Faith Is Not Wishing: 13 Essays for Christian Thinkers

My wife and I have really appreciated the ministry of Greg Koukl. We read his web newsletters regularly and now have read these essays. I found them to be so helpful, that I am using them with my youth group to help them in their understanding of the Christian faith. I keep recommending these essays to the adults in our congregation, who are also quite impressed with the way Greg explains how our faith is so reasonable.

The cultural mood of the early 21st century is not kind to many Christians who take their Christianity seriously but find themselves silenced at every turn. There have always been objections raised to Christianity, but today a second front has been opened, postmodernism, in addition to the traditional lines of attack. Author Greg Koukl gives 13 short essays, each of which tackles a specific issue that in some way presents a challenge to the Christian. What makes them so valuable is that he is able to see to the core of the problem and offer very focussed responses. I would like to briefly discuss five of these essays. The pressure to back away from the exclusive claims of Christianity is found not only in the broader culture but even in some (or many) of our churches. Whether this finds expression in explicit teaching from the pulpit, or implicitly through silence, some form of pluralism is either taught or understood. Greg provides a much needed teaching on this subject in both chapters 4 and 5. By addressing objections such as "what about good people who have never heard of Jesus but who nevertheless are God-seekers?" in a context of what the Bible says about the nature of God and justice, he shows that the Biblical answer is intelligible and in fact necessary. The way he manages to boil the issue down in a very straightforward sense, I have found to be extremely helpful:"One day every single one of us, the morally great and small alike, will stand before God to be judged for our own crimes, such as they are - some more, some less. Either we pay for them ourselves, or we let Jesus pay for them for us. That's it. If we refuse forgiveness through Jesus, then we stand alone to endure God's penalty." (p.49) In chapter 6, "Where was God?" Greg addresses the problem of the existence and power of God in the face of evil such as hurricanes that devastate lives and communities. He points out that the raising of the objection shows a superficial understanding of evil, as if it only exists "out there" and not also in the human heart. On the day Hurricane Katrina hit, how many people were (for example) committing adultery? Why are we not complaining that God did not prevent that evil and all the destructive repercussions that such acts brought to children and families? This is not to belittle the reality and pain that Katrina caused, but only to show that the problem of evil is much deeper and closer to home than most of us are willing to admit. One reason God doesn't wipe out all evil immediately is that the alternative would be worse for us. Where would we be at 12:01 tonight if God got rid of all the evil in the world at 12:00? But even so, Greg reminds us that God has not simply been a passive bystander, but at the cross has dealt with evil, in a way that allows for not only justice but also mercy to all of us perpetrators of evil. "Our dilemma should not be why God allows evil. Instead, our wonder should be why he would pay such an incredible price to rescue us at all when we have rebelled so completely against Him." (p. 56) In chapter 11, "The Vanishing Pro-Life Apologist" Greg argues that the abortion-on-demand debate may be emotionally and psychologically complex, but morally it is not. The answer to one and only one question makes this abundantly clear: what is the unborn? Questions of privacy, economic hardship, unwanted children, and forcing morality on others all need to be answered only after answering the prior question of "What is the unborn?" Because once you answer that question you've automatically answered the others. This is what it comes down to: "If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate." (p.83) Just about all virtues have been ushered out of the public square and into the private realm. Of those that remain, probably none are so stridently enforced as the so-called virtue of "tolerance." But the meaning of this word has been so redefined and distorted over the last thirty or so years that it is accurate to speak of "The Intolerance of Tolerance," the title of Greg's final essay. If Christians let it, there is probably nothing more effective at intimidating them into silence regarding the claims of Christianity. But, as Greg argues, this would be to fall prey to bad thinking, because the new "tolerance" is really nothing more than passive-aggressive intolerance masquerading as open-mindedness. It's passive-aggressive because the one levelling the charge of intolerance is implicitly claiming neutrality while the object of the charge supposedly is the only one holding a position. But this is clearly false. Both sides are furthering a particular point of view; the difference is that the one making the charge can hide behind the safety and power of holding to a culturally protected position. And it is intolerant because the so-called "tolerant" one is on the one hand claiming that all views are equally valid and that therefore no one view is better than another, but then on the other hand is turning around and not recognizing the equal validity of the point of view of the "intolerant" one. This postmodern view of tolerance therefore defeats itself and turns out to be contradictory gibberish because on its terms no-one can actually be tolerant. In contrast to the new "tolerance", classical tolerance, as it has been understood for centuries, actually requires disagreement with the other's position. Otherwise there is nothing to tolerate if we just agree about everything. Classical tolerance requires not that we treat all ideas equally (because clearly some are better than others), but that we treat all persons with equal dignity and respect. The new "tolerance" turns this on its head by claiming that all ideas are equal but not all persons. Instead of equal respect of persons we see an elitism regarding persons; it becomes legitimate for offenders to be publicly humiliated, punished, and perhaps even forced to attend re-education programs. The distinction is important because classical tolerance allows for civil discourse where even serious differences exist, while the new "tolerance" shuts down discussion in favour of culturally protected positions by sheer exercises of political power. The first dignifies all people as worthy of respect while the latter dehumanizes us. The root problem for many Christians today is that they have bought into the false notion that their faith is in the category of private feelings, of subjectivity, indeed, of wishing, as if faith is little more than the squeezing out of spiritual hope by intense acts of the will. Greg argues that instead of faith being opposed to evidence and knowledge, it is in fact built upon them and depends on them. The word "faith" is better defined as "trust based on good reasons." This is the subject of his first essay but it underscores the whole book. Christianity is rational, it is reasonable, and it is defensible by sound reasoning. Christian faith not only holds up under scrutiny but it invites it and is strengthened by it. Christianity is indeed worth thinking about.