Reason for the Hope Within

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2000 by Groothuis, Douglas

Reason for the Hope Within. Edited by Michael Murray. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, 429 pp., $28.00 paper.

This large volume attempts to bring together "young" (at least one is over forty) Christian philosophers for the purpose of writing on apologetic topics-such as the relationship of faith and reason, the problem of evil, the defense of miracles, and arguments for God's existence-for readers not well acquainted with philosophy. It is heartening that there are enough competent young Christian philosophers available for such a task. This was probably not so fifteen or twenty years ago. Yet with the renaissance in Christian philosophy, such a book is possible-a fact that veteran Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantings, celebrates in his foreword.

Nevertheless, achieving the goal of the book is a tall order. First, young Christian philosophers in the academy often avoid writing on apologetics because they must focus on procuring academic publications in the right (usually secular) journals in order to get tenure. Apologetics doesn't sell well there, although there are notable exceptions. Second, asking a professional philosopher to address an apologetic topic in a way that is accessible for the average reader is something out of the ordinary-if not almost impossible-for most philosophers. The book is only partly successful in reaching its goals, but it is an important and unique effort nonetheless.

However, not all authors rise equally to the occasion. Some chapters seem to be pitched a bit too high intellectually for the neophyte, while others adopt a kind of "time to put on your thinking cap" coaching that borders on the supercilious, even for the average reader. This is especially obvious in the chapter on the problem of miracles, despite its intellectual merits.

Some readers of this book may come away disappointed because of the caution shown by the authors in presenting their arguments. Michael Murray's introduction sets the tone by asserting (more than arguing) that the case made by earlier apologists (such as Francis Schaeffer) that non-Christian world views are dogged by insurmountable intellectual or existential obstacles is not true. Therefore we must abandon "sledgehammer apologetics"-a term that hardly fits Schaeffer, although it does fit some others. The besetting sin of apologetics (besides intellectual pride) may be to claim more ground intellectually than one's arguments establish, but the weakness of many chapters of this book is just the opposite. One often finds a reluctance to make strong claims for the truth of a particular Christian doctrine; instead, the author will give several strategies for defending the rationality of Christian belief. (A belief may be rational and not true, and vice versa.)

Establishing the rationality of a Christian belief is a necessary element in philosophically defending, say, the rationality of the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation against charges of logical contradiction (as Thomas Senor ably does). But simply defending a belief's rationality falls quite short of giving compelling arguments why anyone outside the Christian faith should be convinced of its truth; this is really the burden of apologetics. Several authors claim no more than a Christian belief has intellectual parity with a non-Christian belief. For example, it may be rational to believe in miracles, but it is also rational to be a naturalist and fail to believe in them (p. 371). This kind of approach falls short of classical apologetics that aims to show the irrationality of denying the central truths of Christian faith and the cogency of Biblical truth (see Acts 26:25; 2 Cor 10:3-5). If it is truly rational to hold to naturalism, one wonders on what basis God could condemn the unrepentant naturalist on the day of judgment (see Romans 1-2).

Given the length and depth of the book, a detailed assessment is impossible. Instead, I will briefly focus on the some strengths and weaknesses of several of the chapters. Francis Howard Snyder's chapter on Christian ethics admirably argues against

ethical relativism and advances some helpful suggestions about the meaning of Christian love in relation to ethical rules. However, she gives short shrift to the more analytically nuanced forms of divine command morality, which arguably avoid the sort of objections that she addresses. These perspectives maintain that God's commands are rooted in God's immutably good character, according to which he issues commands that are in harmony with the nature of the beings he has created. In this sense, natural law theory and divine command morality are in accord.

None of the authors defends a compatibilist (or soft determinist) view of human responsibility and divine sovereignty, which argues that moral agency and divine predestination are logically compatible. (Christian philosopher Paul Helm-not young enough for inclusion this volume-argues this in The Providence of God [InterVarsity, 1994].) However, Scott A. Davison nicely summarizes (without endorsing) the position in his essay "Divine Providence and Human Freedom." All the authors who address the matter either assume or advance libertarianism, the doctrine that humans have what is called counter-factual freedom or power of contrary choice. This may represent the majority view among the younger Christian philosophers (or all Christian philosophers), but a volume of this size addressed to the church at large (which contains not a few Calvinists) should have given compatibilism more room.