Modern Apologetic
I recently met with a colleague at Chick-fil-a to discuss the preaching calendar for the summer. While sharing lunch, she mentioned that she had not been at the restaurant in a number of years. I ask her more about this and she shared that it was because of their political positions. I quipped, “That chicken sandwich doesn’t have a political position.” She chuckled then said, “It’s a matter of conscious for me.”
A Modern Apologetic
This mentality has become more pervasive that last few years. It is an example of the political tribalism that Matthew Petrusek is addressing in his book, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture. He observes that we wear our political ideologies on our sleeves, while these ideologies become markers of the political positions in which we belong[1]. He observes that it is now fashionable to publicly align with political positions, unlike in previous years, which is why the church should enter the fray of political discourse as an act of evangelism.
His book is a modern apologetic addressing political issues and, in particular, the ideologies that support the political positions. In many ways, this book picks up the modern (perhaps, postmodern) apologetic voice of the church in the ways that books like, The Case for Christ or Evidence that Demands a Verdict did in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It follows in this legacy of evangelical imperative as it confronts the various pervasive ideologies at work within the political and cultural milieu. This is the impetus that Cardinal Thomas Collins offers in his Forward when he asked the question, “How do we effectively proclaim the life-giving reality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a society in which people are deluded by the ideologies that, upon examination, are revealed to be both false and destructive?“[2]
Petrusek takes up the task by arguing that the best way to evangelize the culture is to offer a counter-position that is more coherent and results in human flourishing. He writes, “The book’s proximate goal is to show how political debate, sone with the right tools, can help win minds to a conception of the good that is, in fact, good…”[3] The reason for the church to enter the conversation is because the culture needs it. Petrusek argues that “things are falling apart.”[4]. From drug use, divorce, suicide and loneliness are all the result of a world in need of a coherent way of life. Secondly, the reason to be evangelize in this way is because the church has a “more reasonable sociopolitical framework than secular alternatives.”[5].
Enter the Fray
It is from this that Petrusek prepares the reader to enter the political and cultural fray to evangelize using the toolbox of Catholic Social Thought. He begins his case by setting the goal of restoring old-fashion debate. He argues that we have to “restore the lost art of disagreement.”[6] He teaches the reader to argue properly even examining the difference between facts and opinions in an argument[7]. He builds upon his apologetic by dismantling the underlying philosophical tradition while positing that Catholic Social Thought is a better coherent ideology. He does this by contrasting the implication of autonomy from the influential philosophy of Immanuel Kant and the perspective of human dignity found in Catholic Social Thought. Petrusek concludes that dignity better addresses the ethical implications of human actions[8].
Conclusion
I was quickly drawn into Petrusek’s observations about modern ideological and political tribalism that is fashionable in popular culture. Many people choose not to engage in political conversations due to the social backlash of asserting anything outside the political party line. Not to mention, the unintentional transgressions that may happen over a chicken sandwich. In that regard, I appreciate the way that Petrusek calls for engagement and addresses the intellectual poverty of the ideologies that many people hold. Yet, that is my challenge with the book. Much like the early scientific apologetic books, I wonder if it is a case of adventures in missing the point. While there are certainly contexts in which people are aware and can argue the nuance of their ideologies, I think most people hold positions for experiential reasons. This can be personal or communal experiences that people identify. Which makes me wonder if a person were to engage with Petrusek’s work, would they become more loving and compassionate toward the people who hold the popular ideologies or would they revert to merely seeking to win arguments?
1. Matthew Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture (Word on Fire, 2022), p. 1-3.
2. Thomas Collins. Forward to Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture by Matthew Petrusek (Word on Fire, 2022), p. vii.
3. Petrusek, 13.
4. Ibid., 4.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., 21.
7. Ibid., 31.
8. Ibid., 74-97.
About the Author
Chad McSwain
Chad is a systematic creative serving in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years, Chad is a professional question-asker and white-board enthusiast, who enjoys helping people discover their own passions and purpose. A life-long learner, he has a B.A, Philosophy - Univ. Central Oklahoma, M.A Theology - Fuller Seminary, M.Div. Perkins School of Theology at SMU and is pursuing a Doctor of Leadership - George Fox University. He is an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church, currently serving as Lead Pastor of Whitesboro UMC. Chad and his wife, Brandi live in Prosper, Texas along with their three children, two pugs and a chameleon.9 responses to “Modern Apologetic”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Chad,
I am curious how you are with sharing your political leanings?
“Many people choose not to engage in political conversations due to the social backlash of asserting anything outside the political party line. ”
I think you raise a good point about the author …making solid points but does this achieve what he is after or only helping the reader to be a better debator when said is done?
I liked the way that you opened the blog with the Chic FilA example and I liked the way you ended the blog by posing a question. Great writing- sounding like a doctor!
Hey Kristy – I share my political leanings all the time to those who are a listening. Those who want sound bites and party positions probably think I agree with them! 🙂 I don’t engage with the issues directly but I am not sure I get this right all the time. I am frankly repulsed by pastors who lead with particular political positions. I think the church should be a place where we discuss and work out higher values then determine for ourselves how that is worked out within the latest issue or policy – we may come to different conclusions but I hope we can keep community.
Chad,
Great post, I appreciate your humor and to keep things light hearted. I’m not a big fan on Apologetics and would rather focus my time and energy elsewhere.
Chad. First off, I have to say that I really like your writing style. Your introductions normally open with a story that hooks your readers (such as myself). Well done.
These sentences stood out to me:
“Yet, that is my challenge with the book. Much like the early scientific apologetic books, I wonder if it is a case of adventures in missing the point. While there are certainly contexts in which people are aware and can argue the nuance of their ideologies, I think most people hold positions for experiential reasons.”
This made me think of James K A Smith’s book summarizing Charles Taylor’s “A Secular Age.” He poses this question that without epistemological foundations, “might postmodernism be an ally of Christianity rather than a threat?”
So, in summary, are you opening up apologetics to taking a postmodern approach (maybe, according to Smith, that isn’t always such a bad thing)? Is this what you are inviting us to consider?
David – thank you so much. That means a lot to me coming from a great writer like yourself.
I have not read “Secular Age” but I feel like it is a required text. Perhaps, the next book?
I would say I am more of a Christian Existentialist. I am more concerned with existence and ontology. I think that is the underlying question that people are navigating. I am drawn to the way that Paul revealed the Unknown God by pointing out that it is within this God that “we live and move and have our being.”
I like this thought that postmodernism may be an ally of Christianity. What an interesting idea!
Chad! I laughed out loud because not only did I picture that chicken sammy as the next president, I could hear you say it!
Thank you for always breaking the ice with humor!
Hey! What a fun post! I laughed out loud picturing that sammy as the next President, and I could hear you saying it! Thank you for always bring some humor!
I have made this comment no joke 4-6 times. So if several show up please forgive me. It won’t post.
I can not only hear you say this but also am picturing that Sammy as the next president!
lol! President Sammy! I vote for the Sandwich!