In this delightful volume, five Christian apologists present five distinct approaches to defending the faith. Despite their differences, these defenders of the faith agree that the church ought not to neglect critical but constructive and harmonious discourse on the question of apologetic method since, as editor and contributor, Timothy Paul Jones, says, “we are all apologists now” (p. 1).

Melissa Cain Travis opens the discussion with a defense of classical apologetics. Insisting on a more agile version of this approach, she points out that there is no “one-size-fits-all protocol for effective engagement with a nonbeliever,” therefore, any worthwhile approach must be mindful of contextual and personal nuance (p. 22). Accordingly, while Travis stands by the well-known two-step strategy, which aims first to establish “the plausibility of God’s existence” and then defend “Christian doctrines,” she proposes a “holistic classical apologetics” (p. 23). Travis’s holistic approach is designed to engage not only the mind but also the “imagination, conscience, aesthetic sensibilities, and innate existential longings,” in addition to “the continual guiding role of the Holy Spirit in a person’s journey to faith” (p. 23). Travis’s exposition consists of a brief review of apologetic uses of natural theology throughout church history, followed by a few documented instances of the classical method in action, with considerable attention given to the conversion of novelist and screenwriter Andrew Klavan.

Sean McDowell ably expounds the evidential approach. He says rightly that “Christianity is rooted in a public, testable historical event: the resurrection of Jesus” (p. 51). McDowell offers a brief theoretical exposition of his approach, including an attempt to recover W. K. Clifford’s evidentialist dictum from Alvin Plantinga’s critique, among others, along with a claim to a via media between William Lane Craig’s view of the primacy of the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit and the need for actual historical data to believe in. Believers “can know” through the testimony of the Spirit as well as on the basis of public evidence. “It is not either/or. It is both/and” (p. 55). McDowell then rehearses key instances of evidential defense of true faith throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

Next, James Anderson explains presuppositional apologetics. This method, associated with Cornelius Van Til and others, engages the unbeliever at the level of implicit convictions, or “presuppositions,” regarding ultimate reality (metaphysics) and ultimate authority (epistemology and ethics). As Anderson explains, the presuppositional method consists of exposing the unbeliever’s implicit convictions to the light of scrutiny, demonstrating their incoherence (legitimately ad hominem in some cases), and then presenting Christian presuppositions as a more viable alternative. The third step, in fact, involves presenting Christian theism as such, along with a call to repentance. Indeed, Christian theism cannot be simply affirmed; one must accept it on authority, which means accepting the authority structures of Christianity. Accordingly, Anderson explains the authority and self-attestation of the word of God as he develops a revelational epistemology. At the end of the day, presuppositionalism presents a simple choice between God and man as ultimate authority and claims that only one of these is a coherent, functional, and defensible option.

Cultural apologetics, as defended by D. A. Horton, is a relatively new addition to discussions of apologetic method. As Horton points out, his cultural method is not exclusive of other methods; instead, it incorporates them. This incorporation happens via a broad repertoire of cultural contact points with unbelief, including philosophy (classical and presuppositional apologetics) and science (evidential apologetics). Horton’s cultural apologetics seeks to engage in dialogue from a common cultural experience and then redirect attention to Christ as the source of all that is good and beautiful in human culture, as opposed to the sinful misdirection of the good things of God’s creation. This “dialogical” approach should be carried out, Horton says, “in collaboration with the Holy Spirit” (p. 113). Horton works from Acts 17 and Justin Martyr to make his case.

Finally, editor Timothy Paul Jones explains what he calls an “ecclesial apologetics” in which the Christian presents the exceptional moral character of the people of God as both outstanding and as basically impossible to account for by natural means alone. Jones suspects that over the course of the history of the church, apologetics has succumbed to various distractions and wandered from its very simple biblical mandate, namely, to put our heavenly Father on display by doing good works (Matt 5:16). Jones joins Carl Trueman and Michael Kruger in calling for a retrieval of the early church’s spirit of witness to the gospel of the one true God through a moral integrity so unusual that no earthly explanation will suffice.

One strength of this volume is its sensitivity to changing circumstances and to the peculiarities of our day, in particular, the lamentably aggressive tone of public discourse. This sensitivity is evident in the inclusion of cultural and ecclesial apologetics, as well as in the various ways in which each apologetic method acknowledges the strengths of other methods and strives to be flexible and responsive to contexts and individuals. A second notable strength is the abundant interaction. Each presentation is followed by no fewer than four critical but constructive responses.

This later strength, however, draws attention to a potential weakness of the book, namely, that at several points the content feels underdeveloped. One sees this in the responses, which generally fall short of being exciting and fresh, possibly because the presentations themselves at times lack a self-critical edge. Furthermore, the frequent attempts to update and augment methods threaten to dissolve the unique character of each approach. In such moments, there is a risk of implicitly conceding the inadequacy of one’s preferred method. Upon reflection, it is possible that in striving for accessibility, this study has not quite delivered the vitality that such a discussion deserves, given the abundance of relevant literature. Nonetheless, overall, this text is a welcome revitalization of what I consider the very important question of apologetic method.