Evidence that Demands A Verdict - A Review

in

Evidence that Demands a Verdict is a title well known to many Christians. The book was originally published in the early 1970’s by Josh McDowell as a source book for Christian apologetics. It both presents arguments and points readers toward more in-depth arguments for the truthfulness of Christianity.

Given the four decades since the book’s original publication, many of the sources in the first edition are outdated. Over time, arguments change, new evidence for or against positions is considered, and scholars on all sides of the debate reframe their thoughts.

It was high time for this book to be updated. This year, Josh McDowell and his son, Sean, have released an expanded and updated version of this classic work on apologetics. This volume adds the credentials of the younger McDowell to the senior's extensive apologetic experience. The younger McDowell is an apologist, serving on the faculty of Biola University.

About the Book

Evidence that Demands a Verdict is the sort of book that defies concise summary. At over 700 pages, it makes a satisfying thunk when set on the table. That alone may be enough to add gravity to the claims of a budding apologist. It has a helpful table of contents with chapter abstracts, as well as subject and author indices, which keep this tome from being unwieldy.

Evidence.jpg

The arguments are laid out in logical chunks in outline format. This makes the book suitable for research, though it might make cover-to-cover reading more difficult.

The McDowells have covered the major questions of Christian apologetics. They invest five chapters discussing the historical reliability of Scripture. Eight chapters help demonstrate the historicity of Christ and his resurrection. There are thirteen chapters dedicated to the reliability of the Old Testament. The last major section includes six chapters arguing that truth is possible, with an attempt to counter certain claims of postmodernism.

The beauty of this book is that it has been well seasoned over decades and targeted to engage ongoing discussions charitably and at the point of contention. This enables the arguments in this volume to cover a great deal of territory in relatively brief space, which may seem amazing, given the length of the book.

That the authors have covered such broad ranging topics in such a short space is a gift to Christians seeking to understand the major points of the plurality of debates about the truthfulness of Christianity and, hopefully, engage their skeptical friends with the truth of Scripture, especially the gospel. This really is a good, first stop for a number of excellent arguments.

At the same time, the target audience (regular Christians) and the brevity of some of the discussions sets the volume up for its likely criticisms. There is no doubt the war drums of some Christian philosophers will be beaten as they line up to critique some of the interpretations of the volume. For example, the section on postmodernism is an easy target since the subject matter has more publicized versions than the number of scholars that have argued for it. This makes every generalization about the subject a target for critique, and, since many postmodernisms conflict with one another, there is no safe ground to argue against the general drift of thought. (Part of the joy of being postmodern seems to be the ability to say your critics don’t get it as you smile smugly.)  If readers accept that the chapters in this volume are introductory and not exhaustive, this book stands up to reasonable scrutiny.

Uses for the Book

It is unlikely that most people will read this volume cover to cover. It is constructed like a reference book and will serve that purpose well.

At the same time, the length of the chapters would make it useful for study with a group of young Christians. It is unlikely any group would make their way through the entirety of the volume. However, it would be a helpful resource to introduce someone to some of the credible arguments for Christianity.

The book might serve well as a secondary volume in an apologetics course at the college or seminary level, with some assigned readings chosen to introduce particular topics. Again, it would be difficult to get through the whole volume in a semester or year.

The most important use of this volume is as a way to self-equip for the ministry of evangelism in a skeptical age. The chapters are useful for buttressing the faith once delivered to all the saints. They are also helpful in showing how to frame an argument against the common objections to Christianity. This is a handy resource for a Christian engaged in the Great Commission.

Conclusion

Evidence that Demands a Verdict is a classic work. The updated edition has done exactly what it should do: added new arguments, updated sources, and retained the positive qualities of the original.

This is a book that should be in church libraries, on the shelves of pastors, in the homes of Christian parents, and among the recommended resources for new believers.

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review.

Between One Faith and Another - A Review

in

It is difficult, at times, to understand different perspectives on the compatibility of religions. Or, perhaps to be clearer, I might say that it is hard to understand without caricature other people’s ideas about religions.

For example, for those raised on conservative Christian teaching, there is no question that Christianity is incompatible with dozens of others world religions. We have heard this asserted from pulpit, lectern, and printed page so often that it is clear to us that Buddhism conflicts with orthodox Christianity in ways that are irreconcilable. Truths are black and white. We can be absolutely certain of most things. The law of non-contradiction reigns supreme. This is the perspective on religion known as exclusivism.

4510.jpg

And yet, many hold to the notion that all religions are somehow leading people to climb the same mountain, though via different paths. Though Jesus claims to be the way, the truth, and the life, some suggest that his illumination shines through the teachings of other world religions such that all provide a functional path to God. In its most benign forms, this perspective on religion teaches that there is some truth in all religions, and therefore no conflict between them in the absolute core. One might make progress toward salvation (whatever that means) as a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim. This view is often called inclusivism.

There is a third perspective on religion, which is called pluralism, that argues we just don’t know which of the religions has the truth (if there is one), but that all may have a piece of the truth. Those that propound this view typically trot out the illustration of blind men feeling different parts of the mountain, an image which Lesslie Newbigin and others have helpfully identified as arrogant presumption of omniscience on the part of the speaker. This perspective often entails a sort of agnosticism, which asks the believer to wait and see before making final commitments.

In didactic texts, whether of the form used for indoctrinating children through Fundamentalist Christian worldview courses or those used to influence college sophomores in a world religions course, these perspectives are often presented triumphalistically. The pastor shows how the god of Mohammed is really vastly different than the God of Paul; the political science professor dons a head scarf and asserts that the two deities are really the same without understanding the basic theological issues; the tired, uninterested arm-chair philosopher argues for pluralism because he really wants people to stop arguing and killing one another over religion. These approaches and their related variants often tend to dismiss alternative perspectives without increasing understanding.

For those interested in understanding better the relationship between inclusivism, exclusivism, and pluralism, Peter Kreeft has written a new book, Between One Faith and Another: Engaging Conversations on the World’s Great Religions.

Summary

I was initially skeptical of this volume, because it is written in the form of a dialogue (or really a trialogue), which is not my favorite form of philosophy. I am also aware that Kreeft is a committed Roman Catholic who converted from evangelical Christianity, so he has a distinct perspective on the issue; I wondered how well he could represent the perspectives in this format.

My doubt, however, was ill-founded. Kreeft has produced a volume that will help people from all three perspectives to understand the others better. This is because, as Kreeft admits in his introduction, he has sympathies with each of the three characters and their perspective. Kreeft dealt the cards fairly when assigning roles and allowed the dialogue to unfold relatively naturally, without cheating arguments by exposing only flaws or highlighting only strengths.

The volume is a conversation between two students over the content of a world religions course. The atheist/agnostic rationalist is an exclusivist, seeing all the conflicts between different religions. He argues that not only do they conflict with one another irreconcilably, but that they are therefore all wrong; this the is character that sees the fatal flaw in all religions. He is the extremely rational college student who likes to blow the whistle on logical fallacies; sort of like your average Christian homeschooler, but without the background knowledge of Adventures in Odyssey.

The second main character is also a fellow student with the exclusivist, she is the inclusivist who believes that we’re all climbing the same mountain. She rightly notes the moral similarity between most world religions and, sometimes through an act of will, argues that religions have a common center and only conflict (or appear to conflict) in their practice. The rigorous logic of the exclusivist seems over harsh for this theologically liberal Christian.

These two characters engage in a Socratic dialogue after class, since both of them come off with understandable disagreements with the Professor. This is, perhaps, the most unrealistic aspect of the entire book: two people with different worldviews engaging in thoughtful dialogue over a long period of time. However, if the reader suspends disbelief, this is a helpful heuristic tool.

True to reality, Kreeft allows the debate between the inclusivist and exclusivist to wander afield and get mired into the predictable conflict over logic, non-contradiction, and compassion. However, here he inserts a third character, the pluralistic professor who tries not to present his view in class (and perhaps actually lacks a clear view) but simply presents the different religions with their strengths and weaknesses. This professor functions as a plot device to referee the debate when the students get off-track and caught in do loops of circular argument.

Analysis and Conclusion

Overall, the conversation is engaging and informative. There were several points along the way that Kreeft’s dialogue made me laugh out loud because he naturally inserted humor in an otherwise potentially dry discussion. The content of the conversation is relatively natural in its flow, though Kreeft thankfully cleaned up the rhetoric and expression of the speakers to make the debate more precise and linear than would be likely in a real, human conversation.

There are points throughout the volume that the reader is left a bit frustrated, since there is no clear hero, no matter the reader’s perspective. It's a good sort of frustration, though. The inclusivist, exclusivist, and pluralist all score points and all get scored on. At times, each is infuriatingly mired in his or her thought process. However, the characters do develop over the course of the volume, as they each accept the validity of the others’ viewpoints where appropriate. None of the characters “convert” to another perspective, though the rough edges are certainly worn off in several cases.

This is, in short, an example of the sort of conversation that should be happening in society, especially in higher education, but which too rarely occurs. Between One Faith and Another raises more questions than it answers, but that would make this a useful text for multiple audiences.

As a parent of a homeschooler, this is the sort of text that I might consider using in a high school world religions course. It covers many of the basic facts of various world religions, but gets to the more basic (and often ignored) question of how we should deal with the variety of religions.

This volume would be useful in a comparative religions course in a religious or non-religious higher education setting, because Kreeft does well at being even-handed throughout the conversation.

For the casual reader, like me, this volume is truly enjoyable. The conversation moves along, the content is clear and helpful, and the reader’s character is formed by sympathizing with people with whom one would otherwise naturally disagree. This is worth reading, even if simply for the enjoyment of it.

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Our Deepest Desires - A Review

in

There are a variety of ways of doing apologetics. For those that are unfamiliar with the term, apologetics is the process of offering a defense for something. In this case, I am using the term to refer to a defense of the Christian faith.

Some rely on evidential apologetics, which certainly have a place. This is the sort of approach that Francis Schaeffer and Lee Strobel are known for. Sometimes this form of apologetics comes in the form of historical analysis, like the process used by people such as Mike Licona. Sometimes it focuses on a forensic examination of biblical texts.

All of these are valid ways of explaining the validity of Christian belief.

In his recent book, Gregory Ganssle makes a case for the Christian faith in a different way, namely by explaining how the Christian helps make sense of the world, and does so better than any other faith system. His title, aptly chosen, summarizes the point of the volume: Our Deepest Desires: How the Christian Story Fulfills Human Aspirations.

At its heart, Christianity is not simply a mythology tacked on to typical human experience, it is the best explanation for everything that exists. In other words, people should be Christians because Christianity is the most satisfying account of the universe, including human nature and everything that entails.

Ganssle’s volume is brief, and is divided into four parts, with a separate introduction and epilogue. Each of the four parts consists of three chapters.

Summary

Part One deals with persons. The Christian faith entails the belief in persons who are eternally in relationship one with another. This helps to explain why we humans, who are created in the image of God, long for relationships and only flourish within relationships with other persons. It also supports our natural sense of the importance of human persons. We do amazing things for other people, especially people we love. This makes sense if the Christian depiction of the world is true.

Part Two outlines how goodness factors into our desires and how Christianity fulfills our desire for goodness. Everyone wants good things. This, of course, is something of a tautology because we often define what we want as good and good as something we want. There is, however, a great deal of commonality among humans as to what is considered good, setting aside matters of taste. And, if critics are honest, they can often discern that something is good, even if they don’t like it. Consider, for example, classical music. Someone way strongly prefer Jazz but still be able to recognize the excellence of an orchestral performance of a great work of music. Also, consider that as bad as we often feel about the world, it is amazingly good. There is too much goodness in the world for it to be an accident. Ganssle argues that the goodness we desire and often find is best explained by Christianity.

5182.jpg

Part Two outlines how goodness factors into our desires and how Christianity fulfills our desire for goodness. Everyone wants good things. This, of course, is something of a tautology because we often define what we want as good and good as something we want. There is, however, a great deal of commonality among humans as to what is considered good, setting aside matters of taste. And, if critics are honest, they can often discern that something is good, even if they don’t like it. Consider, for example, classical music. Someone way strongly prefer Jazz but still be able to recognize the excellence of an orchestral performance of a great work of music. Also, consider that as bad as we often feel about the world, it is amazingly good. There is too much goodness in the world for it to be an accident. Ganssle argues that the goodness we desire and often find is best explained by Christianity.

The third part discusses beauty. Much like goodness, beauty is commonly sought and found more frequently than we can admit. Christian teaching holds that beauty both honors God and points us toward God. Beauty is superfluous, it is unnecessary, but it is an amazing gift from God. When we yearn for beauty or find it unexpectedly, we should see the reflection of the Christian faith.

Part Four covers the relationship between the desire for freedom to Christianity. Humans, universally, long for freedom. Even advocates of oppressive economic systems like socialism typically claim their desire to force others to live according to certain social dictates is really an attempt to free others from want and desire. Freedom is a universal desire. Often, we find that freedom in knowledge of truth. We want to know what is. We long to understand. That’s the foundation of modern science, of poetry, and of so much that we do. Humans also hope for freedom in the future. That hope is explained by Christianity. Our innate human desire for freedom is best explained and fulfilled by the radical reality of the Christian faith.

Analysis and Conclusion

Certainly, the above four paragraphs fail to do Ganssle’s volume justice. His well-crafted essays build a cogent argument and make a compelling case for believing in Christianity. He shows why it is so satisfying to be a Christian.

This volume is encouraging to those in Christ, who struggle with faith and are sometimes looking for a deeper sense—beyond the evidential proofs—of why Christianity is compelling and true.

Our Deepest Desires may also be a useful volume to put in the hands of someone who does not find the point and counter point of apologetics arguments helpful, but needs to see the grandeur of Christianity.

Ganssle’s volume deserves a place in the library of the Christian. In fact, in some locations, this volume may be best bought in quantities for distributions for those exploring the Christian faith.

The portrait Ganssle paints of Christianity is beautiful and compelling. It is a delight to read and will bear re-reading in the future.

Note: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Making Sense of God - A Review

in

Tim Keller has done it again.

Not too long ago his book, The Reason for God, hit the presses and it was quickly described as being in the same league as Lewis’ Mere Christianity. That praise was justified, as Keller had studied the zeitgeist well and understood the questions people were asking. There was a large swath of young people who needed to read exactly what Keller wrote at that time.

However, time, tide, and formation wait for no one. As the polls are revealing, a larger number of people are identifying as “nones.” These are people who have no religious affiliation. As one “none” explains in her book, it often isn’t that the nones are opposed to religion, they just don’t see the point.

On the other hand, judging by the commenters on the internet, there are a large number of people who find religion repugnant. According to this view, religious people are ignorant, naïve, or perhaps even simply evil. They argue that religion is inherently irrational because it relies on faith; in contrast, non-religion (or whatever they try to label their faith commitment) is based on objective science. Therefore, rejecting religion is the only logical solution.

Keller’s recent book, Making Sense of God, will speak to either of these groups.

Much like any book, the antagonistic skeptic will be unlikely to dig into this volume and glean anything from it. However, Keller is irenic, so anyone who is actually looking for a credible case for Christ can find a good representation of it in Keller’s book.

Summary

The book begins with a preface, which introduces a reality many are unaware of: secularism is based on faith. Although the question of religion vs. non-religion is often pitched as faith vs. reason, Keller announced that isn’t the case. The reader must be patient as he carefully unfolds his argument over the following chapters.

Keller explains that, contrary to the popular myth of secularists, religion isn’t dying. It may be on the decline in the Unites States, but in the world at large, the number of faithful are growing. Thus, it isn’t that the secularists are paving the way into the future by resisting religion, rather, they are simply resisting the inevitable growth of faithfulness.

The next chapter explains that secularism relies on just as much faith as any religion does. No one is purely rational, and most professional philosophers recognize that. Everyone has certain basic assumptions that must be taken on faith. You can’t, for example, empirically prove that the scientific method is the best--never mind the only­­--way to understand more about the world. This doesn’t mean that religion is necessarily correct, but it means that religion should not be immediately dismissed as something intrinsically different that secularism.

Having established the possibility of rationally considering religion as another competing worldview to secularism, Keller shifts into a shift into a defense of religion itself. Throughout the beginning of the book, he argues for the possibility of religion generically, but the informed reader will see that Keller is moving toward Christianity as the best and only viable option for all problems.

Keller argues that religion provides meaning that suffering can’t take away, satisfaction that is not based on circumstances. He shows that “do no harm” is an insufficient ethical principle, because it fails to represent the true complexity of our interconnections. The modern concept of the autonomous self is an unworkable, unjust myth. Something must be added to secularism to answer these problems, and that something is the Christian faith.

Similarly, Keller shows that the modern idea of the self is incoherent and insufficient. Humans cannot find their identity from within, because that is self-defeating. In contrast, belief in the Christian faith offers an eternal, unchanging identity that does not crush the individual nor exclude all others. This leads to a hope that cannot be eliminated based on circumstances. There is an eschatological future of joy for the human that has faith in the one true God.

Traditionally atheists have resisted the concept that they can’t be moral. It is true that atheists are often nicer than Christians, but more and more secular thinkers are recognizing that despite their many flaws, Christians tend to be much more active in doing the good things that need to be done. This is because they have a morality rooted in God. This is something that religion adds to the secular conversation. At the same time, Keller critiques many churches that have morals for being legalistic. He offers his critique, but at the same time encourages the skeptic to recognize that this is a failing of particular congregations, not of Christianity. True Christianity has morality that enlivens and does not crush the soul. The cross shows how that can happen.

The last few chapters are a more traditional apologetic for faith in Christ. Keller presents the gospel winsomely and in a way that someone who has journeyed so far into the volume will recognize the sincerity of the invitation.

Analysis

It’s a sign of the times that Keller would have to lay the groundwork so carefully for faith in Christ. This is the shape of evangelism in the future. We need to begin farther and farther back in our conversations with many people. It becomes less safe to assume that someone knows the story already and we are just calling to repentance.

More and more, when people are told they need to repent, they are likely to ask from what. Our age is secular, religion has been maligned by its enemies and misrepresented by many of its adherents. Keller provides the necessary dialog to bridge the gap between a skeptical world and Christianity.

I commend this volume to the skeptic as a good argument for faith, especially faith in Christ. For the Christian, this book should be read, digested, and studied in preparation for answering the questions of unbelieving friends. This is more likely to answer the necessary questions than the memorized outline of Evangelism Explosion. For the parent, this is the sort of volume you should read with your children, so that even after they’ve prayed the prayer and walked the aisle they understand the reasonable basis for their faith.

Making Sense of God is a masterpiece. Having read it, I will read it again. It is well-written, well-researched, and on point. Keller has done a service to the Church in writing this volume. My hope is that many will read it, both those inside and outside of Christianity.

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review.

Raising Faithful Kids in a Skeptical World

in

It’s a lot easier to raise a skeptic than a child with a mature faith.

This is not a statement about behavior, but about true fidelity. That is, faithfulness that includes both a profession of faith and a solid foundation for that faith.

It is much easier to teach a child to poke holes in the ideas of others than to hold fast to cogent, explanatory truths.

As a result, there is a constant temptation to build buttresses of truth around our kids without exposing them to challenges to the faith. This is good when they are young, because it prevents confusion. It is a dangerous thing over time because it builds a false sense of confidence.

The Place for Honest Doubt

Comprehensive, absolute certainty is a dangerous thing. There is little doubt about that.

Being entirely certain about every detail of one’s own understanding of Scripture, the veracity of the traditions of one’s youth, and the methodology appropriate to determining truth can lead to pain and difficulty over time. Much of that is unnecessary.

There is a fundamental difference between holding a position with absolute certainty and holding it in faithful confidence.

This is because being faithful does not require abandoning the intellectual task of asking questions and considering alternatives. Issues such as the proper mode of baptism, the right style of worship, the way the salvation is explained are all points where legitimate questioning is warranted. After all, a lot of faithful people in the history of the Church have stood on each side of those questions.

Photo used by CC license: Hans Splinter, Parenting, http://ow.ly/10gV84

Photo used by CC license: Hans Splinter, Parenting, http://ow.ly/10gV84

But there is a place for asking even more significant and sensitive questions. Is there a God? Certainly, a fool says in his heart there is no God (Ps 14:1). However, this doesn’t mean that kids shouldn’t ask the big questions and honestly pursue truthful answers. Helping kids ask those in a space where they have the emotional and spiritual resources to struggle through the mire of doubt is important.

It’s also much easier to teach fideistic adherence to dogma than to teach kids to think through doctrine rightly.

In the end, fideism presents an anemic form of Christianity that skeptics can punch holes through with ease. Then, when faced with intelligent, cogent challenges to their faith, an untried faith system will fall apart.

Always Another Question

As I said, it is easier to raise a skeptic than a faithful child.

Much of contemporary culture trains children to expect a higher degree of certainty and a greater volume of proof for questions of religious significance than anything else. For example, people choose their presidential candidates without knowing everything about them and whether everything in the candidate’s worldview meshes. People take jobs without knowing in gross detail every possible work responsibility, the date of future promotions, and whether the company’s corporate office in Paris might have spent too much on cognac last year. Folks use electricity without understanding where exactly it came from or how it was generated.

In contrast, some critics of religion seem to expect an unassailable record in all of history from the religion itself and also each adherent of the religion. They demand that every possible question be asked and meshed with every other solution offered for all of time. Variety in such responses over history—even to secondary and tertiary questions—is considered evidence that the central truths cannot be true.

Many of these questions are fair to ask and Christians should be prepared to discuss them, even if in general terms. Christians need to be prepared to admit that the history of every religion is tarnished by error and insincerity. Christians need to be willing to communicate that there are some doctrines about which reasonable people can debate.

The reality is that every religion, even Christianity, has open questions about some aspects of it. This is a function of the human conduits of the religion and our finiteness. Every religion has a checkered history with abuses. This is because religions have humans involved and humans tend to be self-centered and imperfect.

This means that for someone looking for objections, there are always additional questions to be asked. If the standard of acceptance for religion is that every question is answered, that standard can never be met. There is always one more question to be asked.

The world is training children to be skeptical, if not agnostic. The Church—especially the parents of children—need to be prepared to help develop a curious, cautious, but not incredulous demeanor in their children.

We need to teach our children to seek the best answer, not the perfect one. We need to demonstrate the power of the gospel to transform and redeem. Once a child understands the reason for the hope within us, they will be better able to ask questions without losing their faith.

We need to teach and demonstrate to our children that the Christian faith has integrity and is founded on the absolute objectivity of God not the absolute certainty of our positions. We can have a high degree of certainty about what we believe without dismissing questions. We can demonstrate confidence in our faith by chasing down answers to difficult questions and admitting when we have more investigation to do.

Retooling Parenting

In some day gone by it may have been possible for kids to pick up enough of a basis for their faith by osmosis. Probably not, though, since the failure to present a credible, cogent faith for generations helps to explain the radical rejection of the trappings of a Christian ethic.

The present culture is one that will not accept Christianity without a great deal of explaining. It also will not allow Christians to live consistently with a robust Christian faith without challenging every inch. We do disservice to our children if we do not equip them and assist them to wrestle with the core doctrines of the Christian faith.

Parenting will look different in our present age than it has in the past if we are to give our children what they need to live as faithful pilgrims in the world. That isn’t to say that it will look different than what it always should have been. In fact, the external pressure on the Church may be a benefit to our sanctification as it forces us to return to our proper responsibilities.

History, Law and Christianity - A Review

in

One of the several ways to engage people with the good news of Jesus Christ is through evidential apologetics. In many cases now, the morality of the Bible is so offensive to people they have little initial concern over the historicity of Scripture. However, both within and without the church there are cases where cogent, rational demonstrations of the credibility of Christianity are necessary.

History, Law and Christianity, by John Warwick Montgomery has recently been republished by the 1517 Legacy project, which aims at presenting a Christian apologetic to the world. Montgomery’s book was originally published in 1964, having begun its existence as a series of lectures in response to attacks on the Christian faith. The first five chapters discuss the plausibility of historical evidences of the truthfulness of Christianity. The final chapter provides a “legal defense” of Christianity, as it might occur in a court of law. This edition also includes the original lecture to which Montgomery was responding, as well as an affirmation of the quality of the argument by a non-Christian historian.

Much like Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for Christ, and Josh McDowell’s classic, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Montgomery’s volume points out some of the common challenges to the truthfulness of the biblical accounts regarding Christ. Montgomery shows that, while we cannot have Cartesian certainty of Christ’s resurrection and his deity based on evidence alone, there is such a strong logical coherence to the accounts of Christ’s life that opponents of biblical Christianity are wrong to dismiss the accounts in Scripture as readily as they often do.

Apologetic volumes like these are helpful within the church, because they can shore up existing faith. With a constant barrage of accusations and denials thrown at Christianity from the world, reading a careful, logical defense of the reliability of Scripture can be nourishing to the soul.

In some cases, a book like this can be helpful for people who have not yet come to faith but are asking realistic, honest questions about the integrity of Christianity. Montgomery’s careful argumentation may be the help someone needs to come to grips with the transformative power of the gospel.

One of the benefits of this book is its size. The actual argumentation of the volume is a mere 76 pages. It took me a couple of hours to read it fairly carefully. Many apologetics books, in attempting to be perfectly thorough, become weighty tomes which are unlikely to be picked up by the casual inquirer.

Another strength of History, Law and Christianity is the precision with which Montgomery argues. His carefully argued points are shaped as only the lawyer can do (one of Montgomery’s earned degrees is a J.D.). The book, then, is up to the logical  scrutiny of a rational skeptic.

The weakness of the book is that it may be answering questions that most people aren’t asking in our day and age. This book will be a solid entry into a debate with someone with a modern epistemology, which is rigorously rational (often excessively so). It may not be as effective in convincing the post-modern skeptic, who is willing to accept truths but not Truth. As such, this is a tool that will be most effective when provided to the proper audience.

All in all, this is a well written book. It has withstood the last half-century well. It is a book I am glad to have on my shelf and will gladly recommend to others.