I have been reading a long paper (over 200 pages long when including endnotes)— APOLOGETICS, MISSION & NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS: A HOLISTIC APPROACH, by Philip Johnson. It is in Sacred Tribes Journal, Vol. 1, #1.

I must admit that I would have preferred a “Reader’s Digest” version of it, but it is excellent. I had written before that I found his speaking of the Heresy-Rationalist Model of Apologetics. Johnson notes some of the strengths of this model, but also some of its weaknesses. A couple of weaknesses really struck me:

#1. While apologetics of this form often claims to be evangelistic, often it devolves into boundary setting or boundary guarding. That is, it doesn’t reach out to people of other faiths. Rather it tries to define Us versus Them. This is probably very much tied to the second reason.

#2. Apologetics of this type tend to be the specialization of theologians— or more specifically, systematic theologians. Such theologians like to focus on the abstract and in establishing taxonomies of doctrine. Apologetics does not typically draw people to the Christian faith, because those who specialize in it have a very different agenda (even if they don’t know it.).

Johnson described what he called a holistic approach. I am going to call it an interdisciplinary approach (he used this terminology as well). In section 7, Johnson notes the importance of people in apologetics who are trained and skilled in pastoral care and pastoral theology. They are needed to reach out with empathy and concern for those who are struggling with faith and religious culture. Counter-cult experts often are better at traumatizing those who are in a crisis of faith rather than “curing the soul.”

Additionally, Johnson notes the importance of a missiological focus in apologetics. In my book, Dialogue in Diversity, I note three broad interreligious dialogue— one is what I call the Apologetics models. These are typically of the Heresy-Rationalist variety. At the other end is the Common Ground models— which focus on mutual understanding, but without focus on truth and transformation. In between are Clarification models. This seeks common ground and contextualization, while still focusing on influencing the other. This seems to be what Johnson is getting at. He notes that apologists today rarely quote missiologists. I certainly don’t normally quote apologists. There is a wall of separation.

I remember talking to my friend about Paul in Athens. My friend thinks that Paul really messed up in Athens. For myself, despite the fact that I believe that Paul messed up a number of times in the New Testament record, I don’t believe Athens is one of them. Reading Philip Johnson, I see that my friend sees things through a heresy-rationalist lens. I see things through a missiological-contextual lens. I don’t think I am putting words into my friend’s mouth to suggest that he would want Paul to quote from the Bible even though the hearers would not consider it authoritative, ignore or repudiate pagan sources, and generally focus on differences. This is pretty good if one wants to show the men of the Areopagus to be wrong (at least in the eyes of any Christians that may happen to be there). However, it is unlikely short of the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit working against the method rather than with the method that the people of Mars Hill to be moved to change.

A missiologist will seek to understand the differences between the belief system of the other with himself (or herself) but only after truly seeking to understand their belief system, including areas of common ground. The missiologist would seek to interview people of that faith to understand what is practiced, not simply what is believed, and to understand how the range of belief differs from the “official beliefs” of the faith. The missiologist would deal with people rather than people groups.

Actually, on this last point, that may not be true. Missiologists have perhaps fallen too deep into the “people group” framework. Probably time to start stepping away from that. It is actually with the Pastoral theologians and pastoral care providers where one finds the focus being on the individual, connecting of individuals and groups, rather than abstract categories.

I must admit, I am not very interested in apologetics… at least not as it is commonly carried out. But if we can move it toward an interdisciplinary model— guided by principles of pastoral theology and missiology— it is possible that that there may be evangelistic and missional value in apologetics (something I thought I would never say).

Johnson notes that where there is some communication between apologetics and missiology, it is the interaction between apologetics and pastoral theology where there is much work to be done.

Prayerfully, that will soon change.