This of course doesn’t apply to all, but it’s a pretty common pattern I have noticed. I’ll kinda break this down into three examples and come back together at the end:
1: Modern Epistemology
The Bible extols the virtues of faith, and much of the Christian belief system is grounded in faith, tradition, and texts. Despite this, many Christians seem obsessed with “proving” the God of the Bible and the Bible itself. There is also this obsession with the Bible being absolute literal fact.
To me this seems very modern. The modern doctrine of inerrancy didn’t come about until the last few centuries. And modern attitudes around factual truth and journalistic and historical factuality weren’t really issues for the church fathers. They seemed much more comfortable with faith and mystery, which the Bible itself also seems to extol.
2: Modern Morals
Many conservative Christians and apologists attack more progressive Christians for “twisting scripture” to allow them to be affirming. They pronounce their morals as being wholly biblical, untainted and not defined by the modern morals of society, but only by God.
Despite this, apologists will bend over backwards finding ways write things modern society finds immoral out of the text. Slavery, for example, is clearly and plainly permitted by the Bible, and it has been interpreted as such for 1500 years, only changing recently. I’ve also noticed a handful of folks trying to re-age Mary to fit modern ideas around ages of consent, rather than those of her own time. And there are of course the rather common, but not universal, justifications for accruing wealth, such as explaining away Jesus’s words to the rich man as directly to him alone.
3: Modern Methods
Modern apologists will extol the failures of science. They will tell anyone who challenges them with scientific arguments and science with accusations of spiritual blindness and say that science cannot reveal metaphysical truths.
At the same time, they preach “scientific” proofs of God and the Bible. They build and fund whole organizations around hunting down scientific evidence of the Bible. They dig up Dino bones and build arks and make their own journals.
Conclusion
It just seems to me like a lot of apologetics talk out of both sides of their mouths. They extol a belief system based in faith, a moral system free of modern popular morality, and a condemn the scientific method as a way of arriving at truth. At the same time they demand journalistic factuality of the Bible, they don’t go against established majority social morals—just those in conflict or minority, and they seek scientific validation of their faith.
Why is this? Why, if they truly believe the former, would anyone do the latter? Why attack those who bend the text when they do themselves?
And why are they often so loath to actually follow the values they extoll? I can count one hand the number of argumentative apologists who have argued that their system is wholly faith based and held to it. I have seen few who will say that slavery is considered moral by the Bible, even if we chose not to do it today for whatever reason.
Christians, how do you navigate all of these apparent tensions in your worldview, and how do you think your siblings in Christ do?
I think this is mostly an issue I see with conservative or rationalist apologetics, but those of a more liberal persuasion are welcome to reply as well.