Not long ago, Christian apologists faced an uphill battle against well-entrenched philosophies of unbelief. Natural theology was deemed long dead, having been slain by the swords of Hume and Kant. Arguments for God’s existence were at best philosophical museum pieces revealing the errors of unenlightened intellectuals. Higher critics had reduced the gospels to ragtag collections of scattered facts, idiosyncratic theologizing, and existentially gripping myths. Philosophers and apologists did well to argue for the intelligibility of religious language (considered non-sense by logical positivists), let alone its rationality or truth. Evangelical apologetics—when pursued at all—was typically practiced outside the academy and often lacked intellectual power (although this could not be said of stalwarts such as Gordon Clark, E. J. Carnell, or Carl Henry).
But seismic shocks have realigned the intellectual world of unbelief in the past three decades, opening up fissures and toppling edifices. Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith recently wrote in the skeptical philosophical journal Philo that the philosophy departments of the academy have been “desecularized” since the late 1960s, largely due to the path-breaking work of Alvin Plantinga’s writings. Given the renaissance in Christian philosophy during the past few decades, atheistic philosophers can no longer assume that their naturalism is justified. Smith even allows that “The justification of most contemporary naturalist views is defeated by contemporary theist arguments.” Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, has the largest subscription base of any philosophy of religion journal and a roster of stellar contributors.
Into this heady atmosphere come two very different apologetics books. Although the final section of Humble Apologetics addresses apologetics proper, it—unlike The Resurrection of God Incarnate—is not really an apologetic for Christianity. One finds no theistic arguments, defenses of the reliability of the Bible, or evaluations of non-Christian worldviews. It is more a primer for the literate reader on how to conduct oneself as an apologist in the contemporary world. While the book is well-documented, its style is sometimes informal and autobiographical.
Stackhouse, a Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College, is a prolific writer on theological, philosophical, and cultural topics. In this wide-ranging work, he discusses contemporary apologetic challenges such as pluralism, postmodernity and postmodernism, and consumerism. He then elaborates insightfully on the meaning of Christian conversion, which is the goal of apologetic activity of all kinds, but which is easily counterfeited when “Christianity lite” is the norm. Lastly, Stackhouse develops strategies of communication that stress humility, virtue, and wisdom, as opposed to the apologetic strategy of mustering sheer intellectual firepower aimed at the “enemy.” Apologetics, he argues, is about commending the faith as much as it is about defending the faith. This involves a total way of life, which includes art, architecture, literature, and Christian community.
Stackhouse warns that Christianity has lost its “plausibility.” Instead of being rejected as irrational, Christianity is dismissed because of its supposed support of racism, sexism, environmental degradation, and imperialism. “For many of our neighbors,” he writes, “the Christian past is simply a chamber of cultural horrors.” Classical apologetic arguments are not designed to answer such charges.
Despite many noteworthy insights, Stackhouse appears to press intellectual humility too far in the direction of uncertainty. He thinks that staking a strong claim for the truth and rationality of Christian theism is incompatible with humility. A humble approach will not attempt to prove Christianity “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In fact, he claims this cannot be done.
This is questionable for two reasons. First, one may have certainty about the rational adequacy of Christianity (and even its rational superiority over other worldviews) and not fall into pride. Humility is a moral virtue that recognizes God as the source of all goodness, both intellectual and moral. It knows its limits, but doesn’t flinch from holding to the truth. One may marshal powerful arguments for the truth of Christianity in a patient, kind, and respectful fashion. William Lane Craig does this regularly in his debates with high-powered unbelievers.
Second, many respected apologists claim that the case for the truth and rationality of Christian theism is stronger than Stackhouse suggests. Many apologists would be reluctant to agree with Stackhouse that Buddhism and naturalism can be rationally believed, and that apologists can argue only for Christianity’s intellectual parity with other worldviews. If other significant worldviews are as rational as Christianity, then adherents of these worldviews would not be accountable to God for their unbelief, which cuts against the argument of the first two chapters of Romans. Aside from a few general comments, Stackhouse does not offer any argument why the best apologetic arguments are unable to secure conviction beyond reasonable doubt. He does not refer to the work of Richard Swinburne, who has offered a deep and sustained case for Christian theism over the past 25 years.
The Resurrection of God Incarnate is a very different book. Swinburne’s work is the epitome of analytic philosophy and meant primarily for scholars (although its most technical material is saved for an appendix). He has previously written a trilogy defending the existence of God and a tetralogy on the philosophy of Christian doctrine. This thin but dense new book builds on the conclusions of his previous work and tackles the central claim of Christianity: God incarnate atoned for our sins and was raised from the dead.
Swinburne has higher hopes for apologetic success than does Stackhouse. His pattern of argument is incremental, nuanced, and attentive to possible objections at every turn. He does not offer deductive proofs, since these are not available for the subject matter he addresses—and in this sense, Swinburne’s approach is properly humble without conceding too much to uncertainty. Along the way, he introduces many fruitful concepts not usually considered by apologists.
Swinburne, unlike the Reformed epistemologists, believes that versions of the classical apologetics project can rationally ground Christian faith. One first argues for monotheism, then for Christian particulars. Instead of making belief in God or the entire Christian worldview “properly basic” (warranted without need of external evidence), Swinburne has in other books employed inductive versions of the cosmological, design, and religious experience arguments for God’s existence. In this book, he argues that if there is “evidence giving substantial probability to the existence of God,” then we have antecedent evidence for an Incarnation. He chides biblical scholars for approaching New Testament texts without taking this background evidence into account.
Part 1 addresses the “general background evidence” for the Incarnation. Swinburne first looks at the “principles for weighing evidence,” which include the likelihood of miracles (against Hume) and the prima facie acceptability of testimony as a source of historical knowledge. He explains—in light of the character of God known through natural theology—”God’s reasons for Incarnation,” such as providing atonement and identifying with suffering. Further, he identifies the “marks of an Incarnate God” as living a perfect life, teaching truths not knowable otherwise, rightly believing oneself to be God Incarnate, and making atonement. Swinburne argues convincingly that Jesus is the best candidate to fulfill these requirements.
In Part 2, Swinburne considers the “prior historical evidence” and argues that the New Testament sources on Jesus’ life (particularly the gospels and Paul’s writings) are reliable (although not inerrant) and confirm all the sufficient marks of the Incarnation. While he seldom refers to evangelical scholars who could credibly defend a higher view of Scripture, Swinburne argues for the basic historicity of the gospel accounts as well as Paul’s testimony concerning the life and ministry of Jesus. He uses what others (such as Gary Habermas) have called a “minimal facts” approach. While he grants that some accounts may be more theological than historical, or may commit small errors of detail, he believes one can still affirm the essential outlines of Jesus’ life on the basis of the best-attested portions of the New Testament.
Lastly, having considered the background evidence for both theism and the marks of the Incarnation as fulfilled in Jesus’ life, he addresses “the posterior historical evidence” for the resurrection. Swinburne argues that the appearances of the risen Christ, the empty tomb, and the observance of Sunday as the Christian day of worship make the resurrection more likely than the best alternative theories. Unlike most apologists for and critics of the resurrection, Swinburne factors in the unique life and character of Jesus as part of the evidence for the resurrection itself. He thus strengthens the case dramatically and adds a significant apologetic element lacking in most positive treatments of the subject. James Sire captured this insight in Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?: “If anyone were to be raised from the dead, it would be a person like Jesus.”
After formalizing his overall argument according to probability calculus (Bayes Theorem), Swinburne concludes that “It is indeed very probable that Jesus was God Incarnate who rose from the dead.” For Swinburne, the significance of the resurrection lies in its vindication of Christ’s atonement and its demonstration of God’s supernatural power. It is “God’s signature” on the life of Jesus and establishes his unique identity and authority.
While some will object to Swinburne’s non-penal view of the atonement, aspects of his soteriology, and his charges of error in the gospels (most of which can be handled by a more nuanced understanding of the literary purpose of each gospel), The Resurrection of God Incarnate nonetheless offers a vital new element to the ongoing case for the truth and rationality of Christianity. So too Humble Apologetics, despite its drawbacks, often speaks wisely to the larger character of apologetics today, making its own distinctive contribution to a grand and exhilarating enterprise.
Douglas Groothuis is associate professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary.
Copyright © 2003 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture magazine. Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.
