Connecting Christ - What is Relational-Incarnational Apologetics?

I have been trying to decide how to approach this blog for Connecting Christ, I'm thinking twice a week blog posts - a Tuesday and Friday rhythm, Lord willing. Obviously there is much more in a book than can be covered in a single blog post, which is why I recommend you get yourself a copy. So...I will focus on the key concept of each chapter, add some thoughts of my own, perhaps tie in a relevant news story and ask some conversation starters.  Comments are welcome, either here on the blog or Facebook. 

To frame his thesis in Chapter 1 Professor Metzger is answering a rhetorical question - what is Relational-Incarnational Apologetics? Perhaps we can ask the Professor another question, "what difference does it make?" - to borrow a phrase. Professor Metzger however anticipated that questions well as he contrasts his ideas about Relational-Incarnational with two popular apologetic approaches he names as "Worldview approach" and a "Market-Driven approach."

The Worldview approach, is based on good arguments and the dismantling of the argument of other worldviews. Think of the formalistic apologetic that points out all the flaws in a world religion, in postmodernism or a theologically liberal position. Professor Metzger defines the Market-Driven  approach as more mechanistic, even manipulative, since it spins the gospel to appeal to what seekers want to hear so as to win them over as "fickle consumers of religious products" and thereby misses the whole gospel (I have blogged in my Living Sent Today blog about the whole Gospel). Metzger makes the point here that...

"these one-sided  strategies that reduce God to cold logic or propaganda, but a relational and incarnational approach to apologetics frames the discussion around God's great love, which causes him to give himself to us wholly and sacrificially in Jesus." 

And, isn't that really the point of the gospel, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Clearly, however the contending two apologetic methods frequently miss the depth of this all too familiar verse, which is Metzger's point in Chapter 1. Why is that we so often miss God's immeasurable, unfathomable and matchless love for every person, incarnated in Christ and is suppoed to be lived out through Christ's followers? 

Rather we, the Church corporate and in particular Evangelicals, are known to approach our "target audience" with a mild antagonism (see UnChristian by David Kinnaman), at best, or offer a consumer-based religion that "never sticks to the soul."  The first doesn't address the needs of the individual but is simply an intellectual exercise that is often thoughtless and causes offensive. The second leaves the large majority of those who claim to be Christian adherents without a transformative experience of the Good News or lacking a transformational knowledge of who they are in Christ. Which leads us to why Professor Metzger is proposing this third way.  

It unfortunate that we don't need to look far to find examples of the Worldview apologetic approach gone awry. Just this week, Pat Robertson was at it again. Robertson said of Islam. "It's a religion of chaos... of angry people,...almost like it’s demonic that is driving them to kill and to maim and to destroy." While there is a radicalized element within Islam, painting with such a broad stereotyping brush is not going to foster relationships or be successful in connecting Muslims to Christ. Would someone please give Pat a copy of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" before he causes more damage! Pat also insists, Islam is "an economic and political system with a religious veneer." Well, Pat that is largely true of American Christianity as well but our cultural myopia doesn't allow us to see that clearly. However, both Christianity and Islam, as well as other world religions, should be respected by others if for no other reason than it is Scriptural.

Ask yourself if we are getting the results we desire from the Worldview or Market Driven approaches? Does examples like Pat Robertson help or hurt the cause of Christ by demeaning Islam? Then think here of the common definition of insanity - keep doing the same thing and expect different results. We need to appraise what results we are getting for the cause of connecting Christ with people who are dying. And, we need to evaluate those results against what we would hope for. If what we're getting isn't working, isn't it time we change our apologetic? We do have a purpose to live out, something the Professor gets to in Chapter 2 - to know Christ and make him know. Metzger is arguing we need a better way to get there and I couldn't agree more.

Professor Metzger begins to articulates his definition of the Relational-Incarnational approach when he says: 

"In contrast, a relational and incarnational model of apologetics goes beyond discussion of God's good ideas and away from a great marketing strategy to sharing in the life of a holy, loving God who gives himself to us sacrifically. Relational-incarnational apologetics does include rational discussion of God's great ideas and pays careful attention to context so the truth is communicated meaningfully to others of different faiths. But it goes beyond syllogism and targeting a particular demographic and it goes beyond soft-sell." 

In Connecting Christ, Professor Metzger is arguing for a robust Biblical apologetic based on the importance of relationships first, the "love your neighbor" mandate Jesus gave us, along with an incarnational life that finds expression in the meekness (not a word Metzger uses in this chapter but one that needs to be revitalized) of Christ. But as he points out that doesn't mean "soft-sell," as meekness doesn't equate to weakness. Rather with confidence in who we are in Christ we share Biblical truth in love. It should be in such fashion that we share the gospel with a diaspora friend. Can we make it a lifestyle as a Christ-follower?

It is a lifestyle I am still learning, as it relates to crossing cultures necessary for diaspora mission, not one I'm practicing well presently - but God is at work. Metzger too confesses in chapter 1, its often easier to teach these principles then live them out. But as he says, "I know I am not alone in this social indifference." But that is a very good reason to pray, "Lord, give me your heart for others, so that I can love relationally and incarnationally like you do."  

Q - What apologetic method have you used? How successful has it been?

Q - What challenges do you see with the Relational-Incarnational apologetic?