Just Thinking Vol. 20 3 by James Balgalore

VOLUME 20.3 I WWW.RZIM.ORG

THE MAGAZINE OF RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

JUST THINKING The Heart of Apologetics PAGE 14

+ ENGAGING THE HAPPY THINKING PAGAN PAGE 2

IS RELIGION A 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 BELIEV E. H E L P I N G T H E B E L I E V E R T H I N K .

TABLE of CONTENTS VOLUME 20.3

Engaging the Happy Thinking Pagan

As Alister McGrath points out in his book Mere Apologetics, apologetics is not a set of techniques for winning people to Christ or a set of argumentative templates designed to win debates. Rather, it is a willingness to 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.

What does it mean when people are content with life without bothering about the question of God? Recently Ravi Zacharias sat down with Danielle DuRant to discuss the idea of the “happy thinking pagan.”

Is Religion a Crutch?

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 as Simon Wenham notes, the truth of the matter is that Jesus never offered a crutch, only a cross.

The Heart of Apologetics

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, if even for the moment.

JUST THINKING • The Quarterly Magazine of RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

Engaging the Happy Thinking Pagan Ravi Zacharias with Danielle DuRant

Do you know people who are very content with life without bothering 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

Danielle DuRant: You’ve spoken about the “happy thinking pagan.” What do you mean by this phrase? Ravi Zacharias: I think the first time I heard that term was about three decades ago. It was from Os Guinness and he talked about the fact that this was the emerging new way of thinking. That is, “I don’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 came up about what does the so-called happy pagan actually believe, and it was borderline radical skepticism: not really taking any view of the transcendent seriously but just the pursuit of happiness, raw and unbridled. This sometimes moved into radical hedonism, other times just to contentment. So I mean people who are very content with life without bothering about the question of God. ——

——

DD: Philosopher Peter Kreeft argues that “the most serious challenge for Christianity today isn’t one of the other great religions of the world, such as Islam or Buddhism.” Rather, it is paganism, which he defines as “the religion of man as the new God.” Would you agree with him? RZ: Partly. I don’t think I’d agree with him completely though Kreeft is a much wiser man and a better informed man than I am. I suppose I would wonder what he means by that in the pervasive sense of a belief system. Yes, paganism can be especially daunting with the revival of certain types of Gnosticism and mysticism. Yes, the numbers in the West are growing, but in terms of a threat to stability and freedom, I don’t think that’s the greatest threat we face. I think the whole Islamic worldview has a real challenge and I’ll tell you why. It has a challenge because it is comprehensive. It is political. It has a

moral theory. It has a cultural theory. It has a financial theory. So I think in its core the Islamic worldview would pose a greater challenge to the life and the lifestyle of the Western worldview because in the Western worldview you are given the freedom to believe and disbelieve. It’s not always true in Islamic nations. So I would say in terms of the freedom of these things, the greater challenge to the world right now is coming from that worldview, but in terms of the pervasiveness of belief systems, paganism is certainly a daunting one. I don’t think it’s as fearsome but it is real. ——

——

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 how would you account for the happy pagan? RZ: Good question. I think the reason it can be accounted for is the same way materialism succeeds. There is always the sense 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 act of change we will alter everything on the inside. So it has that lure to it. But at the same time pleasure, when it has delivered what it can, definitely does leave you empty. Nothing is more obvious than this in the Hollywood world: the breakup of relationships, the breakup of homes, the breakup of commitments. Who knows all the heartaches with which many of them go to bed. I remember Michael Landon, Jr., talking about the heartache of his family and how even though his father was so wonderful to watch living out on the homestead on “Little House on the Prairie,” deep in his inner life it was a total chaos. That is true of the entertainment world and they epitomize pleasure. They are purveyors of pleasure.

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[3]

On the other hand, those who watch from the sidelines, I think all of us included, somehow think success is more than what we actually think it is. Now let me qualify 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 to have those comforts. But it is only the inner being within you that is able to transcend that and look beyond that and not look at ultimate reality through a skewed way. ——

——

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 our lives are constantly invaded with either ecstasy or heartache. Nobody is spared this. In my line of work now as I look at it in the last stretch over against the beginning and middle distance, what I see more often is people disappointed, disheartened, disillusioned becoming skeptical and trying to find their way out of the mess. On the other hand, there are those who have been there, done that, who also still continue to ask questions. The 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, we often think of the fall of Lucifer. The biggest sin in the church today is anything to do with sexual sin. But it was not 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. So I think the whole issue of the struggle to interpret who I am will ultimately lie at the root of how to define pleasure and pain. And those realities, while symptomatic, are anchored in essence and definitions of ultimate meaning. ——

——

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 on the surface some people would seem to be happy. I always like these commercials outside restaurants for “happy hour.” You know, I just find it is so ridiculous. I remember in Bangkok once walking out of 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. I do not think true happiness is ultimately found unless you’ve got a relationship

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, we often think of the fall of Lucifer. The biggest sin in the church today is anything to do with sexual sin. But it was not 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.

[4] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

that is the bulwark from which everything else is explained. And I don’t think ultimately all relationships will stand without that relationship with God. (And C.S. Lewis’s A Grief Observed is one of the most powerful books of how to face even the loss of your greatest human relationship.) So I would say there are moments of happiness. But as G.K. Chesterton said, they can be happy because the peripheral questions are answered for now, but they ultimately can’t have joy because the fundamental questions are not answered. So happiness is possible but it is not systemic. ——

——

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 animosity towards Christianity as well as his appetite for pleasure. RZ: Yes, I think that is certainly the way one would convey it. You know, people often talk about Christians being hypocrites—they feign emotions while their lives may be falling apart in private. And yet, do we really know that in the darkest moments of his aloneness that he was not recognizing that his real questions are hostile towards the sacred? How can anyone find total fulfillment with an animosity towards the sacred? I think it is incoherent. It’s an incoherent worldview. I think Christopher Hitchens’s book on Mother Teresa was one of the worst books I’ve ever read in forty years of reading. It showed me how hostile he was towards anything that smacked of an ethic that came from a belief in God. Whether he was genuinely happy or not is not for me to tell. Whether he was content 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 continuous apart from God. And if that’s all he lived for, and has come and gone, then Bertrand Russell 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 essentially. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in his shoes to think that’s all life was about: have some fun, go and debate a few people, earn some money, go to the bar, have a great time. He battled, as you know, issues of alcohol, and so I would have to ask the question if he was really that happy, what was all this about? Why 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. ——

——

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 can be an escape. Sometimes I wonder about the evangelical world where worship to us has become so much noise. I often wonder how much that really couches the most important thing: for you to be still. Sometimes we’re afraid to be alone.We’re afraid to listen to our inner voice. Worship can be an escape, but if worship is the ultimate recognition of the sacred then it’s not an escape. It’s a fountain from which all else flows and you sense it. But it’s a great question and I think you’re right. Many times not just worship itself but even religion in general can be an escape. All kinds of things can be an

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[5]

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.

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

——

DD: So back to engaging the happy thinking pagan. What do you think is the most effective way to engage them for the gospel—through their mind or through their heart? RZ: That is the most difficult question to answer. I think often about that because there are parts of Europe today where even apologists will tell you, yes, apologetics is answering questions, but what if the people aren’t even asking the questions? And many cultures have come to that point. It is fascinating distinguishing the East from the West. In the East, where the questions are not asked demagogically, they have been drowned out. Take China: don’t ask these questions, just work. Work makes you free and that’s all you have to do. But they couldn’t ultimately suppress them for the East is always incurably religious and spiritually minded. In the West, it is about a “hands-full pursuit.” You get into your car and come back to your home, live in your boxes, and be happy. So they have learned not to ask those questions. But you know what?

Everybody makes moral pronouncements. Everybody. Every culture makes moral pronouncements. And the best way for me to approach them is to ask them questions about their moral pronouncements. The very honest ones will find there is a breaking point. The dishonest ones will find they are really escaping reality rather than facing it. The second thing is grief comes your way— and children. I think one of the most important ways that God communicates to us is through children. Whether you are 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 Eastern conflict to draw your emotions into it? Or you raise one in your own home and sickness comes or death comes, and you are forced to ask the questions. So the entry point is determined through the inescapable moral framework and relational framework with which people live. ——

——

DD: What about the individual who once upheld 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 the community of faith but still claiming to have faith but is not pursuing Christ?

[6] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

——

DD: Yes, or engaging in a life that clearly would 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 your marriage. “I really love you; you’re my spouse. I’m really committed to you but don’t ask me where I am every night until midnight.” Or, “Don’t expect me to treat you with respect. Don’t expect me to be kind to you, but I want you to know that I really love you.” Who would buy into something like that? Who wants to be loved that way unless you yourself have become cynical in the process? So to say, “I love the Lord”—the 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 is nothing more than theoretical. So a person like that has done the ultimate job of picking their own pockets. If your life is not in keeping with your profession, then your profession is fake. There is no other explanation for that. So such a person will sooner or later start looking for intellectual reasons to renounce their faith so that they can be comfortable with their lifestyle. And that’s where many go. ——

DD: So what do you say to the person today who might identify with the happy thinking pagan or perhaps would call themselves a believer or Christian and yet is living this duplicitous life as you’ve suggested? RZ: You know, there was a famous sermon preached by Robert Lee called “Pay-Day —Someday.”1 One day it comes home to roost. Look at the whole financial crisis globally right now. It is the happy pagan philosophy. That’s exactly what it is. In the banking system and the insurance system, just go and live any way you want, borrow and don’t worry about having to repay, 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 do that. And look at what’s happened. Ultimately what’s happened is like Greece: 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 some time this way, but if this is your long term plan, that’s exactly what the Bible speaks of 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 and for those you love. But God has a way of bringing things into our lives.

——

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 is nothing more than theoretical. So a person like that has done the ultimate job of picking their own pockets. If your life is not in keeping with your profession, then your profession is fake.

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[7]

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 who will get what you have prepared for yourself?”

Look at the Hitchens’s story again: riding the coast of success, writing great books, all of a sudden you find out you have cancer. Are you going to be glib and cavalier about it or realize payday has come for me? But you have to be very careful with people like that. Alister McGrath always used to say to me, “Ravi, the thing I like about what you are doing in the presenting of the gospel is you’re presenting the beauty of Jesus.” I was not even aware this is what we’re doing. But I think we don’t reach people by pulling them down or cutting them down by the knees, but by showing them there is a better way, a more beautiful way, and the attractiveness of Christ is what we need to be upholding. ——

——

DD: And his love and his greatness that really have no other comparison. You’ve been speaking about love having moral entailments—in our culture, at least in North America, we see that 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 the human heart ultimately longs to belong. If you can belong with legitimacy, then it is 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 uphold before people: his warmth, his care, his ethos, his ethic. When you see a troubled person, help them. When you see a person hurting help them. So I think the gospel is beautiful. ——

——

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 so many illustrations around that you can borrow from, such as this man who goes to Vegas and ultimately takes his life and says, “Out here, there are no answers.” One of the wealthiest women who ever lived who passed away recently lived in a forty-room home in Manhattan but walked away from that and checked into a hospital and lived for so many years in a hospital bed. She said that wealth was a poison and noxious to the soul. Why do they say these things? Recently on a flight I watched a documentary on Kurt Cobain, who was in his twenties and ended his life. So there are illustrations of people who carry it to the extreme. ow somebody may say, “Look, I’m not in that extreme. I try to do things 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 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. So what you have to find out is the reason that 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’t need God. You need him for the answers. You need him ultimately for your own pursuit of meaning and for your family.

How do you break away from it? If you are struggling with a network of friends for whom it will be hard, just start talking to them. What do you think about

[8] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

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.

ultimate matters? What do you think about origin, purpose, meaning, destiny? Do the right kind of reading. Do the right 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 among us. When you are reading the Bible, begin by saying, “God, if this is your word, I want you to speak to me and I’m willing to listen.” You’ll be surprised how many people just by reading the Scriptures will say, “This has the ring of truth,” and they will trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior who gives them the reason for the hope that can be within them. ——

——

DD: It seems that we don’t have a doctrine of happiness, if you will, in Christianity. We speak of joy but it’s always eternal joy or looking ahead to heaven. But yet, is an earthly sense of happiness perhaps missing? RZ: I think it is missing, and we almost associate being happy with therefore you must 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. But look at a little child. I’ve become a grandfather now, and I watch the little guy bouncing around on his jumper or splashing around in a bathtub. What more beautiful thing to see a chuckling little baby enjoying the nice things of life. God has given the enjoyment of sports, the enjoyment of food, the enjoyment of

entertainment, legitimate entertainment I should add, of beauty around us. Yes, we can enjoy happiness, contrary to Richard Dawkins who says that there’s no God so go ahead and do whatever you want. There is a God who intends for you to have life abundant 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 is happiness. You can have wonderfully happy moments and God intends for us to have them. ——

——

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 pleasure in the wrong direction. So I think it is important to know the background from which people even say that. Music has tremendous sentimental value. Enjoy great instrumentality, good humor, good jokes, laughter. It’s good for the soul, and I find it actually very therapeutic because my life is so heavy in speaking. ——

——

For the published sermon and audio file, see http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/sbvoices/rgleepayday.asp.

Ravi Zacharias is Founder and President of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. Danielle DuRant is Director of Research and Writing at RZIM.

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[9]

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 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 of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

[surrendering to god]

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.

[10] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

“O NE OF THE most familiar criticisms of Christianity is that it offers consolation to life’s losers,” writes Alister McGrath in his book Mere Apologetics.1 Believers are often caricatured as being somewhat weak and naïve—the kind of people who need their faith as a “crutch” just to get them through life. In new atheist literature, this depiction is often contrasted with the image of a hardier intellectual atheist who has no need for such infantile, yet comforting, nonsense. This type of portrayal may resonate with some, but does it really make sense? 2 From the outset it is helpful to define what we mean by a “crutch.” In a medical setting, the word obviously means an implement used by people for support when they are injured. The analogy implies, therefore, that those who need one are somehow deficient or wounded. In a sense, it is fairly obvious that the most vulnerable might need support, but as the agnostic John Humphrys points out, “Don’t we all? Some use booze rather than the Bible.”3 As this suggests, it is not so much a question of whether you have one, but it is more of a question of what your particular crutch is. This is an important point to make, as people rely on all kinds of things for their comfort or self-esteem, ranging from material possessions, money, food, and aesthetics to cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, and sex. Rather than being viewed as signs of weakness, many of these are even considered to be relatively normal in society, provided they don’t turn into the more destructive behaviors associated with strong addiction. Nevertheless, many of these only offer a short-term release from the struggles of life and they sometimes only cover up deeper problems that a person might be suffering from. To suggest, therefore, that atheists are somehow stronger than believers is to deny the darker side of humanity, which is only too apparent

if we look at the world around us. As McGrath explains: “[I]f you have a broken leg, you need a crutch. If you’re ill you need medicine. That’s just the way things are. The Christian understanding of human nature is that we are damaged, wounded and disabled by sin. That’s just the way things are.”4 Moreover, Augustine of Hippo compared the church to a hospital, because it is full of wounded and ill people in the process of being healed.5 As is the case with any illness, this treatment cannot begin, however, until someone has admitted they are sick or need help. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that religious belief does have an advantageous effect on both mental and physical health. Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, writes that a “huge volume of research” confirms this, making it “one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.”6 In a culture that often seems to exalt health, well-being, and happiness above other things, this would seem to render religious belief very appealing both to the weak and the strong in society. PROJECTION OVERRULED

Yet even if we accept that Christians may not all be dysfunctional and weak, you may have heard it said that religion only survives because people desperately want it to be true, because they can’t come to terms with their own mortality (or that of loved ones). It was Sigmund Freud who helped to popularize this idea, as he suggested that the concept of a loving Creator was simply a psychological projection of a person’s innermost wishes: “We tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there was a God who created the world and was a benevolent Providence and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is the very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be.”7

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[11]

This kind of argument would seem to ring true, at least on a superficial level. You would expect it to be more likely for people 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 is an admission of this, as it acknowledges the innate desire in us all that is fulfilled by God. Who wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with a loving deity who not only wants the best for those he has created but who is offering eternity in a place that is more wonderful than can be imagined? Yet the Bible also contains some very hard-hitting passages, which would seem to contradict the notion that religious belief is simply a projection of our wishes. C. S. Lewis pointed out that scripture also teaches that believers should fear the Lord, but you would not then suggest that this meant faith was some kind of “fear fulfillment!”8

dom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.”9 As Czeslaw Milosz points out, this is a negative wish-fulfillment, because “A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death—the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.”10 The problem with these types of argument is that, as Manfred Lutz observes, Freud can provide an equally compelling reason for why someone might believe as to why they might disbelieve. Yet, crucially, when it comes to discerning the all-important matter of which position is actually true, he cannot help us.11 As this suggests, just because you want to believe in something does not mean that it is true.

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 because they don’t want it to be true

The 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 because they don’t want it to be true. Some people have expressly stated this, such as Aldous Huxley who wrote: “For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual free-

SOMETHING MUCH BETTER

What is interesting about the Christian faith is that the intellectual arguments for God are backed up with a reality that can be personally experienced. There are countless examples of people who discover a life-changing faith even though they were once hostile to the idea of it. This may sound too good to be true, but this is something that is within everyone’s reach. Many believers testify to the transformative effect that becoming a Christian has had on their lives and this can include being delivered from some of the crutches they had previously relied upon. Yet, the idea that coming to faith is somehow either liberating or empowering

[12] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

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.12 G. K. Chesterton saw it differently, however, as he suggested that the “dignity of man” and the “smallness of man” was held in perfect tension, allowing people to have a strong sense of self-worth without becoming big-headed.13 Yet God clearly offers much more than 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 counterintuitive in today’s risk-averse culture, but as Simon Guillebaud points out, “Paradoxically, our waving the white flag of submission to God’s right over our lives is the key that unlocks the gate to many future victories in his name.”14 Nevertheless, as C. S. Lewis observed, people will still choose to cling on to their crutches, even though something much better is being offered to them: “We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”15 It can be helpful, therefore, to reflect on what we really rely upon in our own 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 life that God offers all of us, whether we think 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 with high self-esteem or a plan to help us scrape through our existence. It was a call to acknowledge that the forgiveness

we all seek is to be found in him by following him onto the cross…. It’s because Christianity is true that it has something to offer every person in every circumstance, regardless of their background or intellectual capabilities.”16 Simon Wenham is Research Coordinator for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Europe. 1

Alister McGrath, Mere Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2012), 167. 2 Article 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. 4 McGrath, Mere Apologetics, 170. 5 Ibid. 6 Andrew Sims, Is Faith Delusion? Why Religion Is Good for Your Health (London: Continuum, 2009), quoted in Lennox, Gunning, 77-78. 7 Sigmund 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. 9 Robert S. Baker and James Sexton, eds., Aldous Huxley Complete Essays, Vol 4 (Lanham, MD: Ivan R. Dee, 2001), 369. 10 Czeslaw Milosz, “The Discrete Charm of Nihilism,” quoted in Lennox, 47. 11 Manfred Lutz, God: A Brief History of the Greater One (Munich: Pattloch Verlag GmbH + Co., 2007), cited in Lennox, 46. 12 Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great (London: Atlantic Books, 2007), 232-234. 13 G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2009), 143. 14 Simon Guillebaud, For What It’s Worth (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 1999), 171. 15 C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1949), 1-2. 16 Daniel Rodger, “Is Christianity a Psychological Crutch?” Online at http://www.bethinking.org /truth-tolerance/ introductory/is-christianitya-psychological-crutch.htm.

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[13]

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 our nets out to everyone and pointing them to the greater reality of God and the risen Christ.

[14] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

[fishers of people]

JUST THINKING â&#x20AC;¢ VOLUME 20.3

[15]

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 are reserved. 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.

pologetics 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. As Avery Dulles once noted with some sadness, the apologist is often regarded as an “aggressive, opportunistic person who tries, by fair means or foul, to argue people into joining the church.”1 It’s easy to see how these stereotypes arise. And it’s equally easy to see how dangerous such attitudes can be. The heart of apologetics is not about mastering and memorizing a set of techniques designed to manipulate arguments to get the desired conclusion. It is about being mastered by the Christian faith so that its ideas, themes, and values are deeply imprinted on our minds and in our hearts. Far from being a mechanical repetition of ideas, apologetics is about a natural realization of the answers we can provide to people’s questions and concerns, answers that arise from a deep and passionate immersion in the realities of our faith. The best apologetics is done from the standpoint of the rich vision of reality characteristic of the Christian gospel, which gives rise to deeply realistic insights into human nature. What is our problem? What is our need? How can these needs be resolved? In each case, a powerful answer may be given to each question, an answer grounded in the Christian understanding of the nature of things.

SETTING THINGS IN CONTEXT

To help us set our reflections in a proper context, let us recall one of the earliest recorded events in the Gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth: 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) This is a wonderful narrative, packed full of detail and insight. For example, we note that Jesus called fishermen. Contemporary Jewish literature had much to say about people whose jobs made them virtually incapable of keeping the law of Moses. Two groups often singled out for special (negative) comment were carpenters and fishermen—carpenters because they doubled as undertakers and were handling dead bodies all the time, and fishermen because they had to handle and sort mixed catches of clean and unclean fish. Both groups were incapable of observing the strict Jewish rules about ritual purity, which prohibited contact with anything unclean. Yet Jesus calls precisely such fishermen, who hovered on the fringes of Jewish religious life. It’s a powerful reminder of the way in which the Christian gospel reaches out to everyone—even those whom society regards as powerless or valueless.

[16] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

That’s an important point. But it’s not the most important thing from an apologetic point of view. 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 them that 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. Mark leaves us with the impression of an utterly compelling figure who commands assent by his very presence. Although this account of the encounter between Jesus of Nazareth and the first disciples by the Sea of Galilee is very familiar, we need to read it with an apologetic agenda in mind. It helps us set apologetics in its proper perspective. It reminds us that argument can be only part of our strategy. In many ways, our task is to lead people to Christ and discovery of the living God. Apologetics does not and cannot convert anyone. But it can point people in the right direction by removing barriers to an encounter with God, or opening a window through which Christ can be seen. Apologetics is about enabling people to grasp the significance of the gospel. It is about pointing, explaining, opening doors, and removing barriers. Yet what converts is not apologetics itself, but the greater reality of God and the risen Christ.

To explain this important point, we may turn to another account of the calling of the first disciples: Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of 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 has been 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 objection: Could such a person really come from Nazareth? Yet instead of meeting this objection with reasoned argument, Philip invites Nathanael to meet Jesus of Nazareth and decide for himself. Now Philip might have answered Nathanael with a detailed argument. Perhaps he might have argued that Jesus’s origins in Nazareth represented the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy. Or perhaps he might have set out the various factors that led him, Andrew, and Peter to follow Jesus of Nazareth and believe him to be the culmination of the hopes of Israel. Yet Philip has learned that encounter is to be preferred to argument. Why argue with Nathanael when there is a more direct and appropriate way of

ere’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 them that 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.

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[17]

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 see here the importance of pointing people toward Jesus of Nazareth. We can, like Philip, explain what we find so powerfully compelling and attractive about Jesus. But in the end, the ultimate persuasion comes not from our testimony, but from one’s own encounter with the risen Christ. The point is important. Apologetics, we are often told, is about persuading people of the truth of the Christian faith. Now there is some truth in that—but it is not the whole truth. There are serious limits to the scope of arguments. You may be able to persuade someone that an idea is correct—but is this going to change his or her life? Philip rightly discerns that Nathanael will be transformed not by an argument, nor even an idea, but by a personal encounter with Jesus. He does not 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 to encounter him for themselves, rather than relying on our arguments and explanations?

et the story continues, and there are further apologetic points to be Y made. A few days later, Jesus and his disciples 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, “Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples 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. Faith is the response to the realization of the full majesty, glory, and wonder of Christ. Perhaps the most striking example of this is “Doubting Thomas,” who puts his faith in Christ when he realizes he has indeed been raised from the dead: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). THE THEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS

Even 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 detail before proceeding further. First, the references in John’s Gospel to faith arising from the revelation of divine glory remind us that conversion is not brought about by human wisdom or

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 is not the whole truth. There are serious limits to the scope of arguments. You may be able to persuade someone that an idea is correct—but is this going to change his or her life?

[18] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

his theological perspective sets the apologetic task in its proper context. 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.

reasoning, but is in its deepest sense something 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 your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5). Faith is not about a mere change of mind; it is about personal transformation through an encounter with the living God. Second, the New Testament depicts human nature as being wounded and damaged by sin. We are not capable of seeing things as they really are. “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4). Arguments do not cure blindness, nor does the accumulation of evidence, powerful rhetoric, or a compelling personal testimony. Blindness needs to be healed—and such a healing is something only God is able to do. God alone is able to open the eyes of the blind and enable them to see the realities of life. Apologetics thus depends upon the grace of God and the divine capacity to heal and renew. This is not something we can do. This helps put apologetics in proper perspective! Third, this theological perspective sets the apologetic task in its proper context. 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 explain how God has changed our lives, transforming them for the better; God enters lives, and changes them. We have a real and privileged part in this process, but are not left on our own. Apologetics is always undertaken in the power and presence of the risen Christ. An analogy may help make this critically important point clearer. Imagine you had blood poisoning some years ago. Certain symptoms developed, and you realized 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 you could rewrite it easily to widen its reach. Here’s the critical question: Did the physician heal you? In one sense, yes. In another, no. The physician told you what was wrong with you, and what needed to be done if you were to be healed. But what actually cured you was penicillin. The physician’s diagnosis told you what the problem was. But in the days before penicillin was discovered, this condition meant only one thing: death. There was nothing that could be done to save you. Identifying the problem would not have been enough to heal you. A cure was needed. This analogy allows us to get a good sense of how apologetics works, and how

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[19]

we fit into the greater scheme of things. To continue this medical analogy, apologetics is about explaining that human nature is wounded, damaged, broken, and fallen—and that it can be healed by God’s grace. The apologist can use many strategies to explain, communicate, and defend the idea that there is something wrong with human nature. Equally, we can use many strategies to explain, communicate, and defend the fact that there is indeed a cure. But apologetics itself does not heal; it only points to where a cure may be found. We may provide excellent arguments that such a cure exists. We could provide personal testimonies from people whose lives have been changed by discovering this cure. But in the end, people are healed only by finding and receiving the cure, and allowing it to do its work. We may play a real and important role in helping them to realize they are ill and telling 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, not from our words. CLUES AND POINTERS

American poet Edna St. Vincent Millay (1892–1950) spoke of “a meteoric shower of facts” raining from the sky. These facts are like threads that need to be woven into a tapestry, clues that need to be assembled to disclose the big picture. As Millay pointed out, we are overwhelmed with information, but cannot make sense of the “shower of facts” with which we are bombarded. There seems to be “no loom 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 our many and complex observations of the natural world, human history, and personal experience. It allows us to integrate them, and see them as interconnected aspects of a greater whole.

We want to see the big picture that makes sense of all we observe. More importantly, we want to know where we fit into this great scheme of things. No wonder British philosopher and writer Iris Murdoch (1919–99) spoke of “the calming, whole-making tendencies of human thought,” by which she means the ability of a big picture or “grand narrative” to integrate our vision of reality. The Christian faith is about grasping the big picture, enabling us to see a larger and nobler vision of reality than human reason can disclose. The world is studded with clues about human nature and identity. Reality is emblazoned with signs pointing to the greater reality of God. We need to connect the dots and see the overall picture. We need to weave the threads together and see what pattern they disclose. These patterns are there to be used by the apologist to help others begin to realize how Christianity has the power to make sense of what we think, see, and experience —and to encourage them to discover Christianity’s deeper power to transform human life. C.S. Lewis spoke of right and wrong as “clues to the meaning of the universe.” A clue is something that suggests, but does not prove. Clues have a cumulative significance, pointing to a deeper pattern of meaning that gives each of them their true meaning. One clue on its own might be nothing more than suggestive, a straw in the wind. Yet a cluster of clues begins to disclose a comprehensive pattern. Each clue builds on the others, giving them a collective force that transcends their 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 the most sense of them—whether that of the prosecution or the defense. They are not expected to accept that guilt or innocence has been proved, merely that they believe

[20] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

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

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[21]

ne clue is desire—or a homing instinct for God. Christian apologists argue that this deep sense of yearning for something transcendent is ultimately grounded in the fact that we are created to fellowship with God, and will not be fulfilled until we do so.

they can reach a conclusion “beyond reasonable doubt.” Apologetics works in much the same way. No one is going to be able to prove the existence of God, as one might prove that “the whole is greater than the part.” Yet one can consider all the clues that point in this direction and take pleasure in their cumulative force. God’s existence may not be proved, in the hard rationalist sense of the word. Yet it can be affirmed with complete sincerity that belief in God is eminently reasonable and makes more sense of what we see in the world, discern in history, and experience in our lives than its alternatives. A HOMING INSTINCT FOR GOD

One clue is desire—or a homing instinct for God. Many arguments for the existence of God involve an appeal primarily to reason. Others involve an appeal to experience, finding their plausibility within the human heart as much as in human reason. As Pascal once famously commented, “The heart has its reasons, which reason does not understand.” The best known of these arguments is the “argument from desire.” Although this takes various forms, it is most commonly framed in terms of a deep human awareness of a longing for something that is not possessed but whose attraction is felt. Christian apologists argue that this deep sense of yearning for some-

thing transcendent is ultimately grounded in the fact that we are created to fellowship with God, and will not be fulfilled until we do so. One of the most rigorous theological treatments of this topic is found in the writings of Augustine of Hippo. For Augustine, God has created human beings and placed them at the height of the created order, so that they might fulfill their purposes through relating to God as their creator and savior. Without such a relationship, humanity cannot be what it is meant to be. As Augustine put it in a famous prayer to God: “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you.”2 The two most significant apologetic applications of this approach were developed by Blaise Pascal (1623–62) and C. S. Lewis (1898–1963). Pascal argues that the human 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 and helplessness show us, other than that there was once in each person a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace?3

[22] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

Nothing other than God is able to fill this “abyss”—a profound, God-shaped gap within human nature, implanted by God as a means of drawing people back to him. This infinite abyss can only be filled with something that is infinite and unchanging—in other words, by God himself. God alone is our true good.4 Pascal’s idea here is often expressed in terms of a “God-shaped gap” or “Godshaped vacuum” within human nature. Although Pascal did not actually use these phrases, they are a good summary of his approach. Pascal argues that the Christian faith offers a framework that interprets the widespread human experience of “longing and helplessness.” This interpretation has two elements: first, it makes sense of the experience; second, having identified what it is pointing to, it allows this human experience to be transformed. AN ARGUMENT FROM DESIRE

C. S. Lewis develops a related approach that has an obvious importance for Christian apologetics.5 Lewis acknowledges the importance of frustrated aspirations for many: “There was something we grasped at, in that first moment of longing, which just fades away in the reality.” So how is this to be interpreted? Lewis notes two possibilities he regards as flawed: first, to assume that this frustration arises from looking in the wrong places; second, to conclude that further searching will only result in repeated disappointment, so any attempt to find something better than the world can offer is a mistake. There is, Lewis argues, a third approach—to recognize that these earthly longings are “only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage” of our true homeland.

Lewis then develops what some might call an “argument from desire,” which could be formalized as follows: 1). Every natural desire has a corresponding object, and is satisfied only when this is attained or experienced. 2). There is a natural desire for transcendent fulfillment, which cannot be attained or experienced by or through anything in the present world. 3). This natural desire for transcendent fulfillment can therefore only be fulfilled beyond the present world, in a world toward which the present order of things points.6 Now this is not really an argument for the existence of God, in the strict sense of the term. For a start, we would need to expand Lewis’s point to include the Christian declaration that God either is, or is an essential condition for, the satisfaction of the natural human desire for transcendent fulfillment. Yet even then, this is not an argument to be understood as a deduction of God’s existence. Yet Lewis saw this line of thought as demonstrating the correlation of faith with experience, exploring the “empirical adequacy” of the Christian way of seeing reality with what we experience within ourselves. It is not deductive, but—to use Charles Sanders Peirce’s term—abductive (involving logical inference). Lewis clearly believes the Christian faith casts light upon the realities of our subjective experience. Augustine of Hippo wove the central themes of the Christian doctrines of creation and redemption into a prayer: “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you.”7 Lewis reaffirms this notion, and seeks to ground it in the world of

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[23]

human experience, which he believes it illuminates. Lewis thus contends that Christian apologetics must engage with this fundamental 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 hunger points to a real human need that can be met through food, so this spiritual hunger corresponds to a real need that can be met through God. Lewis argues that most people are aware of a deep sense of longing within them that cannot be satisfied by anything transient or created: “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”8 ow this proves nothing. After all, I might have a deep desire to meet a golden unicorn. But that doesn’t mean unicorns—whether golden or not—actually exist. That’s not Lewis’s point. Christianity, he points out, tells us that this sense of longing for God is exactly what we should expect, since we are created to relate to God. It fits in with a Christian way of thinking, thus providing indirect confirmation of its reliability. There is a strong resonance between theory and observation—

between the theological framework and the realities of our personal experience. A CLUE TO OUR TRUE NATURE

So how can this approach be developed and applied apologetically? Its essential feature is an appeal to human experience —to the subjective world of feelings, rather than to objective analysis of the natural world. Yet these subjective experiences are important to people, not least because people feel they are deeply significant. Not everyone recognizes this kind of experience when it is described; nevertheless, its presence is sufficiently widespread to act as the basis for an important apologetic strategy. Three points need to be made about this approach. 1). This approach connects with a shared human experience. It engages with something that resonates with many people, offering an explanation of a feeling that many have had and wondered what it meant. 2). This experience is interpreted. It is not a random or meaningless experience, but something pointing to something that lies beyond it. What some might regard as a pointless phenomenon thus becomes a signpost to significance.

hristian apologetics must engage with this fundamental 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 hunger points to a real human need that can be met through food, so this spiritual hunger corresponds to a real need that can be met through God.

[24] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

3). The experience is declared to be a gateway to God. Only God can bring about the transformation of human experience. Only God can fill what Pascal called the “abyss” within human nature. This interpretation of human experience is not opportunistic or arbitrary, but rather is rigorously grounded in a theological understanding of human nature and destiny. This “argument from desire” is not a rigorous, logical “proof ” of God’s existence; it works at a much deeper level. It may lack logical force, but it possesses existential depth. It is about the capacity of the Christian faith to address the depths of human experience—the things that we feel really matter. It builds on the sense of restlessness and dissatisfaction within human nature and shows how this is a clue to our true nature and destiny. As Lewis argued, if nothing in this world is able to satisfy these deep longings and yearnings, maybe we must learn to accept that our true home is in another world. To use an image from Renaissance poet Francis Quarles (1592–1644), our soul is like an iron needle drawn to the magnetic pole of God. God can no more be eliminated from human life than our yearning for justice or our deep desire to make this world a better place. We have a homing instinct precisely because there is a home for us to return to. That’s one of the great themes of the New Testament. This desire is an important point for reflection on the nature of western society. Political philosopher Charles Taylor concluded his recent extended analysis of the emergence of a “secular age” with an assertion that religion will not and cannot disappear because of the distinctive characteristics of human nature—above all, what French philosopher Chantal Milon-Delsol calls a “desire for eternity.”9 There is something about

human nature that makes us want to reach beyond rational and empirical limits, questing for meaning and significance. A further point needs to be made here: the Christian idea of humanity bearing the image of God has important implications for the role of the imagination. Both Lewis and Tolkien emphasize how our imaginations open up worlds that reflect hints of our true identity and destiny. Often, we dream of beautiful worlds —not because we want to escape from this world, but because something deep within us causes us to long for this kind of 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 College London and President of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. Mere Apologetics is based upon a foundational lecture 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: Dover Publications, 2003), 113. 4 Ibid. 5 See C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: Harper Collins, 2002), 134-38. See also a similar argument in C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory,” Screwtape Proposes a Toast (London: Collins, 1965), 94-110. 6 For 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. 7 Augustine, Confessions I.i.1. 8 Lewis, Mere Christianity, 136-37. 9 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 530.

JUST THINKING • VOLUME 20.3

[25]

Think Again Satisfying our deepest hungers and transforming our lives.

T HE HAPPY PAGAN is wrapped up in the belief that this world and the success it affords are the greatest pursuits in life. He or she feels no need for anything transcendent. Life has been reduced to temporal pursuits disconnected from all the other disciplines necessary for life to be meaningfully engaged. Some are completely unreflective; they don’t think enough to know 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, who is the product of America’s intellectual bastions, have been virtually left unaddressed by the church. Rather, we give them a catalogue of do’s and don’ts and expect this to prepare 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 will deliver 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 seductions and artificial answers our culture gives and to articulate the good news of the gospel of 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 remove the 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 presence there 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 the LORD is good. Oh, the joys of those who take refuge in him!” (Psalm 34: 8, NLT).

Warm Regards,

Ravi

[26] JUST THINKING • RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

For more information or to make a contribution, please contact: Ravi Zacharias International Ministries 4725 Peachtree Corners Circle Suite 250 Norcross, Georgia 30092 770.449.6766

RZIM is a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability and the Canadian Council of Christian Charities. WWW.RZIM.ORG

HELP ING THE THINKER BELIEV E. H E L P I N G T H E B E L I E V E R T H I N K .

4725 Peachtree Corners Circle Suite 250 Norcross, Georgia 30092

Love is the most powerful apologetic www.wellspringinternational.org

JUST THINKING

• The Quarterly Magazine of

RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES

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 who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” —Luke 12:19-20