McGrath, Alister E. Narrative Apologetics: Sharing the Relevance, Joy, and Wonder of the Christian Faith. Baker Books, 2019.
I sometimes suspect that a successful “narrative apologetic” is the holy grail for some theologians. We know deep down inside that Scripture is based on a narrative. Moreover, most (if not all) New Testament sermons are simply retellings of Israel’s own story. Very few are sermons in the sense we understand the word. Even when Paul does give doctrinal truths, he often does it in the larger context of–or at least echoing–some aspect of Israel’s narrative. The dogmatic and other non-narratival aspects of Scripture themselves depend on a deeper narrative substructure.
So far, so good. Applying this consistently is a different matter. If one simply adapts the above format, that is biblical theology. If one avoids it and heads straight for cultural engagement, then the biblical story becomes irrelevant. Oxford theologian Alister McGrath attempts, and largely succeeds, to merge the two strands of biblical narrative and cultural engagement. For him, the idea of “narrative” allows Christians to “connect” with unbelievers in a way that the traditional arguments do not.
But why stories? Stories allow us to see the truth of the whole. If the mind seeks patterns, then no one individual strand will give the whole of the message. Stories, however, allow the patterns to unfold.
There is a danger to avoid. The true narrative does not try to merely best explain the world or exist as the world’s explanation. If that is the goal of apologetics, then you do not need a narrative to do that. That is simply continuing Enlightenment rationalism by slightly more interesting means.
Theological Foundations
If earlier apologists attempted an ‘inference to the best explanation,’ McGrath suggests an “inference to the best narrative.” A good narrative must explain the world, but it must do more. Not only must it give the best account of the human condition, but it must do so in such a way that it invites the reader to enter into the story.
There is the old pattern of “Creation, Fall, and Redemption,” which should probably be reimagined as “Creation, Fall, Israel, and Redemption.” McGrath indirectly suggests that this structure, including subplots such as exile, forms the thrust of our narrative apologetic.
But that might be putting the cart before the horse. By championing narrative, McGrath in no way downplays the importance of rigorous argument. Even if, to echo C. S. Lewis, argument cannot bring one to faith, faith itself often dies in an atmosphere where there are no reasons for it.
Narrative works on the mind (and body) in much the same way suggested by Dorothy Sayers’ Mind of the Maker: the pattern of the created mind corresponds to the pattern of the created universe. Narrative apologetics capitalizes on the mind’s pattern-seeking ability.
Practical Applications
Narrative apologetics avoids the limitations involved with more abstract methods. Stories help us step inside another way of seeing our world (Melander). Indeed, men like C. S. “Lewis offer not abstract propositions for belief…but the feel of living in the world narrated by the biblical story.” They avoid “spectator evidence for God” (Paul Moser). Another and more real world “has entered into our world.”
Criteria of relevance for narrative apologetics
Here we run across a potential danger: does this mean we just sit and tell stories to one another? Even worse, if the criteria in narrative apologetics is “tell a better story,” what do we do with other faiths that have their own holy books? Some say he best story makes sense of all other stories. That is easier said than done. What is the criteria for “best?”
McGrath is aware of these problems. The best story will make inferences to the best explanation of the human condition. It will show that the Christian story connects with the deepest aspects of the human condition. It will offer a realistic account of our world, and allow the reader to step inside and connect with the narrative.
Evaluation
As the last few paragraphs indicate, there are some limitations with McGrath’s proposal. These problems are similar to the ones in George Lindbeck’s “cultural-linguistic model” for religious life, as seen in The Nature of Doctrine. For example, it is hard to imagine someone outside a faith community to be all that interested in the narrative of another faith community. On the other hand, though, this might work better with the so-called “Nones.”
These limitations notwithstanding, McGrath’s book is a success. Even if he does not give an air-tight defense of his position, he does make it quite clear and practical. Even with the temptation, admittedly present with many of us, to reduce narrative apologetics to “another round with C. S. Lewis,” it is wise and instructive to see how Lewis used narrative to become arguably the most influential fiction writer of the twentieth century.
“Connections between clues”
In conclusion, a good story will provide the best explanation while showing the best connection between clues. How do we know which narrative about reality is the true one? As Michael Polanyi and others have noted, the evidence will eventually cook the theory. The best story will emerge.
A Patriot King 