Ethics as Apologetics through Interdisciplinary Approach

 In the mind of Tsung-I Hwang, he wanted to develop for an alternative methodological framework of Apologetics. In his search, he leaned for insights on various academic disciplines such as Christian Theology, Philosophy, Psychology, Anthropology, and to other social scientific studies wherein he developed an alternative with a framework of ethical issues, common ground towards indirect apologetics, presuppositional method, and common solution.

Tsung-I Hwang did all of these for the very reason that the classical method of apologetics that time doesn’t seem to fit well in the Asian context. He finds Evidential Apologetics to be ineffective and flawed. This apologetical stance seems to undermine or closes potential dialogue with the non-Christian people. This is why he made an alternative for he learned that ethics should be the common ground which he thinks the starting point.

Before I continue, I would like to share my brief knowledge about Evidential Apologetics. As far as I can recall on our discussion about five views on Apologetics, it is Habernas who was the known apologists of this view. While in Classical Apologetics, presenting the Christian evidences is the second approach after presenting natural theology, here it is the initial approach of the apologist where he appeals first on the historical arguments. Same as the classical method, Jesus and His resurrection is the key aspects for this view.

Seeing that this stance was not good enough because it tends to end a dialogue, Hwang finds the lacking in the form of his well-developed methodological framework of Ethics as Apologetics.

Like Tsung-I Hwang, I kind of disagree or see the evidential apologetics as faulty and ineffective for defending one’s faith. Even I am more on inclined in Presuppositional stance, I prefer more the Classical Apologetics more than Evidentialism viewpoint. I saw the latter as more rational and can be a very good reason for two or more people to sit and talk about Christian faith. And as a Presuppositionalist, I couldn’t agree on this view because it does not totally rely on the Scriptures for evidences. For me, its authority is questionable. But here, let me just clarify myself that I am not saying I already close my heart and mind to learn more about Evidential Apologetics.

All in all, I would like to say that I do not totally agree on Hwang, especially on the content of the first element of his framework. Finding a solution to the ethical issue cannot be resolved between the two parties just by having a conversation and agreeing with an alternative solution to resolve the problem. I think the problem is more severe than what it looks like. While the Christian knows the best remedy to soothe the wound, the non-Christian cannot and will not understand the real problem of men’s depravity unless the Holy Spirit intervenes. It is still by God’s grace the scales in one’s eye can be removed to see the real problem and eventually do the necessary things.