just thinking: the heart of apologetics

8/13/2019 Just Thinking: The Heart of Apologetics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/just-thinking-the-heart-of-apologetics 1/30

VOLUME 20.3 I WWW.RZIM.ORG

JUSTTHINKINGTHE MAGAZINE OF RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

The Heart of ApologeticsPAGE 14

+ENGAGING THE HAPPYTHINKING PAGANPAGE 2

IS RELIGIONA CRUTCH?PAGE 10



Just Thinking is a teaching

resource of Ravi Zacharias

International Ministries and

exists to engender thoughtful

engagement with apologetics,

Scripture, and the whole of life.

Danielle DuRant

Editor

Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

4725 Peachtree Corners Circle

Suite 250

Norcross, Georgia 30092

770.449.6766

WWW.RZIM.ORG

HELPING THE THINKER BELIEVE. HELPI NG THE BELIEV ER THINK .



JUST THINKING • The Quarterly Magazine of RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

TABLE of CONTENTS

VOLUME 20.3

Engaging the Happy

Thinking Pagan

What does it mean when people are content with life withoutbothering about the question of God? Recently Ravi Zacharias sat downwith Danielle DuRant to discuss theidea of the “happy thinking pagan.”

Is Religion a Crutch?

Believers are often caricatured asbeing weak and naïve—the kindof people who need their faith as acrutch just to get them through life. But as Simon Wenham notes, thetruth of the matter is that Jesus never offered a crutch, only a cross.

2

10

The Heart of Apologetics

As Alister McGrath points out in hisbook Mere Apologetics , apologeticsis not a set of techniques for winning people to Christ or a set of argumen-tative templates designed to win debates. Rather, it is a willingnessto work with God in helping people discover and turn to his glory. We are to “follow Him” by casting our nets out to everyone and pointing them to the greater reality of God and the risen Christ.

Think Again

Ravi Zacharias observes that we are all on a search for something beyond the routine and the normal. Even seekers of pleasure long to know they matter and latch on to what they hope will deliver fulfillment, ifeven for the moment.

14

26



Engaging the HappyThinking PaganRavi Zacharias with Danielle DuRant

Do you know people who are very content with life withoutbothering about the question of God? Ravi Zacharias sat

down with Danielle DuRant to discuss the idea of the “happy

thinking pagan.” To hear the interview, go to www.rzim.org.

[2] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES



JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3 [3]

Danielle DuRant: You’ve spoken about the“happy thinking pagan.” What do you mean bythis phrase?

Ravi Zacharias: I think the first time I

heard that term was about three decadesago. It was from Os Guinness and hetalked about the fact that this was theemerging new way of thinking. That is, “Idon’t believe anything but I’m very happy.What does it matter?” And of course, it was also along the time of slogans such as“If it feels good, do it” and “Don’t worry,be happy.” Then the whole question cameup about what does the so-called happy pagan actually believe, and it was border-

line radical skepticism: not really takingany view of the transcendent seriously but just the pursuit of happiness, raw andunbridled. This sometimes moved intoradical hedonism, other times just tocontentment. So I mean people who are very content with life without botheringabout the question of God.

—— s ——

DD: Philosopher Peter Kreeft argues that “the

most serious challenge for Christianity todayisn’t one of the other great religions of the world, such as Islam or Buddhism.” Rather, it is pagan-ism, which he defines as “the religion of man asthe new God.” Would you agree with him?

RZ: Partly. I don’t think I’d agree withhim completely though Kreeft is a much wiser man and a better informed man thanI am. I suppose I would wonder what hemeans by that in the pervasive sense of

a belief system. Yes, paganism can beespecially daunting with the revival ofcertain types of Gnosticism and mysticism.Yes, the numbers in the West are growing,but in terms of a threat to stability andfreedom, I don’t think that’s the greatestthreat we face. I think the whole Islamic worldview has a real challenge and I’ll tell you why. It has a challenge because it iscomprehensive. It is political. It has a

moral theory. It has a cultural theory. It hasa financial theory. So I think in its core theIslamic worldview would pose a greaterchallenge to the life and the lifestyle of theWestern worldview because in the Western

worldview you are given the freedom tobelieve and disbelieve. It’s not always truein Islamic nations. So I would say in termsof the freedom of these things, the greaterchallenge to the world right now is comingfrom that worldview, but in terms of thepervasiveness of belief systems, paganismis certainly a daunting one. I don’t thinkit’s as fearsome but it is real.

—— s ——

DD: You’ve said that the problem of pleasure rather than the problem of pain more often drives us to think of spiritual things. So howwould you account for the happy pagan?

RZ: Good question. I think the reason itcan be accounted for is the same way materialism succeeds. There is always thesense that one more digit in my paycheck will make a difference. One added home.One added car. One added excursion. One

other vacation. We think by the simple actof change we will alter everything on theinside. So it has that lure to it. But at thesame time pleasure, when it has delivered what it can, definitely does leave youempty. Nothing is more obvious than thisin the Hollywood world: the breakup of relationships, the breakup of homes, thebreakup of commitments. Who knows allthe heartaches with which many of them go to bed.

I remember Michael Landon, Jr., talkingabout the heartache of his family and how even though his father was so wonderfulto watch living out on the homestead on“Little House on the Prairie,” deep in hisinner life it was a total chaos. That is trueof the entertainment world and theyepitomize pleasure. They are purveyorsof pleasure.




On the other hand, those who watch fromthe sidelines, I think all of us included,somehow think success is more than what we actually think it is. Now let mequalify that. I do believe it is great to be

comfortable in our material holdings.Who wants to be poor? Who wants to worry about the next meal? We all like tohave those comforts. But it is only theinner being within you that is able totranscend that and look beyond thatand not look at ultimate reality througha skewed way.

—— s ——

DD: You contend in your new book,

Why Jesus , that both pleasure and pain are rooted in the question of our origin.What do you mean?

RZ: There is absolutely no doubt that ourlives are constantly invaded with eitherecstasy or heartache. Nobody is sparedthis. In my line of work now as I look atit in the last stretch over against thebeginning and middle distance, what Isee more often is people disappointed,

disheartened, disillusioned becomingskeptical and trying to find their way outof the mess. On the other hand, there arethose who have been there, done that, whoalso still continue to ask questions. Theonly way to interpret these emotion-ladenrealities is to go back to the intellectualbackdrop of how to handle them. How

do you handle success? You know, weoften think of the fall of Lucifer. Thebiggest sin in the church today is anythingto do with sexual sin. But it was notsexual sin that brought Lucifer down. It

was autonomy, pride, and power—that’sat the root of all evil. All these otherthings, while they are real, are secondary.So I think the whole issue of the struggleto interpret who I am will ultimately lie atthe root of how to define pleasure and pain.And those realities, while symptomatic,are anchored in essence and definitionsof ultimate meaning.

—— s ——

DD: So do you think the happy pagan is truly happy or maybe, as you even alluded, do we need to begin first with a definition of happiness?

RZ: Yes, I think I’ll have to say that onthe surface some people would seem tobe happy. I always like these commercialsoutside restaurants for “happy hour.”You know, I just find it is so ridiculous.I remember in Bangkok once walking outof my hotel, and this guy was standing

there announcing “Happy hour, happy hour.” So I stopped and said to him, “Are you only happy for one hour?”

Do I think they’re truly happy? I think they have punctuated moments of happiness. Ido not think true happiness is ultimately found unless you’ve got a relationship

T

he only way to interpret these emotion-laden realities is

to go back to the intellectual backdrop of how to handle them. How do you handle success? You know, weoften think of the fall of Lucifer. The biggest sin in thechurch today is anything to do with sexual sin. But it wasnot sexual sin that brought Lucifer down. It was autonomy, pride, and power—that’s at the root of all evil. All these

other things, while they are real, are secondary.



that is the bulwark from which everythingelse is explained. And I don’t think ulti-mately all relationships will stand withoutthat relationship with God. (And C.S.Lewis’s A Grief Observed is one of the

most powerful books of how to face eventhe loss of your greatest human relation-ship.) So I would say there are momentsof happiness. But as G.K. Chestertonsaid, they can be happy because theperipheral questions are answered fornow, but they ultimately can’t have joy because the fundamental questions arenot answered. So happiness is possiblebut it is not systemic.

—— s ——

DD: Well, I think of the late Christopher Hitchens, who our colleague John Lennox debated and spoke with on a number of occasions. He seemed quite content in his animositytowards Christianity as well as his appetite

for pleasure.

RZ: Yes, I think that is certainly the way one would convey it. You know, peopleoften talk about Christians being hyp-

ocrites—they feign emotions while theirlives may be falling apart in private. And yet, do we really know that in the darkestmoments of his aloneness that he was notrecognizing that his real questions arehostile towards the sacred? How cananyone find total fulfillment with ananimosity towards the sacred? I think it isincoherent. It’s an incoherent worldview.I think Christopher Hitchens’s book onMother Teresa was one of the worst

books I’ve ever read in forty years of reading. It showed me how hostile he wastowards anything that smacked of anethic that came from a belief in God.Whether he was genuinely happy or notis not for me to tell. Whether he wascontent with pleasure or not, he did show that his life fell apart ultimately physically.That happens to all of us and that is only a manifestation of what also happens to

us on the inside. Life is not continuousapart from God. And if that’s all he livedfor, and has come and gone, then BertrandRussell was right: you cling to a philosophy of unyielding despair. That is, that’s just

the way it is.

But I think it is a dressing-up verbally of something that has no meaning essential-ly. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in hisshoes to think that’s all life was about:have some fun, go and debate a few peo-ple, earn some money, go to the bar, havea great time. He battled, as you know,issues of alcohol, and so I would have toask the question if he was really that

happy, what was all this about? Why didone need to escape away from reality?Or was that part of the reality he wantedto live in? It’s not for me to judge. I thinkHitchens was a loveable person; he hadan air of likeability to him. He’s now found out whether his belief was right or wrong. If his belief was wrong, it’s pretty serious. And if his belief was right, hedoesn’t know it.

—— s ——

DD: You’ve alluded to the need for worship and wonder. Do you think that worship can also be an escape for some?

RZ: Yes, I think the way we worship canbe an escape. Sometimes I wonder aboutthe evangelical world where worship to ushas become so much noise. I often wonderhow much that really couches the mostimportant thing: for you to be still.

Sometimes we’re afraid to be alone.We’reafraid to listen to our inner voice. Worshipcan be an escape, but if worship is theultimate recognition of the sacred thenit’s not an escape. It’s a fountain from which all else flows and you sense it. Butit’s a great question and I think you’reright. Many times not just worship itself but even religion in general can be anescape. All kinds of things can be an





escape: watching television, watchingsports. So the truth ultimately has to besettled: What is the paradigm from which I view everything else? The Bible talks about what you believe, so you are, and how youthink, so you are. Worship, when it is a legitimate expression, is not an escape;it’s ultimate fulfillment.

—— s ——

DD: So back to engaging the happy thinking pagan. What do you think is the most effectiveway to engage them for the gospel—throughtheir mind or through their heart?

RZ: That is the most difficult question toanswer. I think often about that becausethere are parts of Europe today where evenapologists will tell you, yes, apologeticsis answering questions, but what if thepeople aren’t even asking the questions?And many cultures have come to thatpoint. It is fascinating distinguishing theEast from the West. In the East, wherethe questions are not asked demagogically,they have been drowned out. Take China:

don’t ask these questions, just work. Workmakes you free and that’s all you have todo. But they couldn’t ultimately suppressthem for the East is always incurablyreligious and spiritually minded.

In the West, it is about a “hands-fullpursuit.” You get into your car and comeback to your home, live in your boxes, andbe happy. So they have learned not to askthose questions. But you know what?

W hy did one need to escape away from reality? Or was that part of the reality he wanted to

live in? It’s not for me to judge. I think Hitchens was

a loveable person; he had an air of likeability to him. He’s now found out whether his belief was right or wrong. If his belief was wrong, it’s pretty serious. And if his belief was right, he doesn’t know it.

Everybody makes moral pronouncements.Everybody. Every culture makes moralpronouncements. And the best way forme to approach them is to ask themquestions about their moral pronounce-ments. The very honest ones will findthere is a breaking point. The dishonestones will find they are really escapingreality rather than facing it.

The second thing is grief comes your way—and children. I think one of the mostimportant ways that God communicatesto us is through children. Whether youare observing a child who is not even

yours or you watch a child being hurt. Why is it that even pagans will want to show a child being hurt in the Middle Easternconflict to draw your emotions into it?Or you raise one in your own home andsickness comes or death comes, and youare forced to ask the questions. So theentry point is determined through theinescapable moral framework and rela-tional framework with which people live.

—— s ——

DD: What about the individual who onceupheld Jesus’s teachings but has chosen a

lifestyle—and I use that term very broadly—that is contradictory to the Scriptures and yet

professes to be happy and still a Christian?

RZ: Sort of moving away from thecommunity of faith but still claiming tohave faith but is not pursuing Christ?

—— s ——




DD: Yes, or engaging in a life that clearlywould be contradictory to Scripture and

Jesus’s teaching.

RZ: Yes, you see that, and it basically tells

you that the person has done a masterful job at duping themselves. That’s really what it tells you. I mean, take it in any other vein—suppose you do that in yourmarriage. “I really love you; you’re my spouse. I’m really committed to you butdon’t ask me where I am every night untilmidnight.” Or, “Don’t expect me to treat you with respect. Don’t expect me to bekind to you, but I want you to know thatI really love you.” Who would buy into

something like that? Who wants to beloved that way unless you yourself havebecome cynical in the process? So to say,“I love the Lord”—the Bible talks aboutbringing forth fruits that are in keeping with repentance. And if you don’t bringforth that kind of fruit, then what yousay about repentance is nothing morethan theoretical. So a person like that hasdone the ultimate job of picking theirown pockets. If your life is not in keeping

with your profession, then your profes-sion is fake. There is no other explanationfor that. So such a person will sooner orlater start looking for intellectual reasonsto renounce their faith so that they canbe comfortable with their lifestyle. Andthat’s where many go.

—— s ——

DD: So what do you say to the person todaywho might identify with the happy thinking

pagan or perhaps would call themselves abeliever or Christian and yet is living this

duplicitous life as you’ve suggested?

RZ: You know, there was a famous sermonpreached by Robert Lee called “Pay-Day —Someday.”1 One day it comes home toroost. Look at the whole financial crisis globally right now. It is the happy paganphilosophy. That’s exactly what it is. Inthe banking system and the insurancesystem, just go and live any way you want,borrow and don’t worry about having torepay, we can keep printing more money,

we’ll dole it out from the government, we’ll bail you out, we’ll do this, we’ll dothat. And look at what’s happened.Ultimately what’s happened is likeGreece: burn the buildings, burn the government, pull down your lampposts,destroy your systems, and so on. So I will just say to them you can coast for sometime this way, but if this is your long termplan, that’s exactly what the Bible speaksof when it says, “‘I’ll eat, drink and be

merry’ and God said, ‘You fool, today your soul shall be required of you.’” It is a foolish way to live, both for yourself andfor those you love. But God has a way of bringing things into our lives.

T he Bible talks about bringing forth fruits that are in keeping with repentance. And if you don’t bring forth

that kind of fruit, then what you say about repentance isnothing more than theoretical. So a person like that has donethe ultimate job of picking their own pockets. If your life is not in keeping with your profession, then your profession is fake.

Luke 12:19-20

And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years.Take life easy; eat,

drink and be merry.” But God said to him,

“You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from

you. Then whowill get what you

have prepared for yourself?”




Look at the Hitchens’s story again: ridingthe coast of success, writing great books,all of a sudden you find out you havecancer. Are you going to be glib and cavalierabout it or realize payday has come for

me? But you have to be very careful withpeople like that. Alister McGrath alwaysused to say to me, “Ravi, the thing I likeabout what you are doing in the presentingof the gospel is you’re presenting thebeauty of Jesus.” I was not even awarethis is what we’re doing. But I think wedon’t reach people by pulling them downor cutting them down by the knees, butby showing them there is a better way, a more beautiful way, and the attractiveness

of Christ is what we need to be upholding. —— s ——

DD: And his love and his greatness that really have no other comparison. You’ve been speak-ing about love having moral entailments—inour culture, at least in North America, we seethat as a disconnect. And yet that is clearly the

gospel, is it not?

RZ: It is clearly the gospel and it is a

gospel with all of its profundity that thehuman heart ultimately longs to belong.If you can belong with legitimacy, then itis fulfilling. If you belong with illegitimacy,it is haunting. How do I find legitimacy?By recognizing the sacred. The beauty of Jesus is something we really need to upholdbefore people: his warmth, his care, hisethos, his ethic. When you see a troubledperson, help them. When you see a per-son hurting help them. So I think the

gospel is beautiful. —— s ——

DD: What about the individual today who may be reconsidering their beliefs—what would you say to them?

RZ: I think that’s a real fact. I see it. It’s

very interesting to me that there are somany illustrations around that you canborrow from, such as this man who goesto Vegas and ultimately takes his life andsays, “Out here, there are no answers.”One of the wealthiest women who everlived who passed away recently lived in a forty-room home in Manhattan but walked away from that and checked intoa hospital and lived for so many years in a hospital bed. She said that wealth was a

poison and noxious to the soul. Why dothey say these things? Recently on a flightI watched a documentary on Kurt Cobain, who was in his twenties and ended hislife. So there are illustrations of people who carry it to the extreme.

Now somebody may say, “Look, I’mnot in that extreme. I try to dothings right. I honor my family. I

do this for my children. I’m not a hedonist

per se; I just enjoy the good things of life.”I would say to you ultimately you will lookfor a reason for all of this—not just thefulfillment. Fulfillment itself is neversufficient reason because anybody can befulfilled by doing opposite things. So what you have to find out is the reasonthat you come together when you love your family, when you’re doing your work, when you’re home with those who need you is because God has made you in his

image and there is something essentially sacred. So break this idea that you don’tneed God. You need him for the answers.You need him ultimately for your ownpursuit of meaning and for your family.

How do you break away from it? If youare struggling with a network of friendsfor whom it will be hard, just start talkingto them. What do you think about




entertainment, legitimate entertainmentI should add, of beauty around us. Yes, wecan enjoy happiness, contrary to RichardDawkins who says that there’s no God so go ahead and do whatever you want. Thereis a God who intends for you to have lifeabundant and happiness is well-bounded.

When the Bible talks about the beauty of holiness that means beauty is bounded.There is an absolute nature to it. So ishappiness. You can have wonderfully happy moments and God intends for usto have them.

—— s ——

DD: I believe Augustine said that God has made us for himself—for his pleasure—and we aren’t at rest until we find our rest in him.

RZ: And this comes from an Augustine who once upon a time was seeking pleas-ure in the wrong direction. So I think it isimportant to know the background from which people even say that. Music hastremendous sentimental value. Enjoy great instrumentality, good humor, good jokes, laughter. It’s good for the soul, andI find it actually very therapeutic becausemy life is so heavy in speaking.

—— s ——

1For the published sermon and audio file, see

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/sbvoices/rgleepay-day.asp.

Ravi Zacharias is Founder and Presidentof Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

Danielle DuRant is Director of Researchand Writing at RZIM.

ultimate matters? What do you thinkabout origin, purpose, meaning, destiny?Do the right kind of reading. Do theright kind of listening. Take the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word,the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It all comes together in the

Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongus. When you are reading the Bible, beginby saying, “God, if this is your word, I want you to speak to me and I’m willingto listen.” You’ll be surprised how many people just by reading the Scriptures willsay, “This has the ring of truth,” and they will trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord andSavior who gives them the reason for thehope that can be within them.

—— s ——

DD: It seems that we don’t have a doctrine of happiness, if you will, in Christianity. We speakof joy but it’s always eternal joy or looking

ahead to heaven. But yet, is an earthly senseof happiness perhaps missing?

RZ: I think it is missing, and we almostassociate being happy with therefore youmust be doing something wrong. That is, you need to feel guilty about being happy.

And so we pound people—“grace killers,”as Chuck Swindoll used to call them. Butlook at a little child. I’ve become a grand-father now, and I watch the little guy bouncing around on his jumper or splash-ing around in a bathtub. What morebeautiful thing to see a chuckling littlebaby enjoying the nice things of life.God has given the enjoyment of sports,the enjoyment of food, the enjoyment of

U ltimately you will look for a reason for all of this—not just the fulfillment. Fulfillment

itself is never sufficient reason because anybody can

be fulfilled by doing opposite things.

John 1:1

In the beginningwas the Word, and the Word was withGod, and the Word was God.

John 1:14

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.We have seen his

glory, the glory ofthe one and onlySon, who came fromthe Father, full of

grace and truth.




Is Religion a Crutch? by Simon Wenham

Believers are often caricatured as being weak and naïve —

the kind of people who need their faith as a crutch just to

get them through life. But the truth of the matter is that

Jesus never offered a crutch, only a cross.

[ s u r r e n d e r i n g t o g o d ]




This kind of argument would seemto ring true, at least on a superficial level.You would expect it to be more likely forpeople to believe in something that they like than something that they don’t, and

it is clear that Christianity is powerfully compelling. In fact, the argument itself isan admission of this, as it acknowledgesthe innate desire in us all that is fulfilledby God. Who wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with a loving deity who notonly wants the best for those he has cre-ated but who is offering eternity in a place that is more wonderful than can beimagined? Yet the Bible also containssome very hard-hitting passages, which

would seem to contradict the notion thatreligious belief is simply a projection of our wishes. C. S. Lewis pointed out thatscripture also teaches that believersshould fear the Lord, but you would notthen suggest that this meant faith wassome kind of “fear fulfillment!”8

The problem with the argument isthat it cuts both ways. If you suggest thatpeople only believe because they want it to be true, then the counter-claim is thatatheists are only non-believers becausethey don’t want it to be true. Some people

have expressly stated this, such as AldousHuxley who wrote:“For myself, as, no doubt, for most

of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instru-ment of liberation. The liberation wedesired was simultaneously liberation froma certain political and economic systemand liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual free-

dom; we objected to the political andeconomic system because it was unjust.”9

As Czeslaw Milosz points out, thisis a negative wish-fulfillment, because“A true opium of the people is a belief in

nothingness after death—the huge solaceof thinking that for our betrayals, greed,cowardice, murders, we are not going tobe judged.”10

The problem with these types of argument is that, as Manfred Lutzobserves, Freud can provide an equally compelling reason for why someonemight believe as to why they mightdisbelieve. Yet, crucially, when it comesto discerning the all-important matter of

which position is actually true, he cannothelp us.11As this suggests, just because you want to believe in something doesnot mean that it is true.

SOMETHING MUCH BETTER What is interesting about the Christianfaith is that the intellectual argumentsfor God are backed up with a reality thatcan be personally experienced. There arecountless examples of people who discov-

er a life-changing faitheven though they

were once hostile to the idea of it . This may sound too good to be true, but thisis something that is within everyone’sreach. Many believers testify to thetransformative effect that becoming a Christian has had on their lives and thiscan include being delivered from some of the crutches they had previously reliedupon. Yet, the idea that coming to faith issomehow either liberating or empowering

T he problem with the argument is that it cuts both ways. If you suggest that people only believe because they want it to be true,

then the counter-claim is that atheists are only non-believers becausethey don’t want it to be true




is, of course, anathema to many people.Christopher Hitchens, for example,speaks of the totalitarian nature of Christianity that keeps its followers in a state of constant subservience.12G. K.

Chesterton saw it differently, however, ashe suggested that the “dignity of man”and the “smallness of man” was held inperfect tension, allowing people to have a strong sense of self-worth withoutbecoming big-headed.13

Yet God clearly offers much morethan this. In 2 Corinthians 12:9, it says,“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”The idea of strength flowing from

human powerlessness may seem counter-intuitive in today’s risk-averse culture,but as Simon Guillebaud points out,“Paradoxically, our waving the white flagof submission to God’s right over ourlives is the key that unlocks the gate tomany future victories in his name.”14

Nevertheless, as C. S. Lewis observed,people will still choose to cling on totheir crutches, even though somethingmuch better is being offered to them:

“We are half-hearted creatures,fooling about with drink and sex andambition when infinite joy is offered us,like an ignorant child who wants to go onmaking mud pies in a slum because hecannot imagine what is meant by theoffer of a holiday at the sea. We are fartoo easily pleased.”15

It can be helpful, therefore, toreflect on what we really rely upon in ourown lives and what impact this has upon

us. As the blogger and former atheist,Daniel Rodger, reminds us, we do not want to miss out on the fullness of lifethat God offers all of us, whether wethink we need it or not:

“The truth of the matter is that Jesus never offered a crutch, only a cross;it wasn’t a call to be a better person withhigh self-esteem or a plan to help usscrape through our existence. It was acall to acknowledge that the forgiveness

we all seek is to be found in him by follow-ing him onto the cross…. It’s becauseChristianity is true that it has somethingto offer every person in every circum-stance, regardless of their background or

intellectual capabilities.”16

Simon Wenham is Research Coordinator forRavi Zacharias International Ministriesin Europe.

1Alister McGrath, Mere Apologetics (GrandRapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2012), 167.

2Article adapted from Simon Wenham’s“Is Christianity Just a Crutch?” Pulse, Issue 10(Spring 2012), 14-16.

3

John Humphrys, In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist (London: Hodder & Stoughton,2007), quoted in John C. Lennox, Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2011), 24.

4McGrath, Mere Apologetics, 170.

5 Ibid.

6Andrew Sims, Is Faith Delusion? Why Religion

Is Good for Your Health (London: Continuum,2009), quoted in Lennox, Gunning, 77-78.

7Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents(New York: W.W. Norton, 1962), 21,

quoted in McGrath, 167.8 C. S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night: And Other Essays (New York: Mariner Books, 2002), 19.

9Robert S. Baker and James Sexton, eds.,

Aldous Huxley Complete Essays, Vol 4(Lanham, MD: Ivan R. Dee, 2001), 369.

10Czeslaw Milosz, “The Discrete Charmof Nihilism,” quoted in Lennox, 47.

11Manfred Lutz, God: A Brief History of theGreater One (Munich: Pattloch VerlagGmbH + Co., 2007), cited in Lennox, 46.

12Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great (London: Atlantic Books, 2007), 232-234.

13G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Chicago:Moody Publishers, 2009), 143.

14Simon Guillebaud, For What It’s Worth(Oxford: Lion Hudson, 1999), 171.

15C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other

Addresses (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.Eerdmans, 1949), 1-2.

16Daniel Rodger, “Is Christianity a PsychologicalCrutch?” Online at http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tolerance/ introductory/is-christianity-a-psychological-crutch.htm.




The Heart of Apologetics by Alister McGrath

Apologetics is not a set of techniques for winning

people to Christ. It is not a set of argumentative

templates designed to win debates. It is a willingness

to work with God in helping people discover and turn

to his glory. We are to “follow Him” by casting ournets out to everyone and pointing them to the

greater reality of God and the risen Christ.




[ f i s h e r s o f p e o p l e ]




Apologetics is not a set of techniques for winningpeople to Christ. It is nota set of argumentativetemplates designed to windebates. It is a willingness

to work with God in helping people

discover and turn to his glory. As Avery Dulles once noted with some sadness,the apologist is often regarded as an“aggressive, opportunistic person whotries, by fair means or foul, to arguepeople into joining the church.”1

It’s easy to see how these stereotypesarise. And it’s equally easy to see how dangerous such attitudes can be. Theheart of apologetics is not about masteringand memorizing a set of techniques

designed to manipulate arguments to getthe desired conclusion. It is about beingmastered by the Christian faith so that itsideas, themes, and values are deeply imprinted on our minds and in our hearts.

Far from being a mechanical repeti-tion of ideas, apologetics is about a naturalrealization of the answers we can provideto people’s questions and concerns, answersthat arise from a deep and passionateimmersion in the realities of our faith.

The best apologetics is done from thestandpoint of the rich vision of reality characteristic of the Christian gospel, which gives rise to deeply realistic insightsinto human nature. What is our problem?What is our need? How can these needsbe resolved? In each case, a powerfulanswer may be given to each question,an answer grounded in the Christianunderstanding of the nature of things.

SETTING THINGS IN CONTEXTTo help us set our reflections in a propercontext, let us recall one of the earliestrecorded events in the Gospel accountsof the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth:

As Jesus passed along the Sea of

Galilee, he saw Simon and hisbrother Andrew casting a net intothe sea—for they were fishermen.And Jesus said to them, “Follow meand I will make you fish for people.”And immediately they left their netsand followed him. (Mark 1:16–18)

This is a wonderful narrative, packedfull of detail and insight. For example, we note that Jesus called fishermen.

Contemporary Jewish literature hadmuch to say about people whose jobsmade them virtually incapable of keepingthe law of Moses. Two groups often singledout for special (negative) comment werecarpenters and fishermen—carpentersbecause they doubled as undertakers and were handling dead bodies all the time,and fishermen because they had to handleand sort mixed catches of clean andunclean fish. Both groups were incapable

of observing the strict Jewish rules aboutritual purity, which prohibited contact with anything unclean. Yet Jesus callsprecisely such fishermen, who hoveredon the fringes of Jewish religious life. It’sa powerful reminder of the way in whichthe Christian gospel reaches out toeveryone—even those whom society regards as powerless or valueless.

Excerpted from Chapter 3 and 6 of Mere Apologetics by Alister McGrath (Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Book House, 2012). Used by permission. All rights to this material arereserved. Material is not to be reproduced, scanned, copied, or distributed in any

printed or electronic form without written permission from Baker Publishing Group,http://www.bakerpublishinggroup.com.




That’s an important point. But it’snot the most important thing from anapologetic point of view. Here’s theapologetic question we need to ask:What made Simon and Andrew leave

everything and follow Jesus? Does Jesusoffer compelling arguments for the exis-tence of God? Does he explain to themthat he is the fulfillment of the greatprophecies of the Old Testament? No.There is something about him that iscompelling. The response of Simon andAndrew was immediate and intuitive.Mark leaves us with the impression of anutterly compelling figure who commandsassent by his very presence.

Although this account of theencounter between Jesus of Nazareth andthe first disciples by the Sea of Galilee is very familiar, we need to read it with anapologetic agenda in mind. It helps us setapologetics in its proper perspective. Itreminds us that argument can be only partof our strategy. In many ways, our task isto lead people to Christ and discovery of the living God. Apologetics does not andcannot convert anyone. But it can point

people in the right direction by removingbarriers to an encounter with God, oropening a window through which Christcan be seen. Apologetics is about enablingpeople to grasp the significance of the gospel. It is about pointing, explaining,opening doors, and removing barriers.Yet what converts is not apologeticsitself, but the greater reality of God andthe risen Christ.

To explain this important point, wemay turn to another account of the callingof the first disciples:

Philip found Nathanael and said to

him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also theprophets wrote, Jesus son of Josephfrom Nazareth.” Nathanael said tohim, “Can anything good come outof Nazareth?” Philip said to him,“Come and see.” (John 1:45–46)

Having encountered Jesus of Nazareth,Philip is convinced he is the one he hasbeen hoping for. He then tries to persuade

Nathanael that Jesus is the fulfillment of the hopes of Israel. Nathanael is clearly skeptical about this, and raises an objec-tion: Could such a person really comefrom Nazareth? Yet instead of meetingthis objection with reasoned argument,Philip invites Nathanael to meet Jesus of Nazareth and decide for himself.

Now Philip might have answeredNathanael with a detailed argument.Perhaps he might have argued that Jesus’s

origins in Nazareth represented the ful-fillment of a biblical prophecy. Or per-haps he might have set out the variousfactors that led him, Andrew, and Peter tofollow Jesus of Nazareth and believe himto be the culmination of the hopes of Israel. Yet Philip has learned thatencounter is to be preferred to argument .Why argue with Nathanael when there isa more direct and appropriate way of

Here’s the apologetic question we need to ask: What made Simon and Andrew leave everything and follow Jesus? Does Jesus offer

compelling arguments for the existence of God? Does he explain to themthat he is the fulfillment of the great prophecies of the Old Testament? No. There is something about him that is compelling. The response of Simon and Andrew was immediate and intuitive.



A

pologetics, we are often told, is about

persuading people of the truth of the Christian faith. Now there is some truth in that—but it isnot the whole truth. There are serious limits tothe scope of arguments. You may be able to persuade someone that an idea is correct—but isthis going to change his or her life?


resolving the matter? And so Philip says,“Come and see.”

On meeting Jesus and hearing him,Nathanael comes to his own conclusion:“Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are

the King of Israel!” (John 1:49). We seehere the importance of pointing peopletoward Jesus of Nazareth. We can, likePhilip, explain what we find so powerful-ly compelling and attractive about Jesus.But in the end, the ultimate persuasioncomes not from our testimony, but fromone’s own encounter with the risen Christ.

The point is important. Apologetics, we are often told, is about persuadingpeople of the truth of the Christian faith.

Now there is some truth in that—but it isnot the whole truth. There are seriouslimits to the scope of arguments. You may be able to persuade someone that an idea is correct—but is this going to change hisor her life? Philip rightly discerns thatNathanael will be transformed not by anargument, nor even an idea, but by apersonal encounter with Jesus. He doesnot argue for Jesus—he points to Jesus.Is this not a helpful model for Christian

witness—pointing people to Jesus, whom we have found to be the fulfillment of human longings and the culmination of our aspirations, thus allowing them toencounter him for themselves, rather thanrelying on our arguments and explanations?

Yet the story continues, and there arefurther apologetic points to be

made. A few days later, Jesus and his disci-ples attend a wedding at Cana in Galilee.There, Jesus performs a “sign”—he

changes water into wine. The impact of this sign on the disciples is significant.As the Gospel narrative tells us, “Jesusdid this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and hisdisciples believed in him” (John 2:11).Faith is here seen as the outcome of a revelation of the glory of Christ. This goes far beyond reasoned argument. Faithis the response to the realization of thefull majesty, glory, and wonder of Christ.

Perhaps the most striking example of thisis “Doubting Thomas,” who puts his faithin Christ when he realizes he has indeedbeen raised from the dead: “My Lord andmy God!” (John 20:28).

THE THEOLOGICALDIMENSIONSEven this brief discussion of the nature of apologetics indicates that it has a strongly theological dimension. It may be helpful

to explore this in a little more detailbefore proceeding further.First, the references in John’s Gospel

to faith arising from the revelation of divine glory remind us that conversion isnot brought about by human wisdom or




reasoning, but is in its deepest sensesomething that is brought about by God.This is a constant theme in the New Testament. Paul’s preaching at Corinth did

not rest on human wisdom, “so that yourfaith might rest not on human wisdom buton the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5). Faith isnot about a mere change of mind; it isabout personal transformation through anencounter with the living God.

Second, the New Testament depictshuman nature as being wounded anddamaged by sin. We are not capable of seeing things as they really are. “The godof this world has blinded the minds of the

unbelievers, to keep them from seeing thelight of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4).Arguments do not cure blindness, nor doesthe accumulation of evidence, powerfulrhetoric, or a compelling personal testi-mony. Blindness needs to be healed —andsuch a healing is something only God isable to do. God alone is able to open theeyes of the blind and enable them to seethe realities of life. Apologetics thus

depends upon the grace of God and thedivine capacity to heal and renew. This isnot something we can do. This helps putapologetics in proper perspective!

Third, this theological perspectivesets the apologetic task in its propercontext. We realize we have an importantbut limited role to play in bringing peopleto faith. God is the one who will convert; we have the privilege of bringing people

to a point at which God takes over. Wepoint to the source of healing; God heals.We witness to the power of forgiveness;God forgives. We explain how God has

changed our lives, transforming them forthe better; God enters lives, and changesthem. We have a real and privileged partin this process, but are not left on ourown. Apologetics is always undertaken inthe power and presence of the risen Christ.

An analogy may help make thiscritically important point clearer. Imagine you had blood poisoning some years ago.Certain symptoms developed, and yourealized you were seriously ill. A skilled

physician told you what the problem was.And there was a cure: penicillin. The drug was quickly administered, and within days you were on the road to recovery. It’s a very easy scenario to imagine, and youcould rewrite it easily to widen its reach.

Here’s the critical question: Did thephysician heal you? In one sense, yes. Inanother, no. The physician told you what was wrong with you, and what needed tobe done if you were to be healed. But what

actually cured you was penicillin. Thephysician’s diagnosis told you what theproblem was. But in the days beforepenicillin was discovered, this conditionmeant only one thing: death. There wasnothing that could be done to save you.Identifying the problem would not havebeen enough to heal you. A cure was needed.

This analogy allows us to get a goodsense of how apologetics works, and how

t his theological perspective sets the apologetic task in its propercontext. We realize we have an important but limited role to play in

bringing people to faith. God is the one who will convert; we have the

privilege of bringing people to a point at which God takes over.We point to the source of healing; God heals. We witness to the power of forgiveness; God forgives.




We want to see the big picture thatmakes sense of all we observe. Moreimportantly, we want to know where wefit into this great scheme of things. No wonder British philosopher and writer Iris

Murdoch (1919–99) spoke of “the calming, whole-making tendencies of humanthought,” by which she means the ability of a big picture or “grand narrative” to integrate our vision of reality. The Christianfaith is about grasping the big picture,enabling us to see a larger and nobler visionof reality than human reason can disclose.

The world is studded with cluesabout human nature and identity. Reality is emblazoned with signs pointing to the

greater reality of God. We need to connectthe dots and see the overall picture. Weneed to weave the threads together andsee what pattern they disclose. Thesepatterns are there to be used by theapologist to help others begin to realizehow Christianity has the power to makesense of what we think, see, and experience—and to encourage them to discoverChristianity’s deeper power to transformhuman life.

C.S. Lewis spoke of right and wrongas “clues to the meaning of the universe.”A clue is something that suggests, butdoes not prove. Clues have a cumulativesignificance, pointing to a deeper patternof meaning that gives each of them theirtrue meaning. One clue on its own mightbe nothing more than suggestive, a straw in the wind. Yet a cluster of clues beginsto disclose a comprehensive pattern.Each clue builds on the others, giving

them a collective force that transcendstheir individual importance.So how can we best make sense of

such clues? What can they prove? In a criminal trial, the jury is asked to decide which explanation of the clues makes themost sense of them—whether that of theprosecution or the defense. They are notexpected to accept that guilt or innocencehas been proved, merely that they believe

we fit into the greater scheme of things.To continue this medical analogy, apologetics is about explaining that humannature is wounded, damaged, broken, andfallen—and that it can be healed by God’s

grace. The apologist can use many strategies to explain, communicate, and defendthe idea that there is something wrong with human nature. Equally, we can usemany strategies to explain, communicate,and defend the fact that there is indeed a cure. But apologetics itself does not heal; itonly points to where a cure may be found.

We may provide excellent argumentsthat such a cure exists. We could providepersonal testimonies from people whose

lives have been changed by discoveringthis cure. But in the end, people arehealed only by finding and receiving thecure, and allowing it to do its work. Wemay play a real and important role inhelping them to realize they are ill andtelling them how they could be cured.Without us, they might not find the cure.But the actual process of healing itself results from the power of penicillin, notfrom our words.

CLUES AND POINTERSAmerican poet Edna St. Vincent Millay (1892–1950) spoke of “a meteoric showerof facts” raining from the sky. These factsare like threads that need to be woveninto a tapestry, clues that need to beassembled to disclose the big picture. AsMillay pointed out, we are overwhelmed with information, but cannot make senseof the “shower of facts” with which we

are bombarded. There seems to be “noloom to weave it into fabric.” We need a way of making sense of this shower of information. Christianity gives us a way of bringing order and intelligibility to ourmany and complex observations of thenatural world, human history, and personalexperience. It allows us to integrate them,and see them as interconnected aspectsof a greater whole.




As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea—for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them,

“Follow me and I will make you fish for people.” And immediately they left their nets and followed him.—Mark 1:16-18




they can reach a conclusion “beyondreasonable doubt.” Apologetics works in

much the same way. No one is going to beable to prove the existence of God, as onemight prove that “the whole is greaterthan the part.” Yet one can consider allthe clues that point in this direction andtake pleasure in their cumulative force.God’s existence may not be proved , in thehard rationalist sense of the word. Yet itcan be affirmed with complete sincerity that belief in God is eminently reasonableand makes more sense of what we see in

the world, discern in history, and experi-ence in our lives than its alternatives.

A HOMING INSTINCTFOR GODOne clue is desire—or a homing instinctfor God. Many arguments for the existenceof God involve an appeal primarily to rea-son. Others involve an appeal to experi-ence, finding their plausibility within thehuman heart as much as in human reason.

As Pascal once famously commented,“The heart has its reasons, which reasondoes not understand.” The best known of these arguments is the “argument fromdesire.” Although this takes various forms,it is most commonly framed in terms of a deep human awareness of a longing forsomething that is not possessed but whoseattraction is felt. Christian apologists arguethat this deep sense of yearning for some-

thing transcendent is ultimately groundedin the fact that we are created to fellowship

with God, and will not be fulfilled until we do so.

One of the most rigorous theologicaltreatments of this topic is found in the writings of Augustine of Hippo. ForAugustine, God has created humanbeings and placed them at the heightof the created order, so that they mightfulfill their purposes through relating toGod as their creator and savior. Withoutsuch a relationship, humanity cannot be

what it is meant to be. As Augustine putit in a famous prayer to God: “You havemade us for yourself, and our hearts arerestless until they find their rest in you.”2

The two most significant apologeticapplications of this approach were devel-oped by Blaise Pascal (1623–62) and C. S.Lewis (1898–1963). Pascal argues that thehuman experience of emptiness and yearning is a pointer to the true destiny of humanity. It illuminates human nature

and discloses our ultimate goal—which,for Pascal, is God.

What else does this longing andhelplessness show us, other thanthat there was once in each person a true happiness, of which all thatnow remains is the empty print andtrace?3

One clue is desire—or a homing instinct for God.

Christian apologists argue that this deep senseof yearning for something transcendent is ultimately grounded in the fact that we are created to fellowshipwith God, and will not be fulfilled until we do so.




Nothing other than God is able to fillthis “abyss”—a profound, God-shaped gap within human nature, implanted by God as a means of drawing people backto him.

This infinite abyss can only be filled with something that is infinite andunchanging—in other words, by God himself. God alone is our true good.4

Pascal’s idea here is often expressedin terms of a “God-shaped gap” or “God-shaped vacuum” within human nature.Although Pascal did not actually use

these phrases, they are a good summary of his approach. Pascal argues that theChristian faith offers a framework thatinterprets the widespread human experi-ence of “longing and helplessness.” Thisinterpretation has two elements: first, itmakes sense of the experience; second,having identified what it is pointing to,it allows this human experience to betransformed.

AN ARGUMENT FROM DESIREC. S. Lewis develops a related approachthat has an obvious importance forChristian apologetics.5 Lewis acknowledgesthe importance of frustrated aspirationsfor many: “There was something we grasped at, in that first moment of long-ing, which just fades away in the reality.”So how is this to be interpreted? Lewisnotes two possibilities he regards asflawed: first, to assume that this frustra-

tion arises from looking in the wrongplaces; second, to conclude that furthersearching will only result in repeateddisappointment, so any attempt to findsomething better than the world canoffer is a mistake. There is, Lewis argues,a third approach—to recognize thatthese earthly longings are “only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage” of our truehomeland.

Lewis then develops what somemight call an “argument from desire,” which could be formalized as follows:

1). Every natural desire has a

corresponding object, and issatisfied only when this is attainedor experienced.

2). There is a natural desire fortranscendent fulfillment, whichcannot be attained or experiencedby or through anything in thepresent world.

3). This natural desire for transcen-

dent fulfillment can therefore only be fulfilled beyond the present world, in a world toward which thepresent order of things points.6

Now this is not really an argument forthe existence of God, in the strict senseof the term. For a start, we would need toexpand Lewis’s point to include theChristian declaration that God eitheris, or is an essential condition for, the

satisfaction of the natural human desirefor transcendent fulfillment. Yet eventhen, this is not an argument to be under-stood as a deduction of God’s existence.

Yet Lewis saw this line of thoughtas demonstrating the correlation of faith with experience, exploring the “empiricaladequacy” of the Christian way of seeingreality with what we experience withinourselves. It is not deductive, but—to useCharles Sanders Peirce’s term—abductive

(involving logical inference). Lewis clearly believes the Christian faith casts lightupon the realities of our subjectiveexperience. Augustine of Hippo wove thecentral themes of the Christian doctrinesof creation and redemption into a prayer:“You have made us for yourself, and ourhearts are restless until they find theirrest in you.”7 Lewis reaffirms this notion,and seeks to ground it in the world of



C

hristian apologetics must engage with this fundamental

human experience of “longing” for something ofultimate significance. The Christian faith interprets this as a clue toward grasping the true goal of human nature. Just as physical hunger points to a real human need that canbe met through food, so this spiritual hunger corresponds to a real need that can be met through God.


human experience, which he believes itilluminates.

Lewis thus contends that Christianapologetics must engage with this funda-mental human experience of “longing”

for something of ultimate significance.The Christian faith interprets this as a clue toward grasping the true goal of human nature. Just as physical hungerpoints to a real human need that can bemet through food, so this spiritual hungercorresponds to a real need that can bemet through God. Lewis argues thatmost people are aware of a deep sense of longing within them that cannot be satis-fied by anything transient or created:

“If I find in myself a desire which noexperience in this world can satisfy, themost probable explanation is that I wasmade for another world.”8

Now this proves nothing. After all,I might have a deep desire tomeet a golden unicorn. But that

doesn’t mean unicorns—whether goldenor not—actually exist. That’s not Lewis’spoint. Christianity, he points out, tells us

that this sense of longing for God isexactly what we should expect, since weare created to relate to God. It fits in with a Christian way of thinking, thusproviding indirect confirmation of itsreliability. There is a strong resonancebetween theory and observation—

between the theological framework andthe realities of our personal experience.

A CLUE TO OUR TRUE NATURESo how can this approach be developed

and applied apologetically? Its essentialfeature is an appeal to human experience—to the subjective world of feelings,rather than to objective analysis of thenatural world. Yet these subjectiveexperiences are important to people, notleast because people feel they are deeply significant. Not everyone recognizes thiskind of experience when it is described;nevertheless, its presence is sufficiently widespread to act as the basis for an

important apologetic strategy. Threepoints need to be made about thisapproach.

1). This approach connects with a shared human experience. Itengages with something thatresonates with many people,offering an explanation of afeeling that many have had and wondered what it meant.

2). This experience is interpreted .It is not a random or meaninglessexperience, but something pointingto something that lies beyond it.What some might regard as apointless phenomenon thusbecomes a signpost to significance.




3). The experience is declared to bea gateway to God . Only God canbring about the transformation of human experience. Only God canfill what Pascal called the “abyss”

within human nature. This interpre-tation of human experience is notopportunistic or arbitrary, butrather is rigorously grounded in a theological understanding of humannature and destiny.

This “argument from desire” is not a rig-orous, logical “proof” of God’s existence;it works at a much deeper level. It may lack logical force, but it possesses existen-

tial depth. It is about the capacity of theChristian faith to address the depths of human experience—the things that wefeel really matter. It builds on the senseof restlessness and dissatisfaction withinhuman nature and shows how this is a clue to our true nature and destiny. AsLewis argued, if nothing in this world isable to satisfy these deep longings and yearnings, maybe we must learn to acceptthat our true home is in another world.

To use an image from Renaissance poetFrancis Quarles (1592–1644), our soul islike an iron needle drawn to the magneticpole of God. God can no more be elimi-nated from human life than our yearningfor justice or our deep desire to make this world a better place. We have a hominginstinct precisely because there is a homefor us to return to. That’s one of the greatthemes of the New Testament.

This desire is an important point

for reflection on the nature of westernsociety. Political philosopher CharlesTaylor concluded his recent extendedanalysis of the emergence of a “secularage” with an assertion that religion willnot and cannot disappear because of thedistinctive characteristics of humannature—above all, what French philoso-pher Chantal Milon-Delsol calls a “desirefor eternity.”9 There is something about

human nature that makes us want to reachbeyond rational and empirical limits,questing for meaning and significance.

A further point needs to be madehere: the Christian idea of humanity

bearing the image of God has importantimplications for the role of the imagination.Both Lewis and Tolkien emphasize how our imaginations open up worlds thatreflect hints of our true identity and des-tiny. Often, we dream of beautiful worlds—not because we want to escape fromthis world, but because something deep within us causes us to long for this kindof reality. As we shall see in what follows,this also has relevance for Christian

apologetics.

Alister McGrath is Professor of Theology,Ministry and Education at King’s CollegeLondon and President of the OxfordCentre for Christian Apologetics. Mere

Apologetics is based upon a foundationallecture course he teaches at the OCCA.

1

Avery Dulles, A History of Apologetics, 3rd ed.(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), xix.2

Augustine of Hippo, Confessions I .i.1.3

Blaise Pascal, Pensées (Mineola, NY: DoverPublications, 2003), 113.

4 Ibid.

5See C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London:Harper Collins, 2002), 134-38. See also asimilar argument in C.S. Lewis, “The Weightof Glory,” Screwtape Proposes a Toast (London:Collins, 1965), 94-110.

6For Lewis’s approach, see Peter Kreeft,“C.S. Lewis’s Argument from Desire,” G.K.Chesterton and C.S. Lewis: The Riddle of Joy, ed.Michael H. MacDonald and Andrew A. Tadie(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 249-72.More generally, see John Haldane, “Philosophy,the Restless Heart, and the Meaning of Theism,” Ratio 19 (2006): 421-40.

7Augustine, Confessions I .i.1.

8Lewis, Mere Christianity, 136-37.

9Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 2007), 530.




Satisfying our deepest hungers and transforming our lives.

Think Again

TH E H AP PY PAGAN is wrapped up in the belief that this world andthe success it affords are the greatest pursuits in life. He or she feelsno need for anything transcendent. Life has been reduced to tem-poral pursuits disconnected from all the other disciplines necessary for life to be meaningfully engaged.

Some are completely unreflective; they don’t think enough toknow they have no “right” to be happy. They borrow on capital they

don’t have. Many of these people, though, are sophisticated thinkers in their fields:

scientists, mathematicians, computer engineers. And yet they are specialists with a glaring weakness: they do not ask the deeper questions of life itself.

Unfortunately in contrast, the questions of today’s average young person, whois the product of America’s intellectual bastions, have been virtually left unaddressedby the church. Rather, we give them a catalogue of do’s and don’ts and expect this toprepare them for the temptations they face. As such, the gospel is not intellectually credible to them, and they encounter situations they are unprepared to meet.

And yet, we are all on a search for something beyond the routine and the normal.Even seekers of pleasure long to know they matter and latch on to what they hope willdeliver fulfillment, if even for the moment. And into this setting, when all the verbiage

is narrowed down, that’s what this ministry is called to do: to cut through the seductionsand artificial answers our culture gives and to articulate the good news of the gospelof Jesus Christ, who alone can satisfy our deepest hungers and transform our lives.As Alister McGrath argues so brilliantly, this is the true task of apologetics: to removethe barriers so that the individual is able to encounter Jesus, who is compelling,all-engaging, and worthy of our deepest pursuits and affections.

“You make known to me the path of life,” wrote King David. “In your presencethere is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore” (Psalm 16:11).Here indeed is life abundant. As the psalmist resounded, “Taste and see that theLORD is good. Oh, the joys of those who take refuge in him!” (Psalm 34: 8, NLT).

Warm Regards,

Ravi



For more information or to make acontribution, please contact:

Ravi Zacharias International Ministries4725 Peachtree Corners CircleSuite 250Norcross, Georgia 30092770.449.6766

RZIM is a member of the Evangelical Council for

Financial Accountability and the Canadian Council

of Christian Charities.

WWW.RZIM.ORG

HELPING THE THINKER BELIEVE. HELPING THE BELIEV ER THINK .



JUST THINKING • The Quarterly Magazine of RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

4725 Peachtree Corners Circle

Suite 250

Norcross, Georgia 30092

Love is the most powerful apologetic

www.wellspringinternational.org

And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” But God said to him, “You fool! This very

night your life will be demanded from you.Thenwho will get what you have prepared for yourself?” —Luke 12:19-20

just thinking: the heart of apologetics

Documents