25 May 2006

Apologetics essential in postmodernity

I have found my thoughts returning to this over the last couple of days.
a survey conducted of 14,000 churchgoers in England where in an open-ended questionnaire churchgoers were asked to write down why they thought the church is in decline. The result? 73% of the 14,000 surveyed stated "clergy failed to prepare congregations for challenges to their faith, including explaining faith to non-churchgoers."

I think it's because it has rung a bell for me in experience. Apologetics is personally what drives a lot of my theological exploration, ultimately and it is what I see as needful in terms of enabling lay witness to be more effective. I seem to recall that much early church theology was essentially related to the kinds of challenges being posed by living in a 'pagan' society...
Anyway read Phil Johnson's post here, he's right too, I think, about it needing to be part of ministerial formation more fully and also to be embodied.
circle of pneuma: Apologetics essential in postmodernity:
Filed in: , , , ,

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Andii, I recall some time ago the Christian Research Association in Australia did a survey of non-believers on the question of 'What might make you more receptive to trying out church?'

If I forgive me for only being approximate as I rely on my memory: more contemporary/alternative came in around 25% of respondants whilst the highest two responses were (a) more openess to spirituality and (b) more openess to discussion about other religions at around 50%

It suggests that alt. apologetics is a far far more pressing issue than alt. worship.

You said, "Apologetics is personally what drives a lot of my theological exploration", and I'd second that myself. A much neglected area in Christian teaching is our theology of other religions. How people can claim to be missional in a pluralistic society without seriously engaging with other religious thought and rennovating their theology in this area is beyond me.

I would like to encourage more serious dialogue within the EC on this issue

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...