The four-part book, with each succeeding part building on the previous seeks to establish not only why, but also how the Christian mind could be developed to regain its original self, and to be able to deal with life issues on a more intellectual plain. However, for not being clear from the onset on this is tantamount to missing the connection Jesus made between life and God. The author as a result disengages most of the activities of our everyday lives from faith and discipleship. Although he failed to explain why “thinking objectively” is a risk-taking, it can be concluded that it is a risk worth-taking on its own merit. By attributing the loss of the Christian mind in American Christianity to the advent of the Great Awakening cannot be wholly true as there could be the influence of other intervening forces like the industrial revolution. Moreland continuously and vehemently insist on the need for the believer to engage in complex modes of engaging the mind. As we juxtapose that against the situation where Jesus was espousing simplicity when it comes to the believer’s approach to the Word, there is an initial difficulty which is put to rest with his discussion on the five barriers to reason, insisting that the development of the mind and its cultivation is critical for spiritual growth in God’s kingdom. Point of Correction: Part of the opening sentence of the third paragraph on page 23 on Evangelical Withdrawal Begun, appear to have a grammatical challenge. That section could have read: “Sadly, the emerging anti-intellectualism in the church created a lack of readiness to combat the widespread intellectual assault on Christianity that reached full force in the late 1800s.” Instead of: “Sadly, the emerging anti-intellectualism in the church created a lack of readiness for the widespread intellectual assault on Christianity that reached full force in the late 1800s. A real strong point was made where the writer admonished that it is not always necessary to support moral viewpoints with Scripture, as we can draw inferences from natural law and the physical world around us. The problem envisaged with this position, however, is whether these could be wholly reliable, as they could be highly subjective and culturally-interpreted. Additionally, how does that approach fare in the face of the idea of the “Solar Scriptula?” It is sad, to say the least, that Reagan could not get the expected support from the evangelical clergy at the time. But to attribute their disqualification to their lack of knowledge in extra-biblical literature is quite bizarre. Was it the only requirement? In explaining the functions of the soul, the author states that, “The eyes do not see. I (my soul) see with or by means of the eyes.” The challenge is, what happens to a blind person under this circumstance? Can the soul see through the blind eye? Can it be concluded that the function of the eye is to see with the soul, which acts as the “control center” as its main function? In his attempt to distinguish between the various departments of the person – soul, spirit, mind, etc., the author shied away from establishing the exact difference between the soul and the mind. At one time he made the two to appear as one. At other times, they are two separate entities. The discussion on the “Empty Self” and also of the Five Groups of Virtue, were well addressed. However, the points raised on the importance of English Grammar were quite technical and needed more space for proper understanding. The statement made to the effect that the devaluation of grammar correlates closely with a devaluation of the mind, truth and thought, could not be further from the truth. But it needs to be taken further to discourage the use of “sheng” and other pidgin language in religious discourse, if need be. The most technical part of the book is the section on Principles of Reasoning. But the author is recommended for the attempt to simplify the approach, though not entirely comprehensive to all newcomers. Moreland then helps us to look at the different aspects of a properly functioning Christian mind. Beginning with the heart-beat of God – evangelism, he guides us to see the different areas of life in which the growing Christian mind is essential. But then, do we really need apologetics in evangelism? Should evangelism be an argument? And how much time is available in an evangelistic campaign (in my church, for example), to raise arguments and refute them? And how can this exercise be carried out among children and people with little or no education? Is it therefore being advocated that evangelism must be the preserve of the elite? Having the disciples of Christ as reference point, with their fisherfolk background, what did they study, or what occupied their thinking? And what was the content of their message that turned the world upside down? Touching on reasoning, this methodism and particularism as pontificated by Rene Descartes and John Locke, requires more time for proper assimilation, for why think that I have to know how I know this before I can know it? For all said and done, Christians today, for all intents and purposes, must embrace this challenge of sanitizing (as it were) our minds through proper reasoning regimen and critical thinking and embrace the logical assessment of issues, if we are going to maintain our saltiness. And this indeed must affect our mission statements, and vision statements and our curriculum at every level. It is high time Christians become different from the broader society. And the distinctiveness of our difference should not be derogatory, but respected and awed. This accomplishment is a possibility, as we become a reading and a studying church community, and readily offering ourselves as conduits through which God’s manifold wisdom can flow to a thirsty world.