just thinking - World Evangelical Alliance

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
2
Engaging the Happy
Thinking Pagan
14
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.”
10
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
26
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.
——
s
——
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.
——
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 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.
——
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 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.
——
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 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.
T
[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.
——
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 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.
——
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 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.
W
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.
——
s
——
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.
——
s
——
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
——
s
——
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.
——
s
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.
T
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.
——
s
——
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.
——
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 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.
N
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.
U
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.
——
s
——
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.
——
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 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.
——
s
——
1
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
T
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 • 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.
A
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.
H
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?
A
[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.
t
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.
O
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—
N
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.
C
[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
©2012 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries