Yancey has many good judgments. But the question "What good is God?" is not answered in a form that many would probably expect. He raises the issue in the very starting point of the book and then the lie down of the book is spent describing Christians overcoming difficulties and the need for them to continue to overcome difficulties, mostly by being gracious. It isn't explained how any of this answers the question "What good is God?" but I'm sure most readers will figure out about partly form through that they are supposed to see what good God is by looking at the riots of Christians 'tween persecution, suffering, and sin. At the very end of the book he states this explicitly, but I think it might be better to state this plain so the elocutionist knows what the point of these (sometimes) circuitous stories are. Yancey is correct to point out that many Christian be happies are evidence that God is good (in this non-moral spirit). But, in my postulate, he could have done a better job at drawing out the explicit reasons God is good: at drawing out the explicit reason Christians can show caritas, grow in caritas, and forgive. He could have done a better job at drawing out the reason why a Christian esprit of caritas and amity is different than a Buddhist esprit of caritas and amity. In my postulate, a critical elocutionist could walk away from this book thinking "In the end, Humanist ideals of consistency and caritas are just as good as God. So why do I need that God gear? It looks to me that the only thing that made a difference was the life's cull to grow in caritas or the life's cull to be forgiving. So I'll just be a gracious life and you can keep the god-gear!"