An acquaintance of mine, Roy Williams, became a Christian a few years ago, and set about writing down the reasons he gave up his sceptical agnosticism and embraced Christ. I saw a draft and was really impressed at the intellectual thoroughness of his discussion about how he came to be convinced that Christianity is the truth.
Roy kept working on this story with a view to publication, and the time has arrived! He’s revised it quite a bit from the version I saw, in the wake of the plethora of books that are anti-God, such as Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”.
And ABC Books have now published Roy’s thoughts, under the title “God, Actually”. (Yes, as in the public broadcaster ABC, which sees Roy’s book as making a valid contribution to the God debate - good on them!) The official launch is coming up soon, but the book is now available.
God, Actually is a highly original and eclectic book about Christianity, covering a wide range of subjects. Williams doesn’t preach to the converted or attempt to browbeat sceptics. Instead, he persuades using rational argument drawn from non-religious sources: physics, chemistry and biology; politics, history and sociology; music, novels, poetry and film.
In part the book is a counter to the recent bestsellers by atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, and shows that belief in Christianity can and should be based on logical deductions from known facts. It is not a matter of ignorant superstition or blind faith.
Worth looking out for, I think.
Some of you may be familiar with Roy Williams’ writing. He has contributed, for instance, book reviews to The Australian newspaper, such as the following review of Robyn Williams’ attempted critique of intelligent design:
I am very interested in apologetics myself but we should recognise that it is not as though someone can come to trust in Christ simply by being convinced of something written by a Christian apologist.
Faith in Christ is a gift from God. He takes us, whilst spiritually dead, and transforms us - regenerating us. No amount of argument can convince us without God’s grace.
While God conditions those He brings to himself through various means - including apologetics - we should be careful not to say we became Christians by virtue of an argument alone.
This is not to say there is something irrational about Christian faith - that apologetic arguments get us some way but they cannot get us all the way there. An apologetic can be absolutely sound without changing the heart of a sinner.
Andrew, you make a valid point. The author of “God, Actually” would, I think, agree with it.
In the introduction, Roy speaks of how he came to faith through all sorts of works of God in his life and on his heart. He goes on to say that “once that happened, there began to weigh upon my conscience a compulsion to get absolutely clear in my own head the reasons why I believed in Christianity.”
I have to add a little bit of an update. Despite the existence of the Allen and Unwin link that I provided in my previous post, the book has not yet been printed. It is being printed now and will be available in June, when it will be launched in Sydney.
I’ve read the introduction and chapter one, which Roy graciously sent to me. I’m very much looking forward to reading the rest when it’s available. From what I’ve seen so far, it’s a very good book. I expect it will become a significant piece of armour in the on-going debate with Richard Dawkins and the other atheist authors who’ve been grabbing the headlines and sales dollars lately.
Amazing how Dawkins’ supporters can jump to conclusions about Roy and what he’s written before they even read the book!
“God, Actually” is being officially published tomorrow (June 6th) and is available through ABC books, online at ABC Shop and other book stores (presumably Dymocks, who are taking over the ABC bookshops, I believe).
Books on evidentialist apologetics like this have their place. It appears to be a work aimed at a popular audience. There are, of course, scholarly works that would be far more rigorous, such as Richard Swinburne’s The Existence of God and The Resurrection of God Incarnate.
The thing I don’t like about evidentialist apologetics is that it allows the unbeliever to assume:
1. that apart from the truth of Christianity they would be able reason at all.
2. they are neutral with respect to evidences for God’s existence.
We should do our apologetics Biblically and that means building an apologetics model around Biblical ideas that:
1. God reveals Himself to us clearly, there is no excuse for not believing in and glorifying Him and that non-believers are simply suppressing the truth in unrighteousness: see, for example, Romans 1.
2. God is the ultimate standard of all things and that apart from Him all things are made foolish.
Books that talk about God probably existing and so on pander to sinful human’s pretended autonomy from God. If the non-believer wants to engage with a Christian in debate, we should challenge the non-believer to show how, given his worldview, he can even play that game.
First thing I have to say is I am so glad that Roy took the time, and had the guts, (and the gentleness and respect) to tackle this issue so publically. The first two parts of the book had me gripped and answered a lot of questions for me (or confirmed my own thoughts about the incongruency of atheism).
Unfortunately, as a person educated not only in science and pyschology, but extensivley in Christian theology, I found the last half of the book gut wrenchingly disappointing. I know Roy is on a spiritual journey and he may alter his position (as we all do as we grow) in future days, but the bottom line for me was that he missed the entire Gospel and he has gone public with an idea (which he could not base in biblical references) that we can be right with God other than through the sacrifical death or Jesus Christ. In fact, he does not even utter a word indicating he has even heard of the sacrificial death of Christ. What he does say about the death and resurrection of Christ is that God only meant it to be a kind of proof of His existance and that it’s now up to us to do the best we can to seek Him and hopefully we will be saved in the end (and by the way he doesnt accept the biblical concept of eternal punishment because it doesn’t suit him).
This to me was really dissappointing. After doing so much to prove God’s existance and the facts of Christ’s life, death and resurrection, he would have been in a prime position to present the Gospel (Romans 3:21-31 for example and Isaiah 53). Yet he doesn’t. The book falls flat on its face while beginning at a point of arguing for the existance of the Christian God and then finishes with denying the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
So, I guess, since the Gospel is the power of God for salvation and there is no other name save that of Christ whereby anyone may be saved, I have to give this book a thumbs down… might be good anti-atheism and gives good arguments for God’s existance but you’d be on the wrong track if you thought it an evangelistic tool.
Roy notes in his book that as we consider all his points together that they support each other and tie in together to form consistent evidence. Unfortunately for me, when I got to the end of the book and saw how he consistently denied clear biblical concepts , lacked biblical referencing and swung so sharply to personal opinon rather than objective truth, blatantly disagreeing with the biblical points presented by Carson etc, I began to wonder how it might undo his whole case altogerther. That’s where I closed the book and realized I couldn’t pass it on, or recommend it as I initially hoped.
But, Roy, if you’re reading this, I do want to at least thank you (despite these theologial objections I have) for taking the stand on the secular stage and putting your best foot forward and carrying forward the discussion positively for the existance of God in Christ.
God bless you as you continue your joureny toward truth.
Heather, I’m so glad that you enjoyed the first two parts of God, Actually. Thank you for your words of encouragement. I’m honoured that you have taken the trouble to read my book and write an analysis of it for public consumption.
I didn’t expect that anyone would agree with me on all issues, so I’m not surprised that there are certain passages in the last part of the book to which you take exception.
That, of course, is your privilege. And you may be right and I may be wrong. But, with respect, I think it’s quite unjust to allege that I “consistently den[y] clear biblical concepts” and, worse, “finish up denying the basic tenets of the Christian faith”.
I’m also very disappointed that you wouldn’t feel able to pass the book on or recommend it to others. Why couldn’t you pass it on with a caveat? “I liked this book on X, Y and Z but disagreed with the author on A, B and C.”
On one crucial issue – the Atonement – I’m afraid you have misstated my position. You say that “he does not even utter a word indicating he has even heard of the sacrificial death of Christ”. To the contrary, I believe most fervently in the Atonement, and say so plainly in the book (p. 187):
The Crucifixion brought Jesus’s experience of suffering as a man to a level comparable with the most hideous suffering endured by any ordinary person on Earth. Further, the vile conduct of the Roman and Jewish authorities compared at least in kind with the vileness of Man’s collective sins – past and future – the atonement for which was a key purpose of Jesus’s death and resurrection.
I go on to say this:
[T]wo key themes – atonement for Man’s wrongs and triumph over death itself – distil, for me, the meaning of the Cross. The first focuses attention on the sacrifical element of the Crucifixion.
I then refer (pp. 187-8) to the parable of the unmerciful servant, and quote with approval G Campbell Morgan’s analysis of it: “If God so forgives, by suffering loss on our behalf, He does it in order that we may also forgive, by suffering loss”.
There seem to be two issues on which Heather and I must, for the time being, agree to disagree. I discuss them in Chapters 9 and 10 respectively. The first is the question whether it is only practising Christians who can be put right with God, a proposition I dispute. The second is whether Hell is a place of eternal punishment, a proposition I also dispute.
No doubt many readers of this website will think I am wrong on both counts, but please give me credit for working through the issues as best I could. It is not a matter of my just lightly picking a position that happens to “suit”. I have followed my conscience and I cite biblical passages to try to support my analysis. (By the way, I am acquainted with both Romans 3 and Isaiah 53 – verses from each are referred to with approval in the book.)
Let’s not lose sight of the big picture here by bickering amongst ourselves. The main thing is to get atheists and other secular people thinking along spiritual lines.
But, with respect, I think it’s quite unjust to allege that I “consistently den[y] clear biblical concepts” and, worse, “finish up denying the basic tenets of the Christian faith”.
It appears that Heather has a very specific view of “the basic tenets of the Christian faith” which includes doctrine absent from of our formal creeds. Anyhow, I would certainly disagree with the notion that you have to have a good understanding of atonement to have genuine faith in the Lordship of Jesus (though it certainly helps).
Heather Gartshore - 07 July 2008 12:02 AM
What [Roy] does say about the death and resurrection of Christ is that God only meant it to be a kind of proof of His existance and that it’s now up to us to do the best we can to seek Him and hopefully we will be saved in the end ...
the bottom line for me was that [Roy] missed the entire Gospel
I haven’t yet read the book but from Roy’s brief snippets above this seems an unfair and quite inaccurate conclusion. As to what “the Gospel” is, I found this link very insightful.
[quote author="Roy Thomas Williams"]There seem to be two issues on which Heather and I must, for the time being, agree to disagree. I discuss them in Chapters 9 and 10 respectively. The first is the question whether it is only practising Christians who can be put right with God, a proposition I dispute. The second is whether Hell is a place of eternal punishment, a proposition I also dispute.
Regarding the first point, and hopefully by way of clarification, it appears you (Roy) see the (atoning) death of Jesus as crucial to salvation but that it’s still possible (irrespective of whether it’s likely) for some who don’t know about Jesus to achieve salvation. (Faithful OT Jews come immediately to mind and possibly a few Ninevites too). As to the second point, I’m sure regulars here will know that I’m very much in agreement with you on that issue.
[quote author="Roy Thomas Williams"]Let’s not lose sight of the big picture here by bickering amongst ourselves. The main thing is to get atheists and other secular people thinking along spiritual lines.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post and offer up your objections where I have failed to understand or abosrb the contents you have graciously quoted. Having revisited those pages I am thankful you highlighted them for me. As for the other issues we may agree to disagree and as I did say, I am very appreciative that you have taken the time to write the book at all and make a significant presence on the world stage regarding the topic. Thank you also for inspiring me to read again C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity"… a book which has been of significant timing and encouragement to me in the past week.
With Gracious love and prayers for God’s blessings
Heather
Upon reading Simon Smart’s positive review of God, Actually I cannot but feel perplexed as to which God is actual. No doubt Roy has sought the Christian God, but has he succeeded? Sadly, even though I have not yet read the book (and probably never will), it seems that he has failed. It seems to turn out that Roy’s God is actually not God at all but an idol.
Two points of clarification are needed here:
1) By God, not god, I mean the self-contained, ontological Trinity that has clearly, and sufficiently revealed Himself in Scripture.
2) Please do not take this to be a personal attack. I am seeking to critque Roy’s apologetical method and conclusions, and that is all.
Returning now, Roy’s evidential apologetic method has betrayed him. In seeking to work his way from darkness into light, he has not found God’s light but man-made lights. There is no reason whatsoever to think that his god is essentially any different from say Plato’s god or Aristotle’s god, or the god of modern philosophy! Though he sought what I hope was God, the self-contained Trinity, he appears to have found but a dead idol. His method has deceitfully ensured this.
Roy appears to have failed to consider the entrance of sin into the world and its noetic effect on man. Nature reveals God but man, in his rebellion, seeks to supress this knowledge (Rom 1:18). Man, in order to truly know God his Creator, needs the light of Scripture to dispel the fog of his intellect. No mere evidences will point fallen man to our God.
If I may, for those interested, I would like to recommend a short, little tract that has, in my opinion, seriously and truly dealt with the issue at hand. It is entitled Why I Believe in God written by the late Cornelius Van Til, which can be viewed online at the Centre for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.
Welcome to the forums and thanks for making your first post.
I interviewed Roy Williams a few months back. He is a professing Christian and from the two or more hours I spent talking to him it was clear that he trusted in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour.
Roy’s genuine faith in the Trinitarian God of the Bible (Yahweh) comes out in his book God, Actually and in my opinion, even comes out in Simon Smart’s review, particularly in this sentence: “Finally, like C.S. Lewis, the writer who perhaps influenced him the most, Williams became a somewhat reluctant convert.”
Roy has indeed been converted to faith in Christ. It is this faith in Christ that makes us right with God.
You say:
It seems to turn out that Roy’s God is actually not God at all but an idol.
and
Roy has sought the Christian God, but ... it seems that he has failed.
and your reason for Roy having failed is because…
Roy’s evidential apologetic method has betrayed him. In seeking to work his way from darkness into light, he has not found God’s light but man-made lights. There is no reason whatsoever to think that his god is essentially any different from say Plato’s god or Aristotle’s god, or the god of modern philosophy!
I would have to disagree. Roy trusts in Christ’s death and resurrection as the saving work that makes him, as a Christian, acceptable to God.
Whether or not Roy arrived to this understanding with the correct apologetical method is less important becasue the fact his he has found God. Or to please the Calvinists, God has found him!
You may be able to accuse Roy of faulty scholarship, but you cannot say he has found “he has not found God’s light’ because God’s light is Jesus Christ and Roy has certainly found and come to trust in him.
Also, you say:
even though I have not yet read the book (and probably never will)
I would suggest that you do read the book before criticising Roy’s “apologetical method and conclusions”. In fact, if you have read the God, Actuallyreview, you would have seen that you can win a copy of the book for yourself. Why not email me and try to pick one up? I think you’d find it a great read, even if it is a book you end up disagreeing with.
Finally, I found your link to the works of Cornelius Van Til really interesting. I also looked him up on Wikipedia and it seems like he was (and still is, through his writing) a really valuable Christian thinker. I had not heard of him before so thanks for broadening my horizons.
I was never intending to criticize Mr William’s faith, hence my second point of clarification in my original post. To state again, I was only critizing his apologetical method and conclusions that he presents in his book to his audience. You appear to have taken my reasons for Roy’s failure as an attack upon his own personal journey unto Christianity. That was not the case at all; rather, I am simply critizing his arguments for Christianity, more precisely the existence of God. His arguments are essentially evidential, and evidential apologetics is, taken on its own, self-frustrative. His arguments do not exclusively point us to the self-contained Trinity, namely God. It is feasible for fallen man to conclude from Roy’s arguments that our God is essentially the same as say Plato’s forms. Ultimately, his arguments present no threat to the atheist in his would-be autonomous state.
I am not surprised by Mr William’s method since he himself testifies to C.S.Lewis’s heavy influence upon him. C.S.Lewis argued in the exact same manner (most notably in his Mere Christianity).
This debate over God will never be resolved until, to state the matter most clearly, we Christians presuppose our God as we seek to vindicate Him. We must reason circularly, which our leading apologetical figures in Australia hate to do.
I think I understand where you are coming from. In which case, I guess what you are expressing about Roy’s arguments might be fair enough.
I think at this point I should leave it to Roy or someone else more learned than me (and I say that without a hint of false humility) to discuss the finer points.
Sorry if I appeared to come across as overly-defensive RE: Roy’s personal faith. Glad to hear we sorted that misunderstanding out.
And please take up the offer to win a copy of the book. I think you’ll find it to be a thoroughly well-researched and thought provoking read.
Thanks for your interest, Adam.
PS. On an unrelated matter God, Actually has been picked up by a UK based publishing company for release in the US, UK and other parts of the world excluding Australia and New Zealand. Congratulations Roy!
Please do not take this to be a personal attack. I am seeking to critque Roy’s apologetical method and conclusions, and that is all.
Well, you really need to read the book before you can do that with any credibility. Seriously.
Returning now, Roy’s evidential apologetic method has betrayed him.
I’ve spent some time looking into presuppositionalism. I read Van Til’s “Christian Apologetics” last year, and his overall approach seems to make some sense. What I don’t understand is how it can be applied in practice. The book was thin in that area. I’ve listened to presuppositionalists argue, and it seems to me that their subjects really need a degree in philosophy to even enter the debate - not much use for Joe Truck Driver from Rooty Hill.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
