There has been no one who has influenced me more about bringing the gospel to the urban centers of our country than Timothy Keller. His vision and love for people who live in the big cities is both personally challenging and authentically engaging. I have listened to him preach a few times and have been impressed by his conviction regarding the truth of the gospel and his passion for reaching the lost with the gospel. I knew I had to read his new book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism when it was released.
Perhaps, I did not realize I was purchasing a book strong in philosophy, yet written for a popular audience. I actually wish this book was required reading when I took the class Introduction to Philosophy rather than some other of the drier books I had to read. When I say this book is strong in philosophy, I mean, Keller has a way of getting to the heart of the Christian worldview and all other worldviews to argue for the coherence of Biblical Christianity against any other worldview. He does a masterful job of explaining what Christianity really is (dispelling what some people think it is) and what the Christian gospel is all about.
As the subtitle indicates, the audience is the skeptic. Having a growing church in the heart of New York City and serving there 19 years, Keller is no novice when it comes to having dealt with skeptics. In the first part of the book Keller deals with seven objections or questions the skeptic might raise against Christianity. Some of these include, “There can’t be just one religion,” “How could a good God allow suffering?,” and “How can a loving God send people to hell?” I found, for the most part, Keller did a good job of responding to these with grace, yet demonstrating how the objection really reflected faulty presuppositions or simply misinformation.
The second part of the book deals with reasons for faith. Here Keller simply states what it means to be a Christian. From arguments to God’s existence, to the problem of sin, to the story of the cross, and the reality of the resurrection, Keller shows the unity of the Christian worldview and the rationality of it.
I am thankful for Tim Keller’s hard work and faithfulness to the gospel of Christ. God is greatly using him to bring many to Jesus Christ.
There are, however, a few points I did not agree with.
1. I think Keller should have put more emphasis on God’s Word. It is not used too much in answering the objections and is still not used much when he talks what faith is all about. The Bible, being the foundation of the Christian Worldview, must be given ample attention and be given a chance to speak the truth. It must be the lens which we look through to evaluate all else. While I believe Keller does this, he doesn’t show the reader how or why he is doing it.
2. I do not agree with Keller’s view of creation. Keller says, “The difficulty comes in the few places in the Bible where the genre is not easily identifiable, and we aren’t completely sure how the author expects it to be read. Genesis 1 is a passage whose interpretation is up for debate among Christians, even those with a “high” view of Scripture. I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 14 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event. . . . I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a “song” about the wonder and meaning of God’s creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened. There will always be debates about how to interpret some passages – including Genesis 1. But it is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can’t be taken literally then none of it can be. That isn’t true of any human communication.” I think there is a lot wrong with this statement. While Keller does give a few footnotes of those who might support his view, he never really gives evidence for why he believes such a claim. It made me read this and automatically think, “He has not done his homework, he has just accepted a view which straddles the middle trying to save face in the intellectual society.” I know it would not have been appropriate for him to go into great detail defending this belief in the book, which is not the point of the book. I was at least looking for more general support such as, “After greatly studying the original language of Genesis it is clear . . .” Yet this was never stated. If Genesis one is a “song” why does it stop at chapter 2? Why not chapter 3, or 5, or 12, or 50? Is God’s rest on the seventh day (beginning of chapter 2) narrative? What about how God created man in Genesis 2 is this just part of the “song?” There are so many more questions one could ask here. For an argument as to why Genesis 1 or 2 cannot be poetry read this short article by someone who has thoroughly done his homework.
While there are these two major points I contend with, I was also greatly convicted with what Keller had to say about fanaticism and moralism in the church. He has seen what goes on in the church in America and is not ashamed to point out that which is wrong. I hope the Lord continues to bless Keller’s church and ministry in Manhattan. As for the book, I hope many skeptics are challenged by it and the Lord uses it to start to soften their heart. I do not think I would hand the book to a skeptic I encountered, but now would definitely take advantage of the rational given in this book as I present the gospel.
Excerpt:
Pharisaic people assume they are right with God because of their moral behavior and right doctrine. This leads naturally to feelings of superiority toward those who do not share their religiosity, and from there to various forms of abuse, exclusion, and oppression. This is the essence of what we think of as fanaticism.
What if, however, the essence of Christianity is salvation by grace, salvation not because of what we do but because of what Christ has done for us? Belief that you are accepted by God be sheer grace is profoundly humbling. The people who are fanatics, then, are so not because they are too committed to the gospel but because they’re not committed to it enough.
Think of people you consider fanatical. They’re overbearing, self-righteous, opinionated, insensitive, and harsh. Why? It’s not because they are too Christian but because they are not Christian enough. They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are not fanatically humble, sensitive, loving, empathetic, forgiving, or understanding – as Christ was. Because they think of Christianity as a self-improvement program they emulate the Jesus of the whips in the temple, but not the Jesus who said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7). What strikes us as overly fanatical is actually a failure to be fully committed to Christ and his gospel.