Dialogistics

Dialogistics is a new Christian discipline focusing on equipping Christians with a more sophisticated and integrated Christian worldview and also for effective engagement with non-believers, especially within the context of our postmodern age. It builds upon the example set by Saint Paul in his discussions with others about his faith during his visit to Athens. Dialogistics can be compared and also contrasted with Apologetics.

Most Christians are probably acquainted with the term Apologetics, derived from the Greek word apologia, meaning defense. It refers to the religious discipline of defending the Christian faith.  Christian apologetics has a long established tradition going back to the writings of the second century BC Christian philosopher, Justin Martyr. But what about Dialogistics? Readers may wonder what is meant by Dialogistics and how it relates to Apologetics (Also see Towards a Dialogistic Approach).

Dialogistics is closely related to Apologetics and has much in common with it. It does, however, have certain distinct features setting it apart from especially classical Apologetics. The term Dialogistics is taken from the Greek word dialegomai, and more particularly in the sense it had been applied in Acts 17:17 to describe Saint Paul’s engagement with the inhabitants of Athens when he visited the city: “Therefore he reasoned (dialegomai) in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.” (NKJV)

In keeping with him engaging with Jews and Proselytes in the synagogue as well as those Greeks and others that he met each day in the marketplace, the Strong’s Concordance gives the meaning of the word as “to say thoroughly, i.e. discuss (in argument or exhortation):—dispute,  preach (unto), reason (with), speak.” The word is closely related to the Greek word dialogos, with logos (speech) having been derived from legain (to speak) as it appears in dialegomai.

In Dialogistics the Pauline approach of “saying thoroughly” is taken seriously, especially in the context of discussion in the “marketplaces” of the world; in fact, it is taken as the primary guiding principle for reaching out to people in our postmodern world and leading them to Christ. In keeping with the philosophical traditions of Athens and also Saint Paul’s own quoting of the Greek philosophers, Epimenides and Aratus (Acts 17:28), we can compare this approach with the Platonic dialogues. Moreover, from his address on the Areopagus, we gain some insight into the manner in which St. Paul packaged the Christian narrative in terms of the Creator God who sent Jesus Christ as the Messiah. This approach stands in contrast with other Biblical passages in which the defense of the gospel is mentioned (e.g. Phil. 1:16-17).

What is Dialogistics?

Whereas Apologetics is primarily concerned with the defense and justification of the Christian faith, Christian Dialogistics is focused on explaining that faith in such a way that it makes sense to modern people, both believers and unbelievers. By “explaining” is not simply meant the explanation of the Gospel; it is much rather the explanation of as to why the Bible and the Christian worldview are trustworthy and sensible and thus, as a consequence, why the Christian faith is worthy of acceptance. But how does this differ from what is done in classical Apologetics?

Although these disciplines obviously have a lot in common with each other (in the same way Apologetics and Dialogistics have with Theology), there are also distinct differences, both in tone and in essence. The reason for this difference is simple: Defensive tools are quite different from explanatory tools in accordance with the “warlike” undertones of the former and the “conversational” undertones of the latter. Whereas apologists are like generals, dialoguers are like diplomats. Whereas apologists depart from the position that the Christian faith needs to be defended in a fundamentally hostile world, dialoguers draw on the vocabulary they share with late modern or postmodern people. Whereas apologists love debates, dialoguers prefer dialogue where minds meet each other. Whereas Apologetics addresses skeptics, dialoguers for the most part address both believers as well as non-believers who are seeking. None is “better” than the other; both are needed and have a role to play depending on the circumstances. They, in fact, complement each other.

To gain a better understanding of Dialogistics and how it relates to Apologetics, let’s first consider the basic philosophical tradition underlying classical or philosophical Apologetics as it is practiced today. Classical Apologetics developed its distinct approach during the later Middle Ages, building on the philosophical insights of Thomas Aquinas and others. One of the central tenets of classical Apologetics is the so-called “proofs” or arguments for the existence of God. Although these proofs took centre stage in the pre-Kantian age, there cannot be any doubt that the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) has for practical purposes demolished the Ontological Argument (and with it the force of the Teleological and Cosmological Arguments).

Although many apologists have never made their peace with this development, Kant’s counterarguments had been accepted in philosophical circles as settling the issue. This is why Kant had been shunned by most apologists, who believe that he had done untold damage to the discipline. Although Kant, who himself was a Christian, preferred to focus on the Moral Argument instead, Frederick Nietzsche (1844-1900) has to a large extent also neutralized that. More recently, apologists have added other arguments for the existence of God and their defense of the faith is spread across many disciplines.   

In contrast with classical Apologetics, Dialogistics is not concerned with “proofs” but with narratives. Instead of trying to prove that God exists and so forth, dialoguers are of the opinion that we as humans can never provide a stronger case for the faith than through good, reasonable and convincing narratives. This follows from the fact that the postmodern world had left the objectivism or foundationalism of the modernist era behind, an objectivism that strives towards final proofs. What Kant has shown, is that even our scientific enterprise can never be more than a human enterprise, that all “objectivity” is contextual.

We can provide good evidence and arguments in favor of our narratives or theories, but we can never show that they are absolutely true. In the same way that Einstein’s theories replaced Newton’s equations, it is always possible that an even more refined theory may one day be developed, especially given the fact that General Relativity and Quantum Physics describe the world so dramatically different (as determinate and indeterminate, respectively). The same is true for all our narratives about ourselves and the world we find ourselves in. This does not mean that truth is abandoned or relativized; it instead means embracing the contextual character of truth.

Moreover, whereas Apologetics values reason and arguments, Dialogistics value understanding and hermeneutics. Apologists built their approach on a Christianized Platonic/Aristotelian tradition in which reason is especially accentuated, having been valued as the distinct feature of humans. In the postmodern era there has, however, been a reassessment of our humanness and the focus on reason had been replaced by a focus on the totality of that which makes us human. In keeping with this philosophical development, Dialogistics uses hermeneutic philosophy instead of the Thomasine philosophy (of Thomas Aquinas) of classical Apologetics. In their move beyond reason, the great hermeneutical philosophers Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) and Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) followed in the footsteps of Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855) in making human existence the centre of their inquiry instead of reason.

According to Gadamer’s philosophy the totality of our engagement with the world in all its many aspects always happens through hermeneutics, by which he not simply means interpretation but especially understanding. Hermeneutics takes its cue from dialogue. In the same way people in dialogue engage with each other in a process of interpretation and understanding, we engage with the world around us as well as with the past in the same manner. The totality of our engagement with people, the world, texts and the past always happens through hermeneutics (interpretation) (See A Foundational Analysis of truth vs Truth).

Clearly, this field of study and philosophy concerns itself primarily with the kind of interaction that Saint Paul had with the Athenians in Acts 17:17, especially in the marketplace (instead of in the synagogue which, in contemporary terms, would be a church), described with the Greek word dialegomai. Although arguments and reasoning are not per se excluded and forms part of all good narratives, the main focus is on understanding and explaining. A good understanding of things leads to good and sensible explanations. Moreover, a good understanding of things, especially within the context of contemporary hermeneutical philosophy, could lead to innovative attempts to develop new tools and better narratives and thus strengthen our Christian foundations instead of simply defending them.  As such, Dialogistics is especially well suited for explaining why the Bible and the Christian worldview are trustworthy and sensible and, as a consequence, why the Christian faith is worthy of acceptance. Dialogistics is thus fine-tuned for the postmodern world we live in.

What can Dialogistics do for us?

The central tenet of Dialogistics is that our primal state of being in the world is hermeneutical. This means that Dialogistics brings all fields of study together within its embrace. All fields of study that relate to the Bible, the Biblical worldview and our Christian experience in the world, falls within the embrace of Dialogistics and can be studied and explored through this lens. Moreover, it allows for the development of creative and new ways of thinking, consistent with our Christian state of being in the world we find ourselves in.

As Christians, our first priority is the study of Scripture and intimately related to that is our engagement with theology. In fact, the most pressing need of our time is to provide good and solid answers to penetrating questions as well as alternative interpretations and narratives to those derived from postmodern readings of Scripture and the related forms of theology, especially those found in Biblical Criticism. And this is where hermeneutical philosophy comes in as a natural ally. The philosophy of Ricoeur had already been used fruitfully in this way for decades, and although Gadamer did not engage with theology, his philosophy provides the groundwork for good hermeneutics in the struggle with the hermeneutics of suspicion used by Biblical Criticism.

Basic to hermeneutical philosophy is an almost Kantian respect for the text, especially the Biblical text, in contrast with the “death of the author” proclaimed by reconstructionist and postmodernist philosophy. Instead of a deeply critical view of the narratives found in the text, and a deep-seated suspicion of the intentions of the authors, it instead exhibits humility and respect for those narratives. In this it is not too dissimilar from what is found in court proceedings where an accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and not guilty until proven innocent!

When we move beyond matters of theology, one of the other pressing issues is the trustworthiness of material found in the Bible and considered as historical by conservative Christians. Again, hermeneutical philosophy provides the framework for the study of the past and the origins of the Biblical text as an alternative to the critical approach followed by Biblical Criticism. What is needed is a new appreciation for the study of the ancient Middle East far beyond the framework of the monarchical and exilic periods. After all, according to the Bible, Abraham came from Ur in Sumer to Canaan, allowing for a view that he brought the earliest Biblical traditions found in the “primeval history” (Gen. 1-11) with him sometime early in the second millennium BC.

What about the relation between the Bible and science? It is often said that the Bible is not a scientific handbook (see The Scope of Scientific Truth). And theologians usually study the creation account in Genesis 1-3 without reference to science as found in popular Christianity. But the issue of divine origins and scientific models of origin cannot be divorced from each other. And again, Dialogistics provides powerful tools for this conversation and the formulation of Christian narratives about the origins of all things.

In this regard the philosophy of Immanuel Kant provides us with unique possibilities. In contrast with Apologetics, in Dialogistics the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, which had such an enormous impact on later philosophers and even some of the greatest scientists, is not viewed as problematic. Instead, both Gadamer and Ricoeur built upon the philosophy of Kant. In fact, Kant provides Christian dialoguers with powerful tools in their efforts to construct the Christian narrative in such a compelling and convincing way so that it makes sense to the contemporary mind.

Kant’s philosophy provided not only the basic ingredients for the development of hermeneutic philosophy; it also provides the groundwork for an effective Christian response to challenges sprouting from the scientific worldview, a response which includes good interpretations of science in keeping with a Christian worldview and convincing narratives in keeping with the aforementioned hermeneutic philosophy.

We, for example, find that Kant’s philosophy can be used as a bridge between the Christian worldview and contemporary science. The reason for this is that Kant developed a rational or philosophical model which is not only in keeping with the Christian worldview, but which also involves a related philosophy of science that had recently been reworked so as to produce a Kantian interpretation of Quantum Physics and Quantum Biology (See Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics). This interpretation of science does not only blend with good hermeneutical philosophy, it also fits in well with the Christian worldview. 

When it comes to scholarly studies, this Kantian-Gadamerian/Ricoeurian philosophical tradition provides an effective alternative philosophical framework for the reconstructionist or postmodernist framework used by Biblical Criticism scholars in their efforts to create a liberal theology. As such, it also provides the methodological tools needed for these studies. In the same way that Biblical Criticism and its hermeneutics of suspicion laid the groundwork for the skepticism that characterizes western society, Dialogistics lays the groundwork for an alternative approach, providing for a comprehensive counterstrategy with numerous tools for effective dialogue. It enables us to construct narratives that can effectively compete with other views in the marketplace of ideas. It provides explanations that make sense to the contemporary mind.

Conclusion

Dialogistics is a new Christian discipline not all too different from Apologetics. Although Apologists have done and still do a great job defending the Christian faith, there are challenges peculiar to our time for which Dialogistics is especially well suited. Dialogistics differs from classical Apologetics in that it does not use the Thomasine philosophy as basis; it rather uses hermeneutic philosophy. In this it is ideally suited for the postmodern age we are living in. Instead of reason, it accentuates dialogue; instead of arguments alone it formulates good narratives. Instead of using a warrior approach, it displays a softer tone and utilizes a more nuanced approach. It builds upon the approach taken by Saint Paul when he engaged with the Athenians during his visit to that city.

The hermeneutic philosophy of Ricoeur had been used in theological circles for some time. What is needed is that this philosophical framework, in the broader Kant-Gadamer/Ricioeur tradition, be incorporated and used in the Christian’s conversation with skeptics and other unbelievers within our current postmodern society. It provides tools for the total spectrum of disciplines in all aspects of our human experience. These are the tools that the Christian community needs to effectively engage with the critical issues and questions of our time.

As the question of truth vs Truth is a central concern in our post-truth society and Dialogistics provides the ideal approach to engage with this pressing issue, we have commenced with the conversation on our CoreIdeas website with this theme (See related articles below). It shows how Dialogistics, which guides our conversation on this website, can be effectively employed in this regard. In the final instance, it is obviously a basic requisite that we give good and well-reasoned answers to those enquiring about the “truth” of the Christian narrative.