When Apologetics Goes Wrong - III.

Alexander Balmain Bruce's Concessive Apologetic was, in the eyes of Warfield, reducing the value of Bruce's books for evangelicalism. I said that I would discuss the effects of this on Bruce's faith, because the sources are not agreed. Some sources actually say that Bruce died "without a single Christian conviction" (R.A. Finlayson, How Liberal Theology Infected Scotland in Reformed Theological Writings (Fearn, Christian Focus, 1996) P. 198). Following Bruce's death, William Robertson Nicoll wrote to James Denney, Bruce's successor, that Bruce "abandoned the contention that Jesus was sinless. Christ he believed to have been a very good fellow, almost as good as Sandy Bruce, though less enlightened. But did he go any further than that?" (W.R. Nicoll, letter given in full in T.H. Darlow, William Robertson Nicoll Life and Letters (London, 1925) P. 349). On the other hand, both seem to be founding their opinions on an encyclopaedia article by Bruce, which some have contended was just another example of Bruce's one-sidedness. Was A.B. Bruce saved? I should like to think so, but I have to suspend my Judgement.

Which should not make anyone hold off The Training of the Twelve for a minute.

Our lesson rather is to stick to our guns, and to hold our ground. Bruce's mistake was to think that proclaiming a bare minimum of the faith would bring people into the Kingdom, but W.M. Macgregor, a later professor of New Testament at Glasgow, noted that:

"The victories of the Faith have commonly been won not by the proclamation of a bare minimum of belief but rather of things strange and hard to accept, because they are too full of God." (Persons and Ideals (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1939) P. 5).

When Apologetics Goes Wrong - II.

Last time I introduced you to Alexander Balmain Bruce, the late 19th Century Free Church of Scotland apologist. I intimated that his apologetic ran into trouble. This time I intend to say something about that.
Bruce was noted for his use of ad hominem apologetic, arguing from the position of his opponents and showing that, even if their alledged 'facts' were true (Bruce's specialty was New Testament criticism), Christ was more than just a man, and the New Testament histories were, in a great measure, accurate.
Bruce also believed that, if he yielded certain outworks of the faith, he would be better able to defend the citadel, the core of Christian belief. Thus his method is sometimes called the Concessive Apologetic. He conceded a few points in order to gain a hearing.

"The attitude of the apologist must be that of one who refuses to be deeply committed on critical questions. But on the other hand, he cannot go on his way as if nothing had happened, or as if he had never heard of modern higher criticism. He must adjust himself to the new situation. He must take into account opinions confidently advanced by others for which he declines to be personally responsible, at least to the extent of how far they are compatible with the faith he is concerned to defend." (Apologetics P. 172)

Bruce's writing style was, however, more than a little involved, and it is sometimes difficult to tell where he is stating his own opinion and when he is practising ad hominem. Bruce's lack of technical learning made him overly respectful of German higher critical Scholarship. Marcus Dods was impatient with this and exclaimed: "his is an infinitely better mind than theirs!" Yet Bruce felt that these men's learning made them ex officio worthy of respect.
Bruce was also unable to deal with more than one aspect of a point under discussion at any one time. The result of this was that he failed to consider qualifications and balancing judgements. Because of this Bruce sometimes seemed to present a solely human Jesus when he was discussing the humanity of Christ.

What was worse was that, as time went on, Bruce seems to have become willing to concede more and more, and, to quote B.B. Warfield, "as the minimizing spirit of a concessive apologetic grew upon Bruce, his theological product decreased in value." It is significant that The Training of the Twelve was Bruce's first book.

God willing, we shall discuss the result of this apologetic on Bruce's personal faith next time.

When Apologetics goes wrong - I.

Alexander Balmain Bruce

Apologetics is 'the defence of the faith.' Does it have a place in Christian theology? In some sens it is impossible for Christians to avoid apologetics. One of my favourite definitions of the sphere of apologetics is this: Apologetics, then, as I concieve it, is a preparer of the way of faith, an aid to faith against doubts whencesoever arising, especially such as are engendered by philosophy and science.
It was written by Alexander Balmain Bruce (1831-99), in his book Apologetics: or, Christianity Defensively stated (Edinburgh, T.&T. Clark, 1892). Bruce was Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Apologetics at the Free Church College, Glasgow, from 1876-1899. If he is known for anything today it is for his book on the Synoptic Gospels The Training of the Twelve (various editions), still in print, which is a classic on Christian leadership, and well worth reading. In his own day, however, Bruce was best known as an apologist. Bruce was an accomplished popular theologian (he must have been to publish a 500+ page book which is still in print today), and his winning presentation makes for compelling reading. Bruce read and knew well the modern German theologians of his day, and he engaged them on their own ground. His book on The Miraculous Element in the Gospels (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1893) is one of the most helpful books I have ever read on the subject.
But Bruce's determination to formulate an apologetic for the 20th Century led him down a dangerous path. His method was twofold: First, there were too be no appeals to external authority to support Christianity, Christian claims were to rest on their own self-evidencing powers, nothing could be taken for granted. Secondly, the apologist set out to gain a verdict for faith from the point of view of his opponent. The aim was to win the thinking doubter for the faith, and that requires careful argument.
How Bruce argued we shall see next time (God willing).