(Part 1)

JBTM Book Reviews
145
post-modern, and to see each of them as a set of individual philosophical commitments of
differing degrees of value. One response to the problem of contemporary secularism is to
weep in despair at what was lost, a kind of cultural Christianity. Another response is to see our
time as an opportunity for people to be genuinely Christian. In other words, secularization
may mean that Christianity is no longer the default position, but the availability of other
options means that the choice of Christianity is significant in a way that it has not been since
the first few centuries of the church’s history.
Even a cursory reading of this essay forces one to admit that Christians either have failed
to recognize the problem at all, or, have significantly underestimated the severity of the
problem. The problem, succinctly and cleverly stated in a section of the essay titled “The
Church’s Augustinian Moment,” is this: “how ‘in the world’ do Christians tell the truth?”
(44). In that section, Mohler argues for what seems to be a surprising claim, namely that
arguments based on natural law fail. The argument, though, is cogent. Natural law arguments
appeared to be the best hope for making the case for traditional morality to those who will
not affirm revealed truth. Even if one cannot derive normative facts from non-normative
ones, nature, or how things naturally are, should at least give us some insight into how things
ought to be. Mohler correctly points out that these arguments persuade only when there is
common agreement concerning what is “natural.” How, then, in a pluralistic democracy, do
we persuade others of the truth of a position? How do ministers equip their church members
to participate effectively in the political process, whether in government bodies, civic groups,
or corporate committees and task forces?
Mohler urges Christians to speak their convictions clearly and boldly. In an insightful
and practical essay, Millard Erickson reminds us that this boldness must always be tempered
by grace and love. The ineffectiveness of proclamation may very well be a consequence of
shifting worldviews, but it is certainly a result of the loss of civility in our discourse. What
keeps us from being civil? Erickson finds four reasons. First, politically and socially, we are
an increasingly polarized society. Second, we intentionally try to suppress views other than
our own. Third, we accuse others of being uncivil when that accusation is just a way of being
uncivil ourselves. Fourth, we have simply lost a sense of what we call “common” courtesy
(19–25). So, it is not surprising that proclamation is unsuccessful when it simply becomes an
escalating war of words.
Erickson continues to outline steps intended to aid in our effort to renew civil discourse.
Some of these require critical self-reflection and courage. We are urged to grow in selfunderstanding,
develop our abilities to think and express ourselves clearly, and speak with
forthrightness and sincerity. We are not only to hold ourselves responsible for clear thinking,
but also to hold others responsible. We cannot have civil discourse unless we have genuine
discourse.
The remaining steps focus on the transformation from mere discourse to civil discourse.