Book Review: The Reason for God - Belief in an Age of Skepticism

Book Review: "The Reason for God - Belief in an Age of Skepticism," Timothy Keller, New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2008. 310 pages.

Before we begin, here's a little bit of background on Timothy Keller. He is the founder and pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan since 1989. He has grown the church to six thousand regular attendees at five services as of the writing of this book. They have also planted many daughter churches. Timothy has an engaging style, making it a part of his strategy as a pastor to deal with people's objections to the faith. This book is a natural byproduct of that commitment.

The book deals with the major objections to Christianity and belief in God that Keller has been confronted with over the course of his ministry. The introduction begins with his personal spiritual journey. Having been raised in the church, but exposed to the conservative/liberal debate within it, Keller's faith eventually became a casualty of a socially radical liberal university. He speaks of three barriers to faith which were erected in his life: Intellectual - did Christianity make sense? Personal - was God knowable? and Social - Could you believe in God and the Bible and also have a social conscience? Timothy has obviously resolved those conflicts in his mind and entered the ministry to help others do the same.

This book is really about engagement; opening a discussion about faith with those who do not believe. Keller "urge(s) skeptics to wrestle with the unexamined 'blind faith' on which skepticism is based, and to see how hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do not share them." He also provides first-hand accounts of real people in their spiritual journey. But first he deals with objections to faith which he's encountered.

Objection 1: There Can't Be Just One True Religion
The claim to exclusivity for Christianity is one of the main reasons people gave Keller for rejecting it. This arises partly from the growing liberal value of tolerance - we don't like for anyone to tell anyone that they're wrong - and a negative view of religion in general as divisive and a root of many of the world's problems. Keller deals with this objection by first laying out the options some would propose: we can outlaw religion; condemn religion or keep religion completely private.

Keller explains the presuppositions behind each and then shows why each approach has and will fail. He then launches into an apologetic for Christianity, and a call for the church to follow the model of the early church in bringing its very best into society.

Objection 2: How Could A Good God Allow Suffering?
Here again we find one of the most common objections to belief in the God of the Bible. If God is loving and all-powerful, why doesn't He intervene to prevent suffering? The problem with this objection is that it begs the question: on what basis do we believe that suffering and evil are wrong? As C.S. Lewis concluded, in a purely naturalistic world, we should expect that pain and suffering would be the norm. Yet we have a sense that this ought not to be. Where did that come from? We all must ask, believers and non-believers alike, where does evil come from?

For the Christian, we find the answer in the Biblical record of the Fall of Man and the introduction of sin into the world. According to Keller, "Embracing the Christian doctrines of the incarnation and Cross brings profound consolation in the face of suffering. The doctrine of the resurrection can instill us with a powerful hope. It promises that we will get the life we most longed for, but it will be an infinitely more glorious world than if there had never been the need for bravery, endurance, sacrifice or salvation."

Objection 3: Christianity Is A Straitjacket
The argument here is that since Christianity adheres to a moral code and to a source of absolute truth, the resultant religion must be the enemy of freedom. The questions that must be dealt with here are multifaceted: the nature of truth, community, Christianity and freedom. The underlying assumption here is that "true freedom is freedom to create your own meaning and purpose." It also assumes that all truth is relative, but is it?

Keller answers each of these questions, first by pointing out that, despite our protestations, we all cling to some source of truth, either objective or arbitrary - it's unavoidable. He then demonstrates that within each community there must be an underlying set of agreed upon beliefs and practices which, of necessity, are somewhat restrictive. He also shows that Christianity, far from being culturally rigid, has from the beginning allowed for cultural diversity while maintaining an adherence to orthodox faith. Finally, of freedom itself, Keller tells us that "freedom is not so much the absence of restrictions as finding the right ones, the liberating restrictions." Within Christianity we are free to be the people God created us to be.       

Objection 4: The Church Is Responsible For So Much Injustice
Here Keller identifies three issues: First is the issue of the glaring character flaws of many Christians; second is the issue of war and violence and the church's complicity; third is the issue of fanaticism - what of Christians on the fringe? The first issue is based on a misconception that Christians believe that faith in God makes them better people. It doesn't. One can find Christians at all stages of character development because behavior change is a gradual process, and church should be full of people who are flawed because they are people in process. The second issue is more troublesome, for it is obvious that a great deal of harm has been done in the name of Christ over the centuries. It is wrong and goes against the very teachings of Christ. Finally, fanaticism, tending to express itself in legalism, has pushed many honest seekers out of the church.

It is important to remember that the Bible is also critical of people who act like this. Keller reminds us that "true faith is marked by profound concern for the poor and marginalized." It's not only the church that has been guilty either. In the twentieth century the greatest cause of injustice (human rights abuses, pogroms, death camps, genocide, etc...) were atheistic regimes. This in no way excuses the church when it has been wrong, but it demonstrates that injustice is a human problem, not a Christian one. On the other hand, it has been those motivated by Christian motives who worked to end slavery, campaigned for civil rights and lead the way in social reform, often at great personal cost.

Objection 5: How Can A Loving God Send People To Hell?
With this subject, Timothy shares that many secular minds believe that it is a contradiction to believe in the equality of all people and yet believe in the concept of hell. Keller found several connected beliefs lurking beneath the surface of this one: a God of judgment simply can't exist; a God of judgment can't be a God of love; a loving God would not allow hell. At their root these are preferences. We all would prefer that there would be no hell. The first belief in particular goes against our Western sensibilities and our doctrine of tolerance at all costs. Keller goes to C.S. Lewis to demonstrate that this belief is a cultural adaptation.

As to the second and third charges, relating to the love of God, the implication is that God cannot be both judging and loving. But is that true? The Bible clearly teaches that God is both. Yale theologian Miroslav Volf says it this way, "If God were not angry at injustice and did not make a final end to violence - that God would not be worthy of worship..."

Objection 6: Science Has Disproved Christianity
The famous atheist Richard Dawkins stated that one cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold religious beliefs. Is he right? In this chapter Keller shows how the supposed war between science and Christianity exists only in the minds of those who hold certain (unscientific) presuppositions. For example, the presupposition that "No supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible" is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one. He could have done more with this chapter, but this quote is telling: "A majority of scientists consider themselves deeply or moderately religious - and those numbers have increased in recent decades. There is no necessary disjunction between science and devout faith."

Objection 7: You Can't Take The Bible Literally
Keller draws on his own student experiences for this chapter, recalling how many of his college courses caused him to question the reliability of Scripture. It was when he began to do research on his own that he realized how little evidence there was for this revisionist school of thought. The influence of this skeptical view of Scripture has been waning in recent years. Anne Rice, who converted to Christianity after a successful career as a novelist, wrote that "I discovered in this field some of the worst and most biased scholarship I'd ever read." Keller goes on to deal with the typical challenges to the reliability of Scripture, providing solid reasons that the Bible can be trusted historically and culturally.

He quotes C.S. Lewis, who just happened to be a world-class literary critic, as saying: "I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, and myths all my life. I know what they are like I know none of them are like this. Of this (gospel) text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage... or else, some unknown (ancient) writer... without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative..."

In the remaining chapters of the book Keller moves from a defensive posture to providing a positive case for believing, including chapters on:

• The Clues of God
• The Knowledge of God
• The Problem of Sin
• Religion and the Gospel
• The (True) Story of the Gospel
• The Reality of the Resurrection
• The Dance of God

Even a synopsis of these would take up considerable space but, suffice to say, the book is worth reading, whether you are a skeptic, a seeker or a Christian wanting to deal with some questions. It's not an accident that this book hit the New York Times bestseller list. I'll end with a great quote from Keller: "Jesus's life, death and resurrection was an infinitely costly rescue operation to restore justice to the oppressed and marginalized, physical wholeness to the diseased and dying, community to the isolated and lonely, and spiritual joy and connection to those alienated from God. To be a Christian today is to become part of that same operation, with the expectation of suffering and hardship and the joyful assurance of eventual success."

Related Articles:  
Who Do You Read?
Divine Appointments
Book Review: Mere Apologetics
What is Truth?
"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias

 

     

What is Truth?

During a series I taught recently on apologetics, one of the follow-up questions dealt with the subject of truth. They asked whether the definition of truth was important to the defense of the Christian faith and, if so, what is truth? We could spend a few weeks on this question, but I'll do my best to answer satisfactorily.

Firstly, the definition of truth is vital to the defense of the Christian faith, as it is to any worldview. This question of truth is at the root of many of the disagreements taking place today and, in fact, throughout history. We can begin with a simple definition: truth is that which conforms to reality, fact or actuality. But this statement will often lead to more questions. What is reality? These word games are often played by the disingenuous and argumentative.

I like the approach that Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias took at a university Q and A. One member of the audience asked Ravi, "How do you know that I exist?" Ravi smartly replied, "And whom shall I say is asking?" Much of the debate over truth is simple semantics; and arguing over words. At the end of the day, each of us must live in the real world, a world where truth is objective, and not something arbitrary.

We can look at logic to help us to understand truth. For example, the law of non-contradiction tells us that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. I cannot be home, and not be home. One of those statements may be true, but not both at the same time. We can apply this principle to our discussions of faith.

Our modern world has taken a position called cultural relativism -  the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs.

The problem with this statement is that it's not liveable, and we judge people's customs all the time. We speak of human rights and tell nations that they must respect them. Why? Why must China respect human rights when they believe that collective rights trump individual rights? Who are we to tell them that they are wrong? What of women's rights? The rights of the child? Without a belief that there is such a thing as absolute truth - without a standard - we are all simply left shouting our opinions. 

Each of us believes in truth or we would make no factual statements. Otherwise we could never be believed. Part of our problem is that we have lost the ability to debate logically and thoughtfully. We say things like, that may be true for you, but it's not for me. Like Winston Churchill said, “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” But if truth is something real and concrete, it matters.

In dealing with Christianity this is particularly important, for Christianity is a faith based on history. We believe that Jesus Christ came, lived, died and was resurrected at a specific place and at a specific time in history. These are truth claims, and they matter. They are either true or they are not. If the claims of Christianity are not true, it should be placed on the rubbish heap of human ideas along with myriad other religions. But if it is true - it changes everything.

C.S. Lewis wrote of this in Mere Christianity: “The great difficulty is to get modern audiences to realize that you are preaching Christianity solely and simply because you happen to think it true; they always suppose you are preaching it because you like it or think it good for society or something of that sort. Now a clearly maintained distinction between what the Faith actually says and what you would like it to have said or what you understand or what you personally find helpful or think probable, forces your audience to realize that you are tied to your data just as the scientist is tied by the results of the experiments; that you are not just saying what you like. This immediately helps them realize that what is being discussed is a question about objective fact — not gas about ideals and points of view.”

For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the Bible; in Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6). Jesus made this statement as God in the flesh, God who provides the absolute standard by which everything and everyone is measured. Here is a divergence between Christianity and many of the other world religions. Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth and the life. Christianity claims - and evidence backs this up - that Jesus rose from the dead.

Islam, on the other hand, claims that Jesus was never crucified, contrary to the evidence. Many religions claim that Jesus was simply another in a long line of teachers sent from God. Yet he himself claimed otherwise. To believe both is to violate the law of non-contradiction. Many today would claim that Jesus was simply a good man and a gifted teacher. Yet his claims to Deity would certainly nullify the "good man" claims. And what of the resurrection?

To find our way around this we must explain the numerous eyewitness accounts, the growth of the church in hostile environs, the conversion of antagonists like Saul of Tarsus, the willingness of the disciples to die for a lie if they knew otherwise. We also must ask why the Romans or the Jews didn't produce the body of Jesus if they had it. Witness the radical changes in culture brought about by followers of this Jesus, and ask yourself if he was just a man.

This question of truth is not a new one. In fact, over 2,000 years ago there was an encounter between Jesus and Pontius Pilate, a Roman Governor. It's found in John 18:37-38 - Jesus was dragged before Pilate to defend himself to the Roman ruler. Jesus said,  “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” Pilate famously replied, “What is truth?” Perhaps the truth is that only those who are honestly looking for it can find it. 

Related Articles:
The Truth About Easter
"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias
"And That's The Truth..."
Aren't All Religions Equally Valid?
Straight Talk For Tough Times



 

Light in Dark Places

A couple of weeks ago, my colleague and I attended a week long conference put on by RZIM and hosted by the McMaster Divinity College. The theme was "Light in Dark Places." The experience can best be described as drinking from a fire hydrant. I'm still processing a lot of what I heard, but I'd like to highlight a few of the takeaways from the 32 sessions, some of which are likely not what you'd expect from an apologetics conference.

• Personal growth requires investment.

This is not an earth shattering revelation, but a gentle reminder that real growth comes at a cost. That cost may be monetary, as in tuition, conference fees, materials, etc. But it also involves, perhaps even moreso, an investment of time and energy.

I'm reminded of a conference I attended a few years ago during which someone spoke of the idea of leverage and creating space. If something is worth learning or doing, and there are only so many hours in a day, therefore something must be sacrificed in order to make it happen. That may mean getting up a little earlier each day or spending less time with television or whatever it is that wastes your time.

Author and speaker Charles Swindoll, many years ago, made the decision to rise one hour earlier each day and to spend that time in writing. He has now written more than seventy books and become one of America's most respected pastors. An hour a day is a powerful thing. What changes do you need to make to allow your top priorities the time they deserve? 

• There's no substitute for reading.

I have a lot of books. Almost every visitor to my office comments on my rather large library. Yet when I attend conferences such as these I invariably add another 10-20 books to my must-read list. Information is power, and to be able to have that information at your fingertips is invaluable. I find myself humbled in the presence of men and women who have such a great grasp of their subject that they are able to recite from memory a seemingly endless supply of pertinent information.

This is not intended to shame anyone - not all are cut out for academia - however, each of us should take advantage of our opportunities. As Mark Twain said, "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." It has been said that one hour of study per day in any subject will make you an expert in a couple of years. Try it with something you're interested in.

For those of you who commute, aren't audio-books just the greatest thing since sliced bread? Pop a CD in or download a podcast and make use of that time to expand your mind and your horizons.

• How you live your life matters.

I'm going to finish off with this one. No doubt many of the thoughts I'm currently processing will find their way onto future blogs, but this is important. I know a lot of people who like to argue. I know a lot of Christians who seem to think that they can bully someone into the Kingdom of God through the sheer weight of their intellect. They're wrong. It is a truism that people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care.

Apologetics is really about people. It's about helping people in their search for truth. Sometimes it's easy to forget that we are dealing with people, not just facts. As 1 Peter 3:15 says, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." To quote Lee Beach, one of the conference presenters: "A life beautifully lived is the most powerful argument we have for Christ."

Jesus said, in John 8:12, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” A close examination of the life of Christ is paramount to anyone planning on participating in furthering His Gospel. His was a life of service, of humility, of compassion and sacrifice. When He invited us to join with Him in His cause He didn't offer the perks of power - prestige, wealth, popularity. Rather He said “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me." (Luke 9:23)

We'll give the last word to Stuart McAllister - "How you live speaks volumes to others." Go shine a light in a dark place.

Related Articles:
Book Review: Mere Apologetics
Aren't All Religions Equally Valid?
Book Review: "Why I Still Believe"
Thoughts on Suffering and Hope
"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias

Book Review: Mere Apologetics

Book Review: "Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers and Skeptics Find Faith," Alister E. McGrath, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012. 197 pages.

Alister McGrath is the president of the Oxford Center for Christian Apologetics in London, England and regularly engages in debate and dialogue with the leaders of the New Atheist movement. I read this book at the suggestion of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in preparation for this year's Summer Institute. It is written as an introduction to Christian apologetics (taken from the Greek "apologia," meaning defense.) So apologetics is simply a defense of one's position, in this case, the Christian faith.  

McGrath begins by explaining that there are three basic tasks for an apologist: defending, commending, and translating. In defending, the apologist is dealing with barriers that have been erected to faith, whether misunderstandings, misrepresentations or existential issues. In commending, the challenge is to help the audience (whether 1 or 1,000) grasp the relevance of the Christian message. Finally, in translating, the goal is to relate the core ideas of the faith in language and story that makes sense to the hearer.

The second chapter - "Apologetics and Contemporary Culture" looks at the cultural context within which we must function. An approach that may work well in one culture will likely not be as effective in another. So, the challenge is to understand the culture; to be able to determine the common framework through which our audience views the world: ie. modernism and  post-modernism, and to adjust your approach accordingly.

He then deals with the theological basis for apologetics, that there is an important, yet limited role for apologists in helping people find faith. "Apologetics is grounded in a deep appreciation of the intellectual capaciousness and spiritual richness of the Christian faith." It is not about formulas and systems; nor wisdom and reasoning, but simply in helping to break down barriers to faith. It is God, ultimately, who transforms lives.

Next is a section on "The Importance of the Audience." An individual or group's background can differ from another's in many ways, so the method may need to be different as well. We see this modeled in the New Testament as Peter preached to the Jews in Acts 2 using one line of reasoning and reference; and Paul spoke to the Greeks in Acts 17 using another one entirely. They both ended at the same place - Jesus Christ - but they began from different points. We need to ask what our audience believes and why.

Chapter 5 speaks of "The Reasonableness of the Christian Faith." The Christian worldview is truly unlike any other in its capacity to explain things as they are. As C.S. Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." There are two ways to demonstrate the reasonableness of the Christian faith. One of them is by showing that there is a good evidential base for the core beliefs of Christianity. The second is by showing that the Christian faith makes more sense of reality than its alternatives.

McGrath then deals with "Pointers to Faith" or approaches to engaging others. "Reality is emblazoned with signs pointing to the greater reality of God. We need to connect the dots and see the overall picture." Some of those signs include: Creation - the origin of the universe; the appearance that the universe is designed for life; the structure of the physical world; the universal longing for justice (morality); the spiritual nature of mankind; our appreciation of beauty, etc...Where do these come from? Apologetics helps to point people to the source.

"Gateways for Apologetics" follows logically from the previous chapter - it's all about opening the door to faith. Many people have never considered the claims of Christianity, may even be antagonistic, and would be more likely to respond to one approach over another. So, what are the gateways? The first is explanation, which requires an ability to share the basics of the faith. The second is argument - building a rational case leading to faith. Examples include the argument from design or the argument from morality. The third gateway is stories. This approach is particularly useful in dealing with postmoderns, who have a tendency to reject an appeal to reason. The final approach mentioned is images, which builds upon the previous model. Postmoderns tend to prefer pictures, not words, in their communication. C.S. Lewis was a master at these last two gateways.

The last chapter before the conclusion is "Questions about Faith." This deals with helping people at the point of their own stumbling. Some have had bad experiences with Christians; others may be from a Muslim background and stumble at the church's history of the crusades. Many stumble at the question of evil. What are the keys to dealing with someone with real questions? Be gracious. Look beyond what is said to the real question. Don't just give prepackaged answers; be genuine. Learn from other apologists.

This book provides help for those trying to develop their own skills as an apologist. It is not so much a list of arguments to use, but rather it is a guide to help to develop and refine one's approach. I'll end with some good common-sense advice from McGrath: "Before we can answer the questions others ask about our faith, we need to have answered them for ourselves."

Related Articles:
Book Review: "Why I Still Believe"
Book Review: "Has Christianity Failed You?"
"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias
Book Review: "Why Jesus?"
Are Christianity & Science Incompatible?



 

Islam & Christianity

Recent events have brought the clash between the Muslim and the Christian cultures to the attention of at least some of us who have been watching. Currently 35 Ethiopian Christians are being held in jail in Saudi Arabia for having a prayer meeting in a private home. They've been there for over two months and are now being threatened with deportation. As well, this week there was a pronouncement by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia calling for the destruction of all churches on the Arabian Peninsula. Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani continues to wait on death row in Iran for the crime of converting to Christianity. Add to this the ongoing persecution of Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria etc... and it becomes clear that this is more than just a trend.

I thought it might be informative to share some interactions between Ravi Zacharias and a Muslim student. Ravi is one of the greatest apologists for the Christian faith in the world today and is especially good at cutting through the clutter to speak to the heart of the issue. What are the differences between Islam and Christianity? How do Muslims view Jesus? How do we determine who is right? These presentations are a good staring point, even if the quality may be somewhat
lacking. Feel free to comment.





Related Articles:
Saudi Arabia Calls For Destruction of Churches
Iranian Pastor Conviction Is In - Death
Book-burning 101
Shahbaz Bhatti - Christian Martyr
Modern-day Martyrs in Turkey

"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias

Ravi has been one of my favorite authors and speakers for over 25 years. This video is a good example of why that is true. I hope you take a few minutes to watch it.



Related Articles:
Ravi Zacharias and Dr. John Lennox take on Stephen Hawking
If God Is Good, How Could This Happen?
Book Review: "Why I Still Believe"
Book Review: "Has Christianity Failed You?"
Straight Talk For Tough Times

Book Review: "Why I Still Believe"

Book Review: Joe Boot, "Why I Still Believe: (Hint: It's The Only Way The World Makes Sense)" Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006. 159 pages.

Joe Boot, the author of "Why I Still Believe" wass the Canadian Director of RZIM Ministries (Ravi Zacharias). He is the founding president of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity in Toronto where he currently serves as senior pastor of Westminster Chapel. As such, he is well-versed in apologetics, speaking around the world in universities, churches, colleges and conferences.

This book is a little different from the normal works of apologists(defenders of the faith) as it deals not so much with rational proof for Christianity, as with building a case that Christianity is the most reasonable worldview. His rationale, with which I happen to agree, is that the presuppositions of Christians and non-Christians are so far apart that there is little common ground on which to build an objective argument.

So Boot takes the time to compare the worldviews, making the case that the Christian worldview, alone, provides satisfying answers to life's ultimate questions. As C.S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

He begins his book by showing that much of what we believe, Christian or not, is based upon pre-suppositions. For example, he notes that even scientific journals admit that the big bang theory of cosmology is based upon a number of hypothetical entities - things that we have never observed. They are unproven pre-suppositions, without which the theories would fall apart. As an article in the New Scientist Journal stated: "In cosmology today, doubt and dissent are not tolerated and young scientists learn to stay silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model."

These pre-suppositions exist in most, if not all, areas of science and of religion. The premise of evolutionary theory, for example, is that there must be a naturalistic explanation for all life forms. All evidence is therefore understood through that filter, the questions arising from the Cambrian explosion notwithstanding... So, in all disciplines and walks of life a certain amount of faith is required, but I digress.

Joe speaks about his upbringing and the different views to which he was exposed as a child and a youth. There was a steady bombardment of ideas that ran contrary to the Christian beliefs of his parents. He found himself, from an early age, wrestling with the competing worldviews he encountered. He realised, as I have, that of all of the worldviews out there, Christianity is the one which seems to be a lightning-rod for criticism. Some of that criticism is due to the hypocrisy of some Christians and Christian organizations. But some is also due to the very direct truth claims which fly in the face of our modern views of "tolerance." When Jesus claimed to be "the way, and the truth, and the life" He drew a line in the sand, stating by implication that all contrary views are false.

I love his chapter Ridicule and Rebuttals, in which he speaks of the attitude of Christianity's critics. I'll let him speak for himself in a lengthy, but well-written paragraph. (I love the sarcastic tone). "Have I never heard of Charles Darwin and macroevolution? Do I not realize that the Bible has been disproved - Richard Dawkins says so! Have I been living on Mars for the last thirty years? Have I not encountered the work of David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietsche, Karl Marx, Aldous Huxley, Anthony Flew, or Bertrand Russell? Am I unaware of French existentialism? What about Camus, Sartre and Derrida? Do I not realize that such people, and many other thinkers, have shown the inadequacy of arguments for God, the miraculous, and biblical history? Have I not read that 'God is dead,' that religion is just the opium of the people? Have I not understood that all religious language is meaningless or that Christianity is not empirically verifiable? Surely I am conscious of the loneliness of humankind in the universe, that all is meaningless, and life is only what I define it to be or make of it? Humankind has come of age; we are autonomous, free, self-determining. And surely I understand that history itself and all religious claims are mere power plays to control and manipulate others. All is relative; there can be no objectivity in history: that's objectively certain! There are no absolutes, and that's absolutely final! It's all a matter of personal interpretation. What's true for you isn't necessarily true for me. Joe Boot, you really have been living in a box; you are so behind the times! Your parents merely passed on to you their human projection of a 'father figure' due to their insecurity and poor relationship with their parents; what you now depend on as 'god' is a psychological disorder - Freud taught us that. No, I'm afraid this biblical concoction of God will not be tolerated in our tolerant society. It's back to school for you, Joe Boot."

I love this paragraph because I've heard so many of the lines myself from people who cannot believe that I, an educated person, could actually believe this Christianity stuff. I see a great deal of my own journey in Boot's story. I left the faith of my childhood in search of truth only to arrive back home after other worldviews had left me empty and needing more. The more I learn of God, His Word and His world the more I am convinced that Christianity is true. His use of a quote by Cornelius Van Til at the beginning of a chapter called No Apology is appropriate here: "Faith is not blind faith... Christianity can be shown to be, not 'just as good as' or even 'better than' the non-Christian position, but the only position that does not make nonsense of human experience."

Boot then gives some helpful tools to actually assess the validity of worldviews, much of it I believe from Ravi Zacharias. I have some of this information in an older blog if you're interested. The point is that Christianity is not only true - it works in real life, which is where all worldviews should be measured.

I encourage you to read this book, particularly if you're on a search for truth. If you're one of those that I hear from on occasion who have rejected Christianity for whatever reason, I really would like your feedback on this one. If you are a Christian, I believe that this will help to bring some things into perspective for you.