Keller,
Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Dutton, 2008. 293 pp.
I noted in my last
blog post that I consider Timothy Keller to be, potentially, a C. S. Lewis of
our age – an apologist who has the intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and
literary gifts to communicate the truths and truthfulness of the Christian
faith effectively to a broad audience. I
have embarked on a six-part series interacting with Keller’s two most prominent
apologetic works, The Reason for God
(2008) and Making Sense of God
(2016). Last time, I noted that The Reason for God is split into two
major sections – the first half of the book dealing with ‘negative apologetics’
– that is, responding to typical objections against the Christian faith; the
second half dealing with ‘positive apologetics’ – that is, setting forth
reasons to believe that Christianity is true.
I previously summarized and evaluated the first half of the first half
of The Reason for God, analyzing
Keller’s responses to charges of religious intolerance (Chapter 1), the problem
of evil (Chapter 2), and the inhibition of freedom in Christianity (Chapter
3). In this post, we will cover the last
half of part one, and in my final post on The
Reason for God we will look at his positive arguments for Christian faith.
Along with
intolerance, evil, and constraint, another significant objection against
Christianity is the injustice perpetrated by individual Christians and the
Church (Chapter Four, “The Church Is Responsible For So Much Injustice”). Keller notes that skepticism is often
prompted initially by negative experiences with individual or corporate
Christianity (52). First, Keller
discusses character flaws in individual Christians, notes that common grace
allows unbelievers to live morally upright lives (53), and acknowledges the
very real flaws of ordinary Christians.
However, Keller fails to mention the presence of ‘false believers’
within the Church—people who claim to be Christian, but are not, and are the
source of much ‘Christian’-perpetrated evil in the world. Second, Keller rebuts Christopher Hitchens’
argument that religion is the source of most violence and oppression in the
world. Finally, in the most fascinating
section of this chapter, Keller addresses fanaticism, suggesting that the
problem with most fanatics is not that they are “too Christian,” but rather
“not Christian enough.” (57) Keller insists that while oppression of others is
inexcusable (59), it is not true Christians who perpetrate such evils, but
rather people who have an incomplete faith (60). He closes by asking the skeptic on what basis
they can oppose oppression if they do not have the transcendent biblical basis
from which to insist that oppression is wrong (60-61).
The doctrine of
hell is particularly troublesome, not only to skeptics, but also to many
Christians (Chapter Five, “How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?”). Keller uncovers the hidden presupposition
that God cannot be both a God of love and a God of justice, and demonstrates
that love requires wrath and anger at injustice and the ruination of lives
(73). In response to the objection that
eternal punishment in hell is excessive, Keller introduces the idea that “hell
is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into
infinity.” (78) Following Lewis, Keller claims that God does not send people to
hell, but rather allows us to condemn ourselves to hell in respect for our
ultimate freedom (79).
Keller then
tackles the prickly problem of miracles and evolution (Chapter Six, “Science
Has Disproved Christianity”). While he
acknowledges that miracles are difficult to believe in, and cannot be
empirically tested for, Keller also insists that science simply does not have
the tools to ascertain whether miracles are possible or not. To insist that science disproves the
miraculous is to move from science into philosophical presupposition (86). Keller makes concessions to evolutionary
theory that will trouble some conservative evangelicals (86-87), and insists
that evolution and the biblical picture of creation need not be interpreted as
contradictory accounts (92). I admire
the apologetic strategy and heart behind Keller’s stance. Keller states: “Since Christian believers occupy different positions
on both the meaning of Genesis 1 and on the nature of evolution, those who are
considering Christianity as a whole should not allow themselves to be
distracted by this intramural debate.
The skeptical inquirer does not need to accept any one of these
positions in order to embrace the Christian faith. Rather, he or she should concentrate on and
weigh the central claims of Christianity.” (94) Keller is saying that since
Christianity is potentially
compatible with evolution, this issue cannot be held up as a reason to not become a Christian.
The final objection to
Christian faith is the unreliability of the Bible (Chapter Seven, “You Can’t
Take the Bible Literally”). There are two
predominant objections to the Bible which Keller treats in turn: its historical
fallibility and its cultural obsolescence.
In response to liberal scholars’ assertions that the Bible is
embellished, imagined, and untrustworthy as a historical record, Keller suggests
we can trust it because of its early date and eyewitness status (101-03), the
historical nature of its content (104-05), and the internal evidence of its
incidental details (106). Keller’s sound
defense of New Testament reliability could be strengthened by appeal to the
universal early church testimony and the supporting evidence of archaeology. Keller then responds to the charges of
“outmoded and regressive teaching.” (109) He first notes that many troublesome
texts (e.g. Ephesians 6:5 on slavery) can be cleared up “with a decent
commentary that puts the issue into historical context.” (110) But Keller
admits that there will still remain some texts, properly contextualized, which
will offend and trouble the modern reader.
However, he warns against cultural snobbery, “the unexamined belief in
the superiority of their historical moment over all others,” (111) and insists
that if there is a God, He is more than likely going to have some ‘views’ which
upset you (112).
Keller’s negative apologetic
is necessarily cursory and brief, as he covers topics in fifteen pages which
other authors have spent hundreds of pages discussing. Thus, there is a sense in which his
presentation leaves one wanting more.
However, Keller has provided endnotes which go into greater depth on
some issues, and point the curious reader to further sources which give
lengthier treatment of the issue at hand.
Thus, the first half of the book is a worthy apologetic primer, getting
at the heart of objections to the Christian faith, and giving the reader the
tools to engage in further study.
