Os Guinness, Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2015, 272 pgs.

Summary: Evangelical apologist Os Guinness (1941-    ) has written a book laying out a framework of Christian apologetics as a form persuasive speech or rhetoric.

Dr. Guinness believes that it is particularly important that we recover the art of rhetoric in a way that both maintains biblical truth and yet establishes bridges and avenues of communication to those who reject Christianity, are ignorant of it, or are considering the claims of Christ.

The author positions himself within the school of faith seeking understanding (49) and seems to be a Anglicized Calvinist—“Deep down, the unbelieving heart is active, willful, deliberate, . . .” (93).

He defines apologetics as:

It is a form of pre-evangelism that precedes evangelism for those who are not open to God and the gospel. We must never distinguish apologetics and evangelism too neatly. But in broad terms, evangelism is the sharing of the good news, and it addresses the needs and desires of those who know they are in a bad situation. And broadly, apologetics is pre-evangelism in that it addresses those who do not realize they are in a bad situation, and therefore do not see the gospel as the good news that it is (110).

His central model for persuasive speech is that of the fool or the court jester. He draws this concept from Erasmus and the rhetorical patterns of Jesus and the prophets in the Bible. The basic idea is to use true rhetoric to reengage distracted or hostile minds to reconsider the claims of Christ through a willingness to appear foolish or humorous.

However, there are moral and practical limits to foolish talk: “Faith is never flippant and rarely frivolous, and it is as foolish to laugh all the time as it is to be serious all the time, but the truth still stands: The dynamics of the cross of Jesus are closer to those of comedy than tragedy” (77).

Guinness mentions that humor has three possible intentions: “a form of putdown,” “escapist humor” that “is a form of release that lets off steam emotionally,” and humor that is “hopeful, and it turn[s] on the grotesque mismatch between the bleakness of their immediate prospects and the brightness of their ultimate prospects” (71). The third form of humor is the most useful for apologetics.

Thus being an apologetic jester is to expose the grotesque nature of reality within non-Christian belief systems and the beauty and brightness that Christ has offered. Part of what this requires is assisting people to recognize transcendent moments in their lives and then to leverage these into conversations about the claims of Christ. The author’s discussion of this important point is covered in the chapter entitled “Triggering the Signals.”

The book also includes wholesome warnings about pride, the desire to win arguments, and so forth.

Detriments: The central model of the fool within Guinness’ explanation of persuasive speech is founded on a particularly charitable reading of Erasmus’ The Praise of Folly. Guinness concludes it was written with the wholesome purpose of maintaining a true and robust Christianity.

Guinness does mention that the philosopher Leo Strauss (1889-1973) disagrees with him and footnotes to a secondary source (63). He then goes on to suggest that anyone who disagrees with his reading of Erasmus is a “Poor man. Earnest, wooden and literalistic” (74). We could add to this list of “wooden and literalistic” folks the likes of Martin Luther and I would assume all of the Reformed scholastics. 

Guinness clearly believes that strident and consistent Roman Catholics are saved, and so perhaps this leads him to the tradition of in meliorem partem (the kindest reading); even so, his defense of Erasmus seems inadequate given Guinness’ academic background. The author’s reading is even odder, because it appears amidst a discussion of the historical necessity of esoteric writing (61-65) to avoid persecution.

Further, Guinness seems more interested in the rhetorical advantage of ideas and statements than a systematic understanding of authors, philosophy, or theology. His outcomes and suggestions are helpful, but he seems to arrive at them from practice rather than a critical understanding.

Benefits: It’s rather a nice rumble through how to do apologetics from a favorite English uncle with a dusty PhD. in philosophy from Oxford. It’s wholesome, thoughtful, helpful, but a bit loose academically and theologically.

While I disagree strongly with his reading of Erasmus, his analysis of prophetic rhetoric in the New and Old Testament make the same case with alacrity.

Fool’s Talk needs to be read as a repair manual rather than as the foundational physics of the internal combustion engine. Suggested reading for pastors and thoughtful layman interested in apologetics.