid presenting ourselves as affiliated with any political party. Second, these are personal issues—ones that cut deep, emotionally and personally. With regard to such issues, the impersonal forum of a published journal is only likely to wound and offend, provoking resentment and
137
138
the apologia toolkit
anger rather than thoughtful reflection and discussion. Third, these are divisive issues even within the Christian Church: not all Christians agree about these two issues—particularly about homosexuality and gay marriage—and hence a public commitment on these issues, one way or the other, is very likely to alienate not only readers but also members. Finally, these issues are dominating: a single article, whatever its view, will give the journal a semi-permanent reputation, which will dominate and obscure the rest of the good work of the journal. In saying all of this, I do not mean to imply that these issues are not important or worthy of discussion. Rather, the point is that the published journal of this sort is not the right forum for that discussion. What about evolution? At first glance, it may seem odd to avoid this topic: is not defusing the purported conflict between faith and science a key target for the Apologia? There is certainly truth to this point. The problem is that discussion of evolution and human origins has become especially divisive in church politics. For good or for ill, there is a substantial portion of the Christian church that not only vehemently denies the truth of evolutionary theory but also ardently resists its being given a place in the curriculum of public education in America. Thus, the issue of evolution and human origins has sown division not only in the Christian population itself but also in the secular politics of the United States. As with the first two off-limits topics, any article published on evolution and human origins, whatever its view, will instantly brand the Apologia as affiliated with that side of the debate, and once again, that brand will easily dominate and overshadow the rest of the good work of the journal. Thus, as desirable as it would be to say something about this issue given its status as a prominent example of a purported science-religion conflict, it is nonetheless preferable to leave this issue too for another forum. ~ CH
Meditation on I Peter 3:13-17 I Peter 3:13-17 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense [Gk. apologia] to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. The Greek word, apologia, means “defense” or even “a speech in defense,” often conjuring up the image of a courtroom, as in Plato’s famous Apology. This is also the word, of course, from which The Dartmouth Apologia derives its name. One of the Apologia’s first formulations of its mission was, “to articulate Christian perspectives in the academic community.” Implicit in this understanding of its mission has always been that such perspectives are often absent from this community, or even being directly challenged. It is in response to such challenges that the Apologia has sought to “make a defense” of a Christian perspective in each of its articles, often seeking to show that the original challenge is actually based on a misconception, either about the world or about Christianity. This is not wholly unlike the situation that the early readers of I Peter were facing. These early Christians were experiencing sporadic persecution around the Roman Empire, some verbal, some violent, and some even deadly. It is within this context that the author of I Peter encourages these Christians to always be “pre-
140
the apologia toolkit
58
I Peter 3:15.
59
I Peter 3:21.
pared to make a defense to anyone who asks [them] for a reason for the hope that is in [them].”58 Why would there be a need to make such a defense? One answer is that others would have seen a contradiction between the current sufferings of these persecuted Christians and the hope that nevertheless remained in them. The author encourages his readers to respond to this charge of living inconsistently by showing the charge’s roots in a misconception, pointing to Christ, whose life, death, and resurrection emphatically reveal that suffering and death are nothing, in the end, to make them fearful. He points as well to the readers’ own baptisms, which correspond to this reality and to their own resurrection to come.59 In other words, the original challenge is shown to actually not be a challenge at all: there is no contradiction between present suffering and present hope in Christ. This is worth noticing because it guided the early Christians and guides us now in responding to socalled “challenges.” They are not challenges that we are called to overcome violently or with meanness or pride. Rather, we are called to gently and respectfully show that in the relevant perspective of the challenger, not the one being challenged, there exists a misconception. This is not to say that we as Christians, as individuals and communities, do not have any contradictions or misconceptions in our own beliefs—almost surely, we do. But, it is to say that challenges that, if accurate, would truly render Christianity and the gospel untrue, must contain a misconception. We show this not just in words spoken or on a page, but with our whole lives, and with love, as Peter himself exemplified in his own martyrdom. Like so many aspects of the Christian faith, Peter’s and others’ willingness to die can seem perplexing at first glance, even laughable. Indeed, considered in isolation, neither Peter’s nor anyone else’s death is victorious. The paradigmatic example of this, of course, is Christ’s own death. Without Christ’s res-
meditation on i peter 3:13-17
urrection, the entire Christian life, the entire gospel is not just perplexing, but rightly understood to be an outright lie. Yet, the reality of Christ’s resurrection inspires the life and hope that is in us, and inspires us to be not afraid, and to “honor Christ the Lord as holy� in our hearts.60 As we do, we find that indeed there is a defense to make against any challenge that comes. In making such a defense, however, we do not simply remain consistent; in fact, we reveal to others and ourselves aspects of the very heart of the reality in which we all exist and of which we honor Christ as the Lord. ~ HK
60
I Peter 3:15.
141
Part V
Appendix
Further Reading
The books and essays in this section cover many topics and many eras of Christian history. Some are written by philosophers, others by scientists, others by pastors, and still others by gifted parishioners. All, however, have been deeply important for the development of the Apologia’s mode of thought. We include these selections for one of two reasons. They either have been the foundation for one or more of the tools contained in this book, or they exemplify what we seek to accomplish with our own writing. They demonstrate that a vigorous Christian life can be pursued alongside a rigorous intellectual life; they show the rationality of the Christian faith; and they show the supreme beauty of the Christian life. This is the type of writing to which we aspire. Although we cannot help but lean heavily on the scholarship of Chesterton, Lewis, and Tolkien, we do not mourn that their day has past. Their work continues even today with the writings of Polkinghorne, Smith, and many others. We, too, at the Apologia aspire to follow the tradition they have established.
St. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions (circa 397). Herbert Butterfield, Christianity and History (1950). G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (1908).
further reading
Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (2006). James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: the Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (2010). Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (1996). C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1943). —, “Bulverism,” “First and Second Things,” and “Meditation in a Toolshed,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (1970). —, Mere Christianity (1952). —, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (1965). John MacArthur, A Tale of Two Sons: The Inside Story of a Father, His Sons, and a Shocking Murder (2008). Flannery O’Connor, “Revelation,” in Everything That Rises Must Converge (1965). St. John Paul II, Fides et Ratio (1998). John Polkinghorne, “Religion in an Age of Science,” McNair Lecture, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (1993). —, Belief in God in an Age of Science (1998). David Rosenhan, “On Being Sane in Insane Places,” in Science (1973). Dorothy Sayers, “Why Work?” in Letters to a Diminished Church: Passionate Arguments for the Relevance of Christian Doctrine (2004).
145
146
the apologia toolkit
James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (2009). —, How (Not) To Be Secular (2014). Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Godlessness: The First Step to the Gulag,” Templeton Address (1983). Glen Tinder, “Can We Be Good Without God? On the Political Meaning of Christianity,” in The Atlantic (December 1989). J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings (1954 and 1955). —, “Leaf by Niggle” and “On Fairy-Stories,” in Tree and Leaf (1964). A.W. Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God: Their Meaning in Christian Life (1961). David Foster Wallace, “All That,” in The New Yorker (December 2009).
About The Dartmouth Apologia dartmouthapologia.org The Dartmouth Apologia, founded in 2006, is an undergraduate journal at Dartmouth College and exists to articulate Christian perspectives in the academic community. Through our journal, blog, open forums, and sponsorship of campus lectures, we seek to revitalize the Christian academic tradition at Dartmouth College. The Dartmouth Apologia seeks to integrate faith and reason in the pursuit of truth. The primary goal of the Apologia has always been simple: reintroduce a Christian perspective into the academic dialogue at Dartmouth College. We believe that although secular academic institutions may have been glad to free themselves from what they thought was a restrictive, dogmatic Christian worldview, they did not know that by removing Christianity, they removed the one voice that had answers to their deepest questions about life and morality. To do this, we must be thoughtful, or else academia will never seriously consider what we have to say; we must be doctrinallyand theologically-sound, or else we subject ourselves to the same risks of erroneous thought that secular academia faces; and we must pursue faithful Christian practice, or else our claim that Christianity affects all of life is empty hypocrisy.
148
the apologia toolkit
The Augustine Collective augustinecollective.org The Augustine Collective is a student-led movement of Christian journals on college campuses. In 2006, Jordan Hylden, founding Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Ichthus, created The Augustine Project Blogspot to facilitate the launch of new journals. Soon after, the editorial staff of journals in New England began to meet annually to share their visions and insights gained from practical experience. In 2011, with generous support from the Cecil B. Day Foundation; Andrew Schuman, founding Editor-in-Chief of Dartmouth’s Apologia; and Tim Norton, consultant with the Day Foundation, formed The Augustine Collective to bring together and support the growing movement. The Augustine Collective exists to support Christian journals on college campuses, foster collaboration and mutually-enriching discussion between journals, and assist in the launch of new journals on college campuses. As we write, edit, and publish we seek to embody the integration of faith and reason modeled in the works of St. Augustine, the fifth-century Bishop of Hippo. Trained as a philosopher in the Greek tradition, Augustine pursued truth wherever he found it: in the literature of the ancient Greeks and in the pages of Holy Scripture. In his view, faith and reason could not ultimately contradict each other because there could be no contradictions in God, the author of truth. We too believe in the unity of truth. Like Augustine, we seek to articulate thoughtful Christian perspectives in the academic community.
about
Eleazar Wheelock Society eleazarwheelock.org The Eleazar Wheelock Society, founded in 2008, exists to further the interests, welfare, and educational purposes of Dartmouth College by engaging the personal, professional, and financial resources of Dartmouth alumni to create environments among students, faculty, and alumni that elevate reason, promote development of robust ethical value systems, stimulate constructive discussion among faiths, and share Christian perspectives. 1. Elevating Reason. We believe faith-based, intellectually rigorous dialogue is integral to the liberal arts education and the training of informed, openminded individuals. We support events, venues, and resources that foster the integration of faith and learning, and constructive, respectful interfaith dialogue. 2. Cultivating Faith. We believe that the Christian faith offers a rational, viable, and liberating foundation for life and thought—at Dartmouth and afterward. The Eleazar Wheelock Society creates environments for students, faculty, and alumni to explore and grow in a robust Christian faith. 3. Discerning Vocation. We believe that reason and faith are expressed in meaningful vocation. We are developing a diverse network of Christian alumni who will engage with current students to help them discern vocation and live a life of service. Through these combined efforts, we partner with Dartmouth in its mission to prepare students for a lifetime of learning and responsible leadership.
149
150
the apologia toolkit
Fare Forward farefwd.com Fare Forward is a Christian review of ideas and cultural commentary launched in the summer of 2012 and written and produced by young adults. The name, “Fare Forward,” is taken from “The Dry Salvages,” the third quartet of T.S. Eliot’s masterpiece, The Four Quartets. As undergraduates, the founding editors and writers of Fare Forward worked with the Augustine Collective, a collection of college-based Christian journals. Fare Forward seeks to build on and extend the Augustine Collective’s success by creating a community of young adults who think well together about faith, reason, and vocation. That community is ecumenical, drawing Christians from different denominations and political persuasions around a common creedal vision.