The Reason for God, Belief in an Age of Skepticism, Timothy Keller

Aren't all religions the same? Does God exist? Didn't religion cause most of the wars? How can a loving God send people to hell? Can the Bible be taken literally? These are but a sampling of the white-hot topics that Timothy Keller takes on in this book. 

    If you are serious about asking questions like these and even more serious about receiving cogent and passionate answers then you must get your hands on this book. Keller seeks to meet such people right where they are. He takes their objections and questions kindly and intentionally. His passion to show the merits of Christianity and to provide a caring defense is on open display. 

    The Reason for God is gracefully written. It is a coffee shop book meant for gathering around a table with a cup of stout java and compelling conversation with friends and acquaintances. Keller uses an easy-to-read style. The book was written to spark conversation so a conversational style only makes sense. This format makes it very useful for evangelism and discipleship. Those who have questions about Christ and Christianity may find intelligent answers. Those who are young in the faith who retain many of the world's misunderstandings may find compelling answers enabling them to break free from doubt to engage in the work of the gospel. 

    Are there any misgivings about the book? Unfortunately, yes. Though this is a useful book in many ways, I could not shake the general sense of uneasiness about some of the doctrine and philosophy. Keller's Introduction to the book is a concern. To me, the assessment of the situation in America is either too simplistic or reveals a shocking lack of awareness of the complexities of human government and the role Christians have in relation to it. Keller reduces everything to "Two Camps" and a "Divided Culture" using nothing short of caricatures. One is tempted to think that Keller is simply naive but when carefully read there is a clear message coming through. Keller seems to take a tactic that villainizes both Conservatives and Liberals and reduces the Conservative movement to mean "Republican" and the Liberal ideology to mean "Democrat." Keller seems to forget that millions of Conservatives, many of whom are Christians, are either not Republicans or are not happy with the Republican Party. This fact alone is enough to make his Introduction too confusing and simplistic to be helpful, except for those who are ignorant of the facts but indignant anyway. Rather than provide a true assessment that would teach or simply choose another trajectory for his Introduction, Keller launches the book with this underlying thread against "Traditional Christians", i.e. White Christians. This is not helpful to the body of Christ in my opinion. The constant playing to the new social gospel (or is it the gospel social now? Does talking more about Jesus change the essential nature of the social gospel?) is not a balanced view of our Lord's call to feed the hungry and heal the sick. It is Keller's politics peeking through and that is why his simplistic assessment in the Introduction is unsettling.  I suppose the purpose of this was to gain a hearing and that's commendable, perhaps.

    This constant emphasis borders on activism and seems to influence Keller though out the book. In chapter 10, The Problem of Sin, Keller slightly shifts the orthodox definition of sin from the breaking of God's commandments as the Apostle John defined it (sin is the transgression of the law) to Soren Kierkegaard's definition, "having no other gods before me." In case you think that I am being unfair to Keller here are his words immediately following those I just pointed out, 

           "So, according to the Bible, the primary way to define sin is not just the doing of
            bad things, but the making of good things into ultimate things. It is seeking 

           to establish a sense of self by making something else more central to your 

           significance, purpose, and happiness than your relationship with God." 

John defined sin as "the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)." There are sins of commission and omission. I'm sure we all agree on that. But sin is the doing of "bad things." What bad things? - breaking the law of God. Now, we break the law of God by doing the things it forbids and we break the law of God by not doing the things it commands. To have another god before the living God is a breach of the law of God. The problem is that Kierkegaard's definition subtly changes the emphasis of sin from the divine to self and society which is the hallmark of existentialism. Of course, once again, this emphasis plays to the soft activism that is prevalent throughout this book. It is problematic because the book is to be an apologetic for the Christian faith but it seems to have a second mission, an over-socializing of the gospel which plays to political correctness.

    Lastly, the title of chapter 14 is not my favorite. Of course, this is a minor point but I would have preferred he stick with the more traditional language of "community" than "dance." The mental imagery when applied to the Triune God is not instructive, in my opinion. I respect what Keller is trying to do, I believe, in the chapter. He is seeking to call us to join the work of the Trinity. That is certainly laudable. In no way do I want to take away from that but to explain the fellowship of the Trinity would be better served by the word "community" rather than "dance." I also wish Keller would have seized the opportunity in this chapter under the heading The Dance of Creation to expound the work of the Triune God in creation. The teaching is clearly there in Scripture but for some reason, Keller chose to write in good but vague language regarding God's plan for creation. 

    It may seem that I would not recommend this book since I have leveled a couple of heavy remarks about it but that would be a wrong conclusion. Dr. Keller is a fine evangelical scholar and pastor. He has written a very useful book, as I stated earlier in this post. I have recommended it, given it to friends, and used it in evangelism and discipleship and will continue to do so. God's people must always strive to be faithful to His Word and that is my purpose here. The spots where there is disagreement with Keller are not such that they cancel out the merits of the fine work he has given us for the cause of Christ. 

Post tenebras lux, 

Scott