Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths

Rating:
Summary: Good Introduction to Apologetics
Review: Alister McGrath is a moderately conservative theologian in the Church of England who has written numerous introductory and advances works. [p. 67.] In this book - based on lectures - McGrath provides a concise discussion of Christian apologetics. This book is neither a history of apologetics nor a comprehensive discussion of various apologetic approaches. Rather, he sets forth arguments in favor of Christianity and against secular ideologies. He doesn't follow any specific method of apologetics, but relies on the strength of different approaches. As he states, "But apologetics is not concerned with this single conclusion. It is concerned with the accumulation of pointers . . . which eventually build up to give a credible, persuasive, and attractive case for God." [p. 41.] So while evidentialism has a role in defeating the most common objections against Christianity - such as that Jesus never lived - it cannot provide all the necessary reasons for faith. [p. 54.] In fact, McGrath maintains (perhaps controversially) that Aquinas's famous "proofs" for the existence of God were never meant as proofs, but rather arguments to show the rationality of belief in God for people who already believe. [p. 35.]

McGrath also has a good discussion of such matters as Darwinism, Marxism, and religious pluralism. Also, his discussion of Calvin is quite interesting. Calvin didn't deny that there was a "point of contact" between Christians and non-Christians. [pp. 212-16.]

Rating:
Summary: Good overall book on apologetics
Review: This is a great book that covers many phases of apologetics. I can't agree with the previous reviewer who says that McGrath has confused apologetics with evangelism. McGrath *does* cover many different areas of apologetics. .. ...McGrath's point, with which I agree, is that if you want to win an argument with him (to say nothing of helping bringing him to Christ), you need to address his willful and emotional problems as well as his logical ones. And this book admirably integrates the two sides of the issue.

Rating:
Summary: a thoughtful book
Review: Though faintly dry and reading like a guidebook, McGrath's knowledge of the history of apologetics, coupled with his unique approach, make this short book a good addition to any Christian library.

Possessing both a Ph.D in microbology and theology, Alister McGrath is exactly the sort of person the postmodern apologetic movement needs: someone with an appreciation of science from the inside. Many theologians who write concerning Christianity understand science very little, and their essays betray a hostility that science as a discipline doesn't deserve. In his book, McGrath is able to differentiate between science and scientific rationalism, the philosophy that poses the problems to a Christian worldview.

"Apologetics is not about winning arguments-- it is about winning people," McGrath mentions several times, calling into question the traditional approach (solely through reason) that has dominated apologetics for the past millenium. "Creative apologetics" is what he seeks: the melding of reason and the art of listening, responding, and understanding what brings people to faith. Thus, the first part of the book is about points of contact with the people one wishes to help; the third is about putting apologetics into action.

In-between is the meat of the book: sections on other philosophies and religions, and common reasons people are repulsed by Christianity. He seems to spend a great deal more time on Marxism than is necessary for today; however, given that this book was published in 1992, that is understandable. An updated version with an expanded section on paganism would be excellent.

There were three discussions that particularly caught my attention and made me think: firstly, McGrath (who happens to be a member of the Church of England, for those who want to know the denomination) notes that since God made man in his own image, man is capable of knowing God exists. I never thought of that, though it strikes me as an old idea. The obvious difference between the likes of the Lord of Heaven and mankind is incredible. But I can see how such a view as to remember we are in His image would both give us hope and boost our confidence that the world is knowable and reasonable, as God is. Perhaps such a view helped perpetuate scientific inquiry in the minds of certain famous monks we all know.

Secondly, the idea of the fallen world affecting the Church came into discussion. McGrath mentioned his belief that it is only through God's grace that His message comes through the tainted institution of the Church. It is hard to take that kind of idea for those of us who grew up with the Church being venerated! But if one considers history, the Church has definitely shown itself to be a fallen institution. Everything on this earth is tainted with the shadow-- God's grace does indeed abide and assist. Such an emphasis on goodness and light has been in vogue recently, that one forgets the vile world we live in.

The third idea that caught on my mind was that of sin: sin in Christians, what sin really is, and the differentiation of acts of sin from a sinful nature. We seldom hear fire and brimstone sermons any longer-- it was never very good for winning converts. But I think we're missing something from the de-emphasis on sin. People forget what it is, and that it is real, and because of it, we NEED the forgiveness of God! We are all born in a sinful, fallen state. Sin itself is not a moral thing, as McGrath says: "How can we talk of infants being immoral?" Sin is the state of man in the fallen world: the gap that seperates us from God. Acts of sin are what people think of when they hear the word, 'sin'. These are products of our fallen state, but a person could live a holy life and still be seperated from God by his sinful nature alone, which is with us all from our birth.

That definition of sin really helped clarify to me how the spiritual world works. It also helps answer that perennial question: Why do Christians still sin? Christianity isn't a perfection movement. The Church is, to borrow McGrath's excellent metaphor, a hospital, where those with an illness come to be cured by the Great Physician. We may be taking medicine, and sticking with the diet perscribed by the Doctor, but we are not well yet.

All in all, the best compliment I can give is that this book made me think. Regardless of writing style or other content, that alone should recommend the small volume to you.