Mark Brumley's "How NOT to Share Your Faith"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Church_Militant

Guest
shop.catholic.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/135x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/o/how-not-to-share-your-faith.jpg **
How NOT To Share Your Faith: The Seven Deadly Sins Of Apologetics And Evangelization**
Code: 
                                                                                                           Regular Price:                                      $12.95                             
                                       Special Price:                                      $7.95
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Mark Brumley

Does anyone else have this excellent book?

I just got it from CA this week and I’m halfway through it already. I highly recommend it to one and all and would like us to discuss some of the things we find in it so I’m going to post short statements or excerpts from each chapter and see what all we can share and gain from it.

If you don’t have it I encourage you to get it if you feel that apologetics is your calling or just your “thing”, because Mark makes some very good points that can help us all be both better apologists and better Catholics.
 
Okay, first off, I am never a fan of reading a Preface and/or a Foreward, but in this case I did and was rewarded by insights from Cardinal Dulles and Archbishop Chaput. Both of whom are very astute and enriching in their remarks, so by all means take the time to check those out.

I’ll start with something from Mr. Brumley’s introduction that sort of sums up why I think this book is so handy for all of us apologists.
“Even so, grave dangers attend the renaissance of apologetics, some so serious that, left unaddressed, they threaten to undermine the good that apologetics can accomplish. (This should not surprise us; the forces of evil always try to pervert the good.)”
Click to expand...
I have to admit that I know first hand what he means. There is sometimes the temptation to “pop off” or lack patience with people who question or oppose what we believe. There have certainly been times when I’ve offered an Act of Contrition for things that never made it to my keyboard, and Mark certainly names some things that I have either seen in myself, or witnessed in other people’s posts usually with a wince or a :eek:.
 
From chapter 1: "Apologetical Gluttony"
"…Biting Off More than You Can Chew.

…this is a failure to respect the limits of what apologetics can accomplish

What are the limits of apologetics? Subject matter is one. Some things are beyond the human mind’s power to know on it’s own.

Unfortunately some apologists try to prove the unprovable. They forget that apologetics is a branch of sacred theology, which rests on the supernatural mysteries of divine revelation, the word of God, and upon faith. Human reason cannot, on its own power, come to know supernatural mysteries; they are above “the natural light of reason.” They require revelation on God’s part and faith on ours (The Catechism of the Catholic Church 50, 142,143) if we are going to affirm them.

Okay, having read this part, I know some of the examples that Mark uses here, but let’s brainstorm this for ourselves for now.

What aspects of the Catholic faith do you think he says are some of these “unprovables”?
 
Does he talk about prayer?

For every minute one spends in apologetics, one should spend ten in prayer. Not doing so is like throwing seeds out of your back door in the spring and wondering why you don’t have a field full of vegetables in the fall.

God touching an individual Christian in a palpable, tangible way, so that they do not just have information about God, but have the experience of an intimate contact with God - this is unprovable.

-Tim-
 
I am curious what definition of “proof” is being used for these unprovables. Many people consider this word only to apply to the sort of proofs used in science. Aquinas’s five ways are certainly proofs, but they are not empirical proofs. We cannot prove things like transubstantiation at all outside of revelation, but we can offer plausible reasons or explanations.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
The Big Ones.

Transubstantiation.

The Trinity.
Click to expand...
Those would be two of my own choices. It’s funny, but I just recently picked up this book too. Weird how God does things…
DarkLight said:
I am curious what definition of “proof” is being used for these unprovables. Many people consider this word only to apply to the sort of proofs used in science. Aquinas’s five ways are certainly proofs, but they are not empirical proofs. We cannot prove things like transubstantiation at all outside of revelation, but we can offer plausible reasons or explanations.
Click to expand...
What would you offer as proofs, especially on these two beliefs of ours?

I think Mr. Brumley is saying though we can give the reasoned arguments for why we believe these things, they cannot ultimately be “proved” except as a response to faith.
Intellectual assent is not the same as empirical proofs.

We see in Sacred Scripture and Church teaching the reasons why we believe in these things, but providing proofs beyond that is impossible, and so apologists who seek to go beyond that point and assert they can prove these beliefs actually err and as a result they tend to get a less than enthusiastic response from those who do not approach the discussion from a place of already having faith.
 
The Immaculate Conception to nonCatholics, and her perpetual virginity.

Can non-Catholics or the unbaptized attain salvation? There are 18 pages of this in a google search.

Are there very few who make it to heaven? Who but God knows.

Charismatics are not really speaking in tongues. It is demonic gibberish.

[Examples of some contentious threads I’ve seen]
 
Sirach2 said:
The Immaculate Conception.

[Examples of some contentious threads I’ve seen]
Click to expand...
Save the contention for a later point because he does deal with that in particular. (Get the book S2! :D)

The IC is another one that we can offer our reasoned arguments for and yet it is impossible to “prove”.

Who else on here has or has read this book? It would be great if a bunch of us would get it and read it as we discuss it.
 
I highly value your opinion on this book, C.M., but I’m not sure I’m cut out to be an apologist. 😦 But if we discuss what is in your title, how NOT to share our faith, it would be very helpful.

It would be great to enter into the discussion, so maybe I’ll consider purchasing it. Thanks!
 
Black_Knight said:
Those would be two of my own choices. It’s funny, but I just recently picked up this book too. Weird how God does things…
What would you offer as proofs, especially on these two beliefs of ours?

I think Mr. Brumley is saying though we can give the reasoned arguments for why we believe these things, they cannot ultimately be “proved” except as a response to faith.
Intellectual assent is not the same as empirical proofs.

We see in Sacred Scripture and Church teaching the reasons why we believe in these things, but providing proofs beyond that is impossible, and so apologists who seek to go beyond that point and assert they can prove these beliefs actually err and as a result they tend to get a less than enthusiastic response from those who do not approach the discussion from a place of already having faith.
Click to expand...
Almost nothing can be proved 100%, even scientific theories. I cannot even make absolutely certain that if I drop the book in my hand it will fall to the floor. Many atheists overestimate the powers of science - this is one of the fields in philosophy I study. A scientific proof merely says “if my measurements are accurate, and all my background assumptions are good, then this particular theory is the best explanation of all the data we have.” And yet we rely on this sort of proof all the time.

Well - the thing with these doctrines is that you have to start from the ground up. Ours is a reasoned faith, but we cannot simply jump to the high-level stuff without laying the groundwork. You have to establish theism, christianity, and the authority of scripture and tradition before you can begin to argue for them.
 
+1 on this excellent book! 👍

He doesn’t so much go into particular teachings…but uses some examples of how to be effective, and how NOT to be.
 
This is a very interesting thread. Thank you very much.
Book is on order.
For now I am a “lurker”😃
 
Yes, I have the book and now I am more inspired to make reading it a priority.

I decided to enter RCIA only after an exhaustive, months long process of evaluating some of the most difficult truths of Catholicism in the modern world (contraception, papal infallibility, divorce and re-marriage).

Now I am passionate about defending the truth but I need to do better in being patient and charitable with those who do not share it.
 
Mark Brumley, here. I was asked by Mike to weigh in. On the issue of what I mean by “proof”, the answer is: any process of reasoning starting from evident or otherwise rationally knowable premises to conclusions that are absolutely certain, or certain beyond a reasonable doubt, or certain from a preponderance of evidence. This sense of “proof” includes but is not limited to proof in the mathematical and scientific senses of proof. Truths such as the Trinity, the Real Presence of Jesus, and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin seem to me to be “unprovable” and apologists who spend time trying to prove them from purely rational premises seem to be wasting time. Here I would contend the effort is better spend explaining the doctrines and showing how they illuminate human experience, rather than spending time trying to demonstrate their truth.
 
Thanks for stopping by, Mark. May all who share your book and wisdom find enlightenment in sharing their faith.
 
Mark_Brumley said:
Mark Brumley, here. I was by Mike to weigh in. On the issue of what I mean by “proof”, the answer is: any process of reasoning starting from evident or otherwise rationally knowable premises to conclusions that are absolutely certain, or certain beyond a reasonable doubt, or certain from a preponderance of evidence. This sense of “proof” includes but is not limited to proof in the mathematical and scientific senses of proof. Truths such as the Trinity, the Real Presence of Jesus, and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin seem to me to be “unprovable” and apologists who spend time trying to prove them from purely rational premises seem to be wasting time. Here I would contend the effort is better spend explaining the doctrines and showing how they illuminate human experience, rather than spending time trying to demonstrate their truth.
Click to expand...
Thanks for joining and contributing to this important thread, Mark! Obviously, your (name removed by moderator)ut is valuable, since you’re the source!!

👍
 
DarkLight said:
Almost nothing can be proved 100%, even scientific theories. I cannot even make absolutely certain that if I drop the book in my hand it will fall to the floor. Many atheists overestimate the powers of science - this is one of the fields in philosophy I study. A scientific proof merely says “if my measurements are accurate, and all my background assumptions are good, then this particular theory is the best explanation of all the data we have.” And yet we rely on this sort of proof all the time.

Well - the thing with these doctrines is that you have to start from the ground up. Ours is a reasoned faith, but we cannot simply jump to the high-level stuff without laying the groundwork. You have to establish theism, christianity, and the authority of scripture and tradition before you can begin to argue for them.
Click to expand...
I agree. Would you say that the inability to prove the truth of, say, the Trinity, from reflection on human experience of the world, is only a matter of not being able to establish it with absolute certainty? Would you, for example, maintain that we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that God is triune? Or by the preponderance of the evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top