A Defense of the “New Apologetics”

Mark A. McNeil

Introduction

The New Apologetics and My Conversion

The recent America article by Professor Gaillardetz (vol. 190 No. 3, Feb. 2, 2004) analyzing the “new apologetics,” was of special interest to me. My own conversion to Catholicism resulted from a complex of experiences, books, classes and people. My journey to Catholicism in part was influenced by the so-called “new apologetics.” For instance, I remember some years ago watching Fr. Pacwa on the John Ankerberg Show answering the challenges of the well-known expert on Christian “cults,” Walter Martin. Pacwa, although outnumbered and disadvantaged by the format, offered reasonable explanations to the questions addressed to him. I later remember hearing Scott Hahn’s conversion story on a tape given to me by a good Protestant friend who happened to hear the tape on a radio program. He was so intrigued and perplexed by the story that he wanted me to listen and offer a response. These experiences, along with countless others of different sorts, raised my awareness to the possibility that the Catholic Church, so vilified during my youth, might actually have a plausible explanation and defense of its teachings.

Gaillardetz: My Professor

In the mid-90’s, although not yet a Catholic, I chose to study theology at St. Mary’s Seminary in Houston, Texas. Gaillardetz was one of my first professors. Over the few years I studied at the seminary, I had a fair amount of exposure to his teaching in several different settings. Although I was largely unfamiliar with the subtleties of the Catholic spectrum of theology, it was clear that Gaillardetz had little tolerance for, what he perceived to be, fundamentalism in Catholic garb. It was also obvious that Gaillardetz was at least open to questioning matters that the “new apologists” tended to consider settled matters. Questions of homosexuality, women in the priesthood, gender-specific language with reference to God, are only a few of the topics that were raised at various points in the classroom. My point here is simply to make an observation, not to criticize. Such matters as these are well beyond the scope of a brief reply to Gaillardetz’s article but they are relevant to describing the difference of orientation and mindset between the sides of this debate. At the very least, I think it is safe to say that Gaillardetz should be categorized as a speculative theologian who seeks to explore the boundaries of Catholic theology. The apologetics movement he is critiquing, however, by the nature of its task, is concerned with proclaiming and defending the “safe” areas well within the boundaries tested by Gaillardetz. This difference of purpose, I am convinced, is crucial to understanding and answering the challenge of Gaillardetz’s article.

Purpose

Given my own background, I wish to offer a critical reaction to Gaillardetz’s article. I sincerely owe much to Gaillardetz and others who taught me theology. I must also admit, though, that I owe much to the new apologetics movement. I believe both sides deserve criticism at times and therefore I have no intention of merely criticizing one side or the other. Some reply is in order, however.

The conclusion of my response, as will be seen, is that Gaillardetz’s critique fails to discredit the substance of the new apologetics. The new apologists do include the valuable concerns expressed in the America article and also express the Catholic faith in an effective and substantive way. For these reasons, the new apologetics deserves a continued place in the evangelization efforts of the Church.

Strengths of the New Apologetics

Gaillardetz recognizes three particular strengths in the new apologetics movement: (1) The enthusiasm, passion and conviction with which the apologists present their faith. (2) Their bold and fearless willingness to speak of the doctrinal truths of Catholicism. (3) They often present effective responses to fundamentalist attacks on the Catholic faith.

It is not necessary to focus here on these points except to note that any apologetics methodology that does not include these strengths will fall far short of achieving its objective. For instance, it is difficult to see why someone would convert to Catholicism (or remain Catholic) if there is little passion and conviction present. In fact, the challenge of apologetics is significantly more difficult today, it would seem, than in prior generations. It is rarely enough today to be raised a Catholic. Our increasingly pluralistic and skeptical age demands that Catholics justify their existence. It is not enough to merely cite an authority or quote one’s parish priest. Our partners in dialog want to know why they should listen to the message of Catholicism. More and more Catholics are willing to abandon the faith of their upbringing either to fall into some form of skepticism or to embrace some form of fundamentalist Christianity. The new apologetics movement, as a result of the strengths mentioned by Gaillardetz and, I would argue, others as well, has given numerous Catholics an alternative to fundamentalism while staying within the Church.

Perhaps it is worth noting that any apologetics must evidence these strengths in order to be effective. The very meaning of apologetics demands that we present the most compelling and persuasive reasons to embrace our faith.

“Weaknesses” of the New Apologetics

Methodology

Gaillardetz offers a series of criticisms of the new apologetics. His first concern is that the apologists often “mirror” the methodology of their opponents. This is especially evident, he writes, in their willingness to engage in debates about various biblical texts. As their “opponents” are anxious to cite texts that supposedly conflict with Catholic teachings, so the apologists cite texts of their own that, they believe, support Catholic faith. Gaillardetz thinks that the more basic problem is a faulty understanding of divine revelation itself. The apologists see divine revelation in an “overly propositional” way. He says there is “little sense” that divine revelation is “more” than a set of propositional truths.

Of course, Gaillardetz is making a subjective judgment about the level of awareness in those he is criticizing. In my own experience, all thoughtful apologists I have listened to or talked with have given no indication that they think our final beatitude will consist in the worship of a creed or the pages of the Bible. The Bible, creeds and conclusions of councils all direct attention to the reality of God and Christ. The function of the Bible and all other similar instructional mediums is that we may know and love God. Because the apologists emphasize the “propositional” mediums of our knowledge and experience of God does not mean that they think of them as the final goal of our Christian experience.

Perhaps the difference between Gaillardetz and the apologists is one of degree on this matter rather than kind. Since Gaillardetz grants that “divine revelation is encountered in a set of propositional truths,” surely he can understand why the apologists would want to argue for an accurate understanding of the propositions. Further, we must be careful that our emphasis on the experiential aspect in defining divine revelation does not relativize or function as a excuse for our failure to study and learn the propositions that express and serve as the foundation for our faith. I say foundation because we discover the truth of Christ as God’s self-communication by way of the message of Scripture as understood in the Church.

Further, there is something to be said for interacting with the critics of our faith by using the approaches that are most effective in dealing with them. I dare say that anyone with significant experience with fundamentalists will know that a failure to know the Bible and cite biblical texts will be seen as a significant weakness. An ability to offer texts and offer reasonable explanations for texts offered in support of various non-Catholic perspectives will go much further than talk about an overemphasis on propositional revelation. Additionally, there are interesting biblical examples of Jesus accommodating His argumentation to the orientation and perspectives of His listeners. With the Sadducees (who accepted only the books of Moses), for instance, Jesus cited a text from the Law of Moses (Mt. 22:23-33). There are clearer texts on the resurrection in other Old Testament books (e.g., Daniel 12:2) but Jesus offered a biblical text that suggested the position He was defending from the books His opponents accepted.

Saying that it is possible to overemphasize propositions cannot possibly justify sloth and indifference with respect to the study and citation of the sacred page. Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants will find little reason to listen to Catholics if they cannot offer reasonable explanations of Scripture. This will necessarily involve some quotation and discussion of biblical texts. Our Protestant friends will find our lack of emphasis on the propositional statements of Scripture a sign of weakness. The willingness of Catholic apologists to engage Protestants and others by finding some point of contact and passionately interacting on that level also seems consistent with the depiction of the Apostle Paul “disputing” and “reasoning” with the Jews and Greeks in the book of Acts and elsewhere (e.g., Acts 17:17, 19:8).

“Emphasis”

In reading Gaillardetz’s article, a general concern emerges that many of his points are rather vague and subjective. His concerns are primarily ones of “emphasis.” As pointed out above, I don’t think he could find any thoughtful, recognized apologists who would deny that propositions are a means to something higher (i.e., God). Gaillardetz seems concerned with the level of this awareness. The new apologist, of course, would offer similar concerns in response. He would be concerned that Gaillardetz may have little sense that “divine revelation is encountered in a set of propositional truths.” The concerns about levels of emphasis cuts both ways.

The same concerns should be expressed about Gaillardetz’s references to Dei Verbum in the subsequent paragraph. Although his carefully formulated description of the teachings of this Vatican II document merits consideration, his conclusion that dogmas are “truthful statements about the mystery of God—but,” he adds, “not in such a way that there is nothing more that could be said of that holy mystery,” is perplexing. Who said that we can exhaust the divine mystery with words? I’ve done a fair amount of reading in the current literature and have never read such a claim (or anything that could be construed as suggesting it).

Further, Gaillardetz’s summation of the teachings of the Council may validly be accused of being based on a selective reading of the text. Not only does the council affirm the Scriptures “have God as their author” and that He “acted in them and through them” so that the human authors “consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted” (No. 11), but also that “since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” As I recall, Gaillardetz views these strong statements regarding biblical inspiration as “hold-overs” and compromise statements by the council fathers. These statements support the conviction that the propositional statements of Scripture must be viewed as divinely-given and therefore normative for the expression and development of the faith. Additionally, such statements as these show that reading the council statements in light of their historical context and background is no easy task. The council was conscious of its duty to express the faith in a way that is consistent with what had been taught before. If this is so, and it seems required by the nature of Catholic theology, Vatican II cannot be read accurately without reading it in the context of the whole tradition. For this reason, the traditional emphasis on propositional revelation must be factored into one’s understanding of divine revelation.

“Hierarchy of Truths”

Gaillardetz concludes that a consequence of the propositional emphasis is a “leveling of the authoritative status of Catholic teaching.” This is opposed, he writes, to the “hierarchy of truths” and also leads to a disregard of the authoritative status of non-dogmatic teachings.

Presumably what is in mind here is the tendency to treat some theological affirmations like, let us say, the Assumption of Mary, as equal in importance to, say, the dogma of the Trinity. Further, he has in mind a failure to distinguish between those matters that have been made a distinct object of solemn definition and those that have not (e.g., celibacy of the priesthood).

To whatever degree this may be true in specific cases, several points must be made. First, I do think that apologists have a strong sense that the truths about God have a more central and foundational role in our faith than, say, the Marian teachings. Second, what Gaillardetz may be concerned about is the tendency of the apologists to consider all the Church’s dogmatic teachings as equally necessary for the faithful Catholic. In other words, to be a Catholic is to believe that God guides His Church into the truth and therefore if the Church solemnly proposes something as true (regardless of where it falls in the hierarchy of truths), it must be embraced as true.

The same may be said of the non-dogmatic teachings. The apologists, due to their enthusiasm and conviction with respect to the Church, think that it is most appropriate for Catholics to treat such teachings with respect. In other words, the teachings of the Church that have not been defined in an extraordinary way are not simply “suggestions” by the Church but should be seen as reflecting the basic convictions of the Church that flow from our theological and moral foundations. Given the wisdom and experience of the Church through the centuries, it ought to be normative that I submit to her judgments. That the Church may incorrectly make a judgment in a given case does not mean I presume it has. As a consequence, the apologists tend to give the Church the benefit of the doubt. The apologists do not focus on the possibility that some teachings may be erroneous but rather they focus on the proper response of the faithful to the loving care of the Church, our mother. What concerns many of the apologists is the contrary attitude. Some, including Richard McBrien (later mentioned by Gaillardetz), seem to think little of publicly opposing the stances of the Church on various matters. Since the apologist’s “reason for being” is to defend the Church, it is no wonder that his emphasis will be in support of the Church’s teachings, whatever their level of authority.