You ask, “Is there something written into the fabric of every human being that God exists and that we can only find genuine rest/happiness in that God?” Absolutely. Augustine spoke of it, CS Lewis speaks of it, and the Bible appears to speak of it in Romans 1: we are created to worship God. Our sin doesn’t stop us from worshipping, it just causes us to worship the creature rather than the Creator
I haven’t read McManus’s book, but his thesis doesn’t appear to be new, it resembles Reformed Epistemology (God is properly basic – Plantinga) and Presuppositional Apologetics (Van Til, Frame). The essence of both of these is not in “evidence” or “reason” for God, but refer to the basic understanding and yearning for God in all people. Is he significantly different from these?
Does this make McManus Reformed, or dare I say, neo-Reformed? (just a joke by the way)

Thanks for this one, Scot. I’ve been hearing about McManus and will look into this book. It has always been my opinion that the inner apologetic is where the real battle lies because it’s where the real decisions are made. Like Van Til, I would see Romans as saying that unbelievers are so by their choice to suppress what is clear and what they already know. Evidentialism holds little draw for me because I know that it’s in the deeper waters of the heart and soul that my own decisions have been made–not due to “evidence” but due to actual contact with God there.

This “inner apologetic” was the essence and starting point of Tim Keller’s argument in his book “The Reason for God.” Of course those who wish to argue against it will call it a byproduct of evolution improving reproductive yield.
But… like Dave L I think that the inner apologetic is what we either listen to and take the leap or rationalize away and learn to ignore.

Let me play devil’s advocate. Isn’t the fact that many people live their entire lives and find “rest” in something else other than God (as I understand him) a counter-argument? Some would say that these people don’t really find true “rest.” But, experientially speaking, I’ve known plenty of people who are not Christians by any measure and would say they are perfectly content and have meaning and purpose in their lives. Who am I to say to them: “but you don’t have *real* meaning, or *true* meaning.” Of course I believe that to some extent because I’ve experienced God’s grace and have seen countless others as well who have found what they would call true meaning, love, and destiny in a relationship with God. But as an apologetic, it feels a bit arrogant and entirely subjective. It reminds me of the many conversations I’ve had with people of another faith background (which will go unnamed) who talk of the burning in their heart and would testify to the reality and truth of their own experience of God just as strongly as I would (even though our experiences are mutually exclusive). Thoughts?

Many, including Joel Green, Nancey Murphy, Warren Brown, Marianne Meye Thompson at Fuller would call into question this very conception of the soul as unbiblical. The soul, as in psyche and nephesh deals with the tangible, total self–the 100 percent fully spiritual, fully flesh person! Which means the inner and outter groanings must be held together, because we are not “souls” in the Cartesian, neo-platonic sense, we are human beings. To be a human being means to be embodied, not some inward non-corporeal self that is not really inextricably bound up with your body. As, Warren Brown at Fuller Seminary put it recently, “you don’t have a body, you are a body” and a body created in the image of God! So the must connected “inward” and “soulish” cravings must be connected to outward and bodily, physical reality.

So, Sam #5, the psalmist in Psalm 42 is a blooming schizophrenic when he addresses his soul as an entity different from his speaking self??
“Why downcast, O my soul?” I don’t think so.

You should come hang out with some good Quakers if you want to explore the idea of God speaking to the human heart. I would argue that John 1:9 tells us that the light of God resides in every human being and calls all of us into a relationship with him. All who respond to this light and live in relationship with the light of Christ become children of God.
I would not argue that there is a part of each human which yearns for God; rather I would argue that God is actively calling each human to God.

Sam,
The so-called Fuller Theology wouldn’t have a problem with this, and I don’t think most other believers would either. Nancey Murphy talks about being overwhelmed by the presence of God in the physical (i.e. when we kneel in prayer or the like), so I don’t think she is denying an inner witness or testimony, she is simply denying the soul as a separate entity.
I’ve often said that my intellectual apologetics could all fail and I would most likely at least be a theist due to personal experience of something beyond. I can’t fully explain these experiences (I think we would all agree), but it’s very real and tangible.
RJS,
Transcendental experience and desire may have some evolutionary origin (I’m not so sure the theory fully gives an account, but even if it did…), but why would that discount it for those of us who see God working through evolution? I gladly take that leap and live by it (along with all of the other evidences that hold my world together).

Kyle,
I don’t think that the ability to suggest an evolutionary origin for transcendental experience and desire discounts that experience or desire. I was merely noting that the “apologetic” value was limited.
Norton (#4) brings up another limitation of this experience and desire as an “apologetic” – that it does not unerringly or even predominantly lead all to the same resolution.
On the other hand I think that this inborn sense of God is real and is an indication that God is real.

I debated commenting at all, but I suppose this is one topic on which the thoughts of someone like me are useful. My best attempt to describe my cultural and spiritual formation, after all, has been something like ‘relativistic pluralism’.
First, I do believe that ‘atheism’ is an unnatural human destination and is typically defined more as a reaction against a particular perspective or spirituality than as a perspective that stands and defines its own context. Thus we find that Dawkins, for example, is disbelieving a particular idea of God. If you take the time to understand the God (or gods) in whom he doesn’t believe, I don’t really blame him. I wouldn’t care to believe in them either. But we need to remember that atheism was also a charge leveled against the early Christians because they rejected all visible and widely known gods.
However, Dawkins does have a valid point when he says that this spiritual sense or general desire to worship is tied to the physical structure of the brain. Increasingly, we are finding that much about our ‘mind’ that was considered immaterial is tied to the physical brain. This should not, however, be distressing to any Christian. A proper Christian view has always been that the material and immaterial, matter and spirit, are intertwined and good. And that we were never meant to be separated from our bodies in any way. It does mean, as RJS points out, that any apologetic value is limited, since evolutionary explanations are perfectly adequate to account for the physical development of the brain and the mind it supports. The more we learn, the more that becomes clear.
Why then have Augustine and so many others made statements such as this? Well, I wouldn’t deny that there is some truth in them. But I would say that, for most human beings, if you have not been raised in a cultural context that predisposes you in some way toward Christianity, it’s a truth you will mostly recognize only in post-conversion retrospect. Augustine battled between the twin cultural influences of his shaping, Platonism and Christianity, his whole life. Often, the former held sway. (I would say it still held considerable sway after his conversion, especially since the evidence is that he read very little of the Greek fathers and based most of his Christian theological ideas on modified forms of Platonic thought. He did eventually become a saint known and canonized for his piety, if not his theology, across the whole church. But it was a long path for him.)
In truth, our hearts can find rest in many forms of spirituality. In fact, I would say that I still at times long to be able to return to some forms of spiritual practice and thought that I found particularly ‘restful’. I know those are like the transitory longings I still have for a cigarette more than a dozen years after I quit. I know I’m no longer the person who was able to find rest in them and they no longer suffice. But Christianity is not a simple faith. And a God of uncompromising, relentless love is dangerous indeed. Even veiled, it is hard to stand in the fire of God’s love.
If we can find rest in many places, how then are we drawn to Christianity? I think the narrative of Scripture is pretty clear. We have a God who pursues us. We are not first the seekers or the lovers. We are first the sought and the beloved. That’s why Romans 1 is so heartbreakingly sad. As we run and fight against the pursuit of love, we see that the God who will never force or coerce our will eventually lets us run. He gives us up to all which that entails. I have the sense from the sorts of things I read and hear that for some reason (and I don’t know why) a lot of people miss the heart of what Paul is writing about God in that section of his largest letter. It brought tears to my eyes the first time I read it and really understood it and my heart still aches each time I read it today.
For the Christian, however, there is no limit to the possibilities of our inner spiritual life. We carry the Spirit within us, drawing our spirit toward God. We ingest God in the Eucharist to nourish and transform our bodies and spirits. Once again, though, that is a gift of our God when we begin to follow him. I’m not convinced it has much apologetic value.
I like N.T. Wright’s approach in Simply Christian. He doesn’t speak of proofs. He speaks of signs, of pointers, of ‘echoes of a voice’. I think the echo of a voice is as far as we can take the inner apologetic.

After being a christian, it took a lot of counseling/therapy till my inner painful yearning was fixed and the fix focused on dealing with my childhood but great steps in relationship with God occured too. But I think the healing of my past is what healed the inner painful yearning.
Schaeffer advised not to witness to a mentally ill person because they may take Jesus to mean the answer to their problems and it ain’t so for the mentally ill. There’s more to it. Now, I was pretty broken when I entered counseling but I was a christian, a lousy christian, but a christian.
So I’m saying it’s hard when talking about the god sized hole or whatever, a yearning met only in God, because there are other things that make up those holes or yearnings.

ScottM,
I’m glad you commented on this thread because your comment was very thoughtful. Thanks!

I will point out that, whatever the societal and cultural norms may have been before the Western “sexual revolution”, it doesn’t much help us in finding a path forward. Little or nothing of that era remains. Even the sexual behavior of seniors, whose early formative culture mostly predates this period, has been radically altered to the point that it doesn’t look drastically different from that of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
I’ve also explored how Christianity interacted with the highly varied sexual cultures it encountered, especially in the first millenium. But I haven’t found a lot that I could distill into anything meaningful today, or at least nothing I could see a way to apply absent the sort of unified church which was both catholic and ecumenical they had. But it’s not just the church. The culture is also unprecendented. While many were distinctly unchristian, all ancient cultures had many rules and customs regarding marriage and sexual behavior. The closest I can discern today is something akin to the Wiccan Rede, “An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will”. Yet, while some sorts of behaviors are clearly harmful and pretty much universally condemned, the distinction of ‘harm’ is mostly an extremely fuzzy one. It does not produce a cultural standard.
One thing is clear. We can’t change the behavior of the church by changing the behavior of the culture. But we can’t even do anything to alter the sexual behavior within the church if we can’t both clearly define a workable and detailed sexual ethic (something I mostly haven’t seen) and be something close to one. Our radically fragmented ‘church’ is culturally marginalized and insignificant. There is no struggle between ‘Christian’ and cultural values and ethics, at least when it comes to sex. There are only cultural values. Whether or not someone also wears the label ‘Christian’ statistically seems to have little significance.