{"id":37031,"date":"2024-03-23T08:49:55","date_gmt":"2024-03-23T15:49:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/?p=37031"},"modified":"2024-03-23T08:49:55","modified_gmt":"2024-03-23T15:49:55","slug":"modern-apologetic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/modern-apologetic\/","title":{"rendered":"Modern Apologetic"},"content":{"rendered":"

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, \u201cThat chicken sandwich doesn\u2019t have a political position.\u201d She chuckled then said, \u201cIt\u2019s a matter of conscious for me.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A Modern Apologetic\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

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<\/i>. 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/i> or Evidence that Demands a Verdict<\/i> 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<\/i> when he asked the question, \u201cHow 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?\u201c[2]<\/p>\n

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, \u201cThe book\u2019s 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\u2026\u201d[3] The reason for the church to enter the conversation is because the culture needs it. Petrusek argues that \u201cthings are falling apart.\u201d[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 \u201cmore reasonable sociopolitical framework than secular alternatives.\u201d[5].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Enter the Fray<\/b><\/p>\n

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 \u201crestore the lost art of disagreement.\u201d[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].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n

I was quickly drawn into Petrusek\u2019s 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\u2019s 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? \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u200c1. Matthew Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture <\/i>(Word on Fire, 2022), p. 1-3.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Thomas Collins. Forward to Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture <\/i>by Matthew Petrusek (Word on Fire, 2022), p. vii.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Petrusek, 13.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

4. Ibid., 4.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

5. Ibid.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

6. Ibid., 21.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

7. Ibid., 31.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

8. Ibid., 74-97.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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, \u201cThat chicken […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[2347,2997],"class_list":["post-37031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-dlgp01","tag-petrusek","cohort-dlgp01"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37031"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37031\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37032,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37031\/revisions\/37032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}