THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO TIM KELLER
by Bob Wheeler
Review:
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
Timothy Keller
Penguin Books, 2008 (2018)
310 pp., pb
For over thirty years Dr. Timothy Keller has exercised a remarkably successful ministry at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. Founded in 1989, the church has since grown to nearly 6,000 regular attendees, and Dr. Keller has also had a hand in starting more than 300 other new churches around the world. The Reason for God encapsulates Dr. Keller’s basic evangelistic message.
The book is divided into two parts. The first part (chapters 1-7) basically answers the types of objections frequently raised by skeptics: “There can’t be just one true religion,” “How could a good God allow suffering?,” etc. The second part of the book (chapters 8-14) basically presents the gospel itself. Dr. Keller is obviously well versed and he quotes a wide variety of authors. His own book is very readable.
There are some aspects of the book, however, that are a bit peculiar, starting with the title itself, “The Reason for God.” Why would there need to be a reason for God? God is eternal and self-existent; He does not need a reason to exist. The title almost makes it sound as though we invented the concept of God in order to meet a need that we had.
But what is perhaps more peculiar is that Dr. Keller rarely quotes Scripture in his presentation. Instead of giving biblical answers to the various objections to Christian belief, he uses human logic instead, often quoting a human author to make his point. He is especially fond, I this regard, of C.S. Lewis, as well as several other authors. Some of the arguments, however, the reader may find less convincing than others.
But what is perhaps even more disconcerting is that in same aspects Dr. Keller appears to be watering down the gospel itself. At points he seems reluctant to talk about a moral law, human guilt before a holy and righteous God, the death of Christ as a penal satisfaction, and justification by an imputed righteousness. Instead he tends to emphasize the psychological and social aspects of salvation. We are alienated from God and from each other. But God loves us and sent His Son into the world to share our suffering and thereby bring about restoration. As humans we need to change our priorities and learn to trust in Christ. Only then can we find true peace and happiness.
Part of this undoubtedly reflects Dr. Keller’s life-long devotion to social justice, and so he undoubtedly wants to see the gospel as encompassing more than simply the forgiveness of the sins of individuals. Near the end of his book Dr. Keller puts it like this:
“When we look at the whole scope of this storyline, we see clearly
that Christianity is not only about getting our individual sins forgiven
so we can go to heaven. That is an important means of God’s
salvation, but not the final end or purpose of it. The purpose of
Jesus’s coming is to put the whole world right, to renew and
restore creation, not to escape it. It is not just to bring personal
forgiveness and peace, but also justice and shalom to the world.”
(p. 233)
In a sense Dr. Keller is correct. In Jesus’ teaching the gospel is “the gospel of the kingdom,” the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. When the Messiah reigns the nations will beat their swords into plowshares and the Prince of Peace will establish justice throughout the world (Isa. 9:6,7; 11:1-9). The question is, however, how and when will this take place? Would it have been medieval Christendom? Or a future, earthly, millennial kingdom? Unfortunately Dr. Keller does not elaborate on his eschatology in his book.
A strong case can be argued that there is a sense in which the kingdom is “already” and “not yet” – that it exists already as a spiritual entity in the church. In that sense “shalom” should be a very important reality within the community of believers. But it can also be argued that the primary purpose of Christ’s First Coming was to die on the cross and provide an atonement for our sin, and that the universal peace and justice await His Second Coming. For the apostle Paul, then, the gospel, the message he preached to the Gentile world, was the forgiveness of sins. Individual sinners come to repentance and faith, have their sins forgiven and the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to their accounts. “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (I Tim. 1:15; NKJV)
Christians should be concerned about social justice, and it could be argued that much of the success of Redeemer Presbyterian Church is due to their putting Christian love into practice in their local community, thereby letting their light shine before men (Matt. 5:14-16). But the New Testament portrays the world and the present age as fallen and corrupt; and to a great extent the church must stand apart from it, creating a contrast between itself and the world. The church’s primary task, then, is to “make disciples” (Matt. 28:14-16), to call individual human beings to take up their crosses and to follow Jesus; and the church must expect persecution in the process.
One can only have wished that Dr. Keller had focused more on providing biblical answers to the skeptics’ objections, and had been a little more explicit about the nature of salvation. To his credit, though, his New City Catechism does both.
“The first part (chapters 1-7) basically answers the types of objections frequently raised by skeptics: “There can’t be just one true religion,” “How could a good God allow suffering?,” etc.”
I wonder what he means by “skeptics”?
Does he mean atheists?
I’m a skeptic and an atheist. They are not the same thing.
Skepticism is a process. Atheism is a position on an single issue.
I frequent sites devoted to both skepticism and atheism and read anything that comes across my path.
“There can’t be just one true religion.”
Never head of this as an objection. Maybe someone somewhere said this but its a strange objection coming from either a skeptic or an atheist.
Sounds very much like a strawman.
“How could a good God allow suffering?”
Again, this is not really something that a skeptic or an atheist would be be very interested in. Sure, it’s something that atheists talk when they stray into the weeds of a discussion but it’s strange to fixate on it when there are other more basic issues that atheists themselves raise.
Religious people are routinely bad at representing atheists and their arguments. The internet is littered with videos of exchanges where the positions held could not be more clear and concise and yet….and yet…the religious person inserts their own strawman. It’s tiresome.
Of course, you could go direct to the source.
Well I was the one who used the word “skeptics,” and by it I simply meant anyone who is skeptical of biblically orthodox Christianity, for whatever reason. The objections that Keller mentions in the first part of his book are probably arguments that he has encountered in his ministry in New York
City, which is not exactly a bastion of biblical orthodoxy. He lists them as follows:
1. There can’t be just one true religion
2. How could a good God allow suffering?
3. Christianity is a straightjacket
4. The church is responsible for so much injustice
5. How can a loving God send people to hell?
6. Science has disproved Christianity
7. You can’t take the Bible literally
As for myself, I have in my library books by a wide variety of atheists, everyone from Friedrich Nietzsche to Bertrand Russell to Jean-Paul Sartre to Christopher Hitchens. I even have “The Portable Atheist,” edited by Hitchens. So if you would like to discuss a specific author, we could do so.
I was the one who used the word “skeptics,”
Ahah. Thank you for the clarification.
I never use the word that way. It’s the same problem with the word “theory”.
“anyone who is skeptical of biblically orthodox Christianity”
That makes more sense. It’s got little to do with atheists or the wider atheist community and more like Christians struggling within their own beliefs.
Reading the list in that light fits very well.
As for myself, I have in my library books by a wide variety of atheists…
I don’t.
That’s not representative of the atheist community.
I don’t mean that as a criticism but more of an observation.
If you check out the top five (ten/twenty) sites or channels etc that are popular or in long standing with atheists, you are going to find it hard to find one that spends any time with any of those authors.
(Hitchens being the obvious exception.)
When I say going to the source, I mean the atheist community that is found online.
Sure, there will be a video or two or a special anniversary issue devoted to some historical atheist from time to time and nothing against the memory of the authors of yesteryear of course, but a lot more has been written since then and it’s much more representative and mainstream.
For example, could you describe an atheist in the way that an atheist could recognize? You’ve never been able to do so before.
No need for anything turgid or long-winded. It’s very simple to do.
Christians routinely fail.
But if you could do it, it would make for a nice change.
So, are you saying that Nietzsche, Russell, and Sartre didn’t know what they were talking about after all, and therefore are irrelevant? If so, I would be inclined to agree with you, since I am convinced that God actually exists.
No, that’s not what I am saying.
Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?
It’s form of lying.
What part of what I wrote was unclear to you?
“If you check out the top five (ten/twenty) sites or channels etc that are popular or in long standing with atheists, you are going to find it hard to find one that spends any time with any of those authors.
(Hitchens being the obvious exception.)” Why not?
“If you check out the top five (ten/twenty) sites or channels etc that are popular or in long standing with atheists, you are going to find it hard to find one that spends any time with any of those authors.
(Hitchens being the obvious exception.)”
Why not?
Thank you. There’s never any need to build a strawman.
I don’t do it with you. Please don’t do it with me.
Ok?
So why don’t you find old authors mentioned on a regular basis on atheist sites?
Well, they are old. There is new stuff.
Remember Dawkins flying off the shelves? Dennett? Hitchins?
Made a big impact with a huge audience. Difficult for historical authors to compete.
The atheist community is constantly putting out new material.
Historical authors from the 19th and 20 Century are mostly left in the historical box.
That’s pretty much it. Nothing mysterious about it.
I’ve read the authors you’ve mentioned but there’s no obligation for an atheist to do that. Certainly would not call myself an authority on them. You’ve written more about them than I ever have.
They are not exactly accessible to most people.
You can talk about author X but if other people are not invested in the same way you are, then you wind up talking to yourself and there’s nobody to appreciate your zingers.
So…how about that definition of an atheist? Can you bring yourself to define them as the atheist community defines itself?
I think it’s hard to define the word “atheist,” because my impression is that atheists generally fall into one of two opposing camps — rationalists and irrationalists. The ones with scientific backgrounds tend to be rationalistic — they want to believe that science can make rational sense out of the universe, but they do so by assuming what Jerry Coyne calls “naturalistic materialism.” The physical universe is all that exists, and everything in it conforms to natural law. That is why science can make sense out of it.
The problem with that view is where it leaves us as human beings — mere physical organisms who have evolved from lower forms of life. Our thought processes are the result of chemical reactions that take place in the brain. And so there is another form of atheism, that of irrationalism, represented by the the Existentialist and Post-Modern philosophers. (Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, et al.) They prefer to see us as autonomous beings who exist in an impersonal universe, and are thus free to define ourselves any way we want to. But they would deny that there is any inherent order in the universe, thus making science impossible.
I realize I am generalizing here. Probably every atheist would like to think that he is an original thinker who owes nothing to those who have gone before him. But at some point we have to deal with the basic facts of human existence, and it is unlikely that any of us have come up with thoughts that are truly original.
“I think it’s hard to define the word “atheist,” because my impression is that atheists generally fall into one of two opposing camps — rationalists and irrationalists.
It sounds like you are just making this up by yourself.
I have never heard of an atheist talking about atheism anywhere.
The ones with scientific backgrounds..
??
…they want to believe…
??
This is entirely unhelpful.
That is why science
Atheism, remember?
I realize I am generalizing here.
It’s not that hard.
Probably every atheist would like to think that he is an original thinker…
??
That was all over the place.
Can you bring yourself to define them as the atheist community defines itself?
How hard can it be to just avail yourself of the internet and just have a look?
“I have never heard of an atheist talking about atheism anywhere” ?!.
“..about atheism anywhere” ?!.”
Typo. I hit return too early. That also explains the uneven use of italics.
It should have read…
“It sounds like you are just making this up by yourself.
I have never heard of an atheist talking about atheism anywhere like this.”
But thank you for querying my typo as opposed to just running with it. You could have done that and had a good time by yourself with it.
But you didn’t and that is to your credit.
I just wish there was a way to encourage you to do the same thing on all the other stuff instead of just making misrepresentation after misrepresentation after strawman.
There may be some sense of short-term triumph but don’t you get tired of it? Surely you would not appreciate someone else doing it to you?
It sets a bad standard. When you do it, you create a culture where this is acceptable behaviour.
It’s not just you, of course. It’s your wider community. People go online and they create these strawmen and (amongst themselves) maybe they get validation. But once a member steps outside their tribe and into the real world, the trick doesn’t work.
That’s probably not a problem for a member that is aware of the game being played, but for an “earnest Christian” it can be a rude and nasty awakening. Those “honest Christians” are set up for a public fall.
I was chatting to an “earnest Christian” once online that was preaching on Facebook in an atheist thread.
I engaged with him and (very politely) talked to him about logical fallacies and dodgy gambits in arguments.
His handicap was that he thought he was representing the good guys. So I pointed out, according to his values, that his side would clearly need be the ones able to engage in civil conversation with scrupulous honesty. With no need for dirty tricks etc.
He agreed completely. Why wouldn’t he?
So then I described a dirty debating tactic that he was unaware of and asked him if he personally would approve of it.
He didn’t and quickly recognized it as something sleazy and unfair.
Then I asked him how he would react to a community that was famed for using that particular tactic.
He made it clear that he would strongly disapprove and that yes, it would reflect badly on that community.
Then, I told him that this tactic was very famous.
So very famous that it had a specific name.
Then I told him the name of the tactic and asked him to look it up and find out which community it came from.
Not suspecting anything, he took me at my word and looked it up and found out the history of it and how widespread it was. It was a revelatory moment for him.
I know that because he came back later online and he told me. We ended up having a very civil discussion and I mentioned a few other related points.
His preaching stopped but it wasn’t because he was banned or because he felt I had been mean to him.
About ten years ago in the real world, I met another “earnest Christian”. I forget exactly how. Maybe he was a street preacher or something. We certainly were not in each others’ social circle.
He was an American. Evangelical. And very, very earnest.
(Almost to the point of parody.)
We got onto the topic of evolution over a cup of coffee. There was a lot of back and forth. Again, I was very polite to him and let him do most of the talking.
Have you ever watched clips of The Atheist Experience on YouTube? He was like one of those callers.
Exactly like them.
He was very convinced of his beliefs in Evolution. He was able to list of a multitude of talking points.
And each one was recited with breathless excitement.
Unfortunately, they did not have the desired effect on me.
I already knew them.
The thing was, he couldn’t fathom how I already knew them or why I could be perfectly well aware of them and still hold the position I had on Evolution. It really confounded him. This man did not have a poker face. His shock and stumbling was painful to watch.
Someone (a preacher, his mother, whatever) had taken a great effort to indoctrinate him with dozens of “zingers” but…had failed to explain how the internet worked. This was a catastrophic mistake.
Every one of those zingers was available….on the internet.
In fact, a complete catalogue of them with a full index and easy-to-use search engine.
Complete with origin dates and authorship, source material etc.
……And the counters.
All available on the internet with a simple search.
Nothing mysterious or hard about it.
Whoever had “educated” him just couldn’t bring themselves to mention how old these talking points were.
Or that “the other side” were very well aware of them and had even set up an index.
They had set him up for a great soul-searching disappointment.
All I really did was demonstrate that I was aware of talking point A, B, C etc. by finishing his sentences for him.
Then I told him that these “objections” were very old and very boring.
And that people like myself were very well aware of them.
And that, hey, here’s the entire index online that you can read for yourself.
Both of those instances could have been avoided had either of those people been a little more dishonest. Or if their community had let them in on the rules. Or if they had been a bit more curious and independent and used the internet.
I can’t make you change your ways. I can only plead with you to reform. You help create the community you are a part of by your own actions. Set a better example.
I realize that atheists may not consciously divide themselves into two opposing camps. But if you ask the question, what do atheists think is the reality of the universe in which we live, you are liable to get one of two opposing answers. Some, like our old friend Tildeb, would argue in favor of a scientific worldview, what Jerry Coyne calls “naturalistic materialism.” But others, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone De Beauvois are Existentialists and Post-Modernists, and would deny that truth exists at all. The scientific approach undermines human dignity; the Existentialist approach undermines rationality.
“I realize that atheists may not consciously divide themselves into two opposing camps.”
They don’t.
“I think it’s hard to define the word “atheist,” because my impression is that atheists generally fall into one of two opposing camps — rationalists and irrationalists.
Nope.
It’s easy to define the word. Atheists do it all the time.
There is a very active atheist community that is always welcoming new members. Its routine to explain what an atheist is.
Dead easy to find out.
If they can manage it, you should be able to.
“But if you ask the question…
I’m not. Atheism, remember?
If I ask you nicely, can we get there?
You’re dodging the question. What is the nature of the universe in which we live?
You’re dodging the question.
I didn’t ask the question. I was asking you to define atheism as the atheist community would do it.
You can’t bring yourself to to take that tiny step.
You have tried to pivot to…a random selection of authors from yesteryear, rationalism, materialism, natural laws, science, human existence, etc.
None of that matters. That’s just you.
How many times have I asked you in the past and here on this page to define atheism and you have wriggled away?
What is the strategy here?
If someone just loses patience with you and walks away from the conversation, do you do a little victory dance by yourself or something every time?
“atheism”: 1a. “disbelief in the existence of deity” b. “the doctrine that there is no deity” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary).
Now, let’s talk about the things that really matter: rationalism, materialism, natural laws, science, human existence — the questions with which that the great authors of yesteryear wrestled.
WEBSTER’S SEVENTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY
Are you referring to the 1963, 1967 printing or the 1971 printing?
If you tried harder, do you suppose you could find a more obscure reference?
(…facepalm…)
“Can you bring yourself to define them as the atheist community defines itself?
How hard can it be to just avail yourself of the internet and just have a look?”
This is a simple google search.
Now, let’s talk about…
People don’t create strawmen from a position of strength; they don’t need to.
For years now, I have politely insisted that you do the right thing.
I have appealed to your better nature.
This is the best you can do. This is an example of who you are as a person and as a representation of your community.
This is the standard you set.
You strain at gnats.
…..rationalism, materialism, natural laws, science, human existence — the questions with which that the great authors of yesteryear wrestled…..
You forgot Darwinism, didn’t you?
And morality?
(That’s a favourite ol’ chestnut.)
We both know there are many more.
Thanks to the internet, I could literally give you the index if you want.
It might even save a lot of time.
If you don’t want to talk about atheism, then don’t.
If you want to talk about something else, then go ahead.
I don’t mind.
But don’t pretend to be doing one thing when you are really talking about another.
That’s the way it always works with you and your community.
There’s always the “something something so therefore…”
Go ahead. I’m all ears.
So why don’t you give me your definition of atheism? (Mine came from the 1967 edition of Webster’s Collegiate, which has been my trusty companion since I graduated from high school).
Next week I’m planning on putting up a blog post on “The Implications of Evolution,” and that will give you something concrete and specific to discuss.
So why don’t you give me your definition of atheism?
Because it’s not mine.
Because it’s easy.
Because there are multiple reliable sources that you can check out.
(Mine came from the 1967 edition of Webster’s Collegiate, which has been my trusty companion since I graduated from high school).
The internet.
The atheist community.
The 21 century.
Next week I’m planning on putting up a blog post on “The Implications of Evolution”
Which arguments from the index will you be using?
Well, as we all know from our experience this past year, you can’t believe everything you see on the Internet!
You are under threat from Covidiots.
I’m not.
If you lived in a community that had my rigorous standards on using the best sources of information available and filtering out disinformation, you and your loved ones would be much safer.
When you argue in a dishonest manner, you create a rod for your own back.
Do not believe everything you see on the Internet, much less repeat it. Rely on new sources that have good reputations for accuracy and objective reporting, such as The Wall St. Journal.*
Good advice as far as it goes. I take it one further.
I don’t use news articles to inform me about science at all.
Primary sources are the best.
Sometimes those sources are not very easy for the layman, it’s true. However, there are resources available that can help translate as opposed to maliciously distort.
Beware of news articles heavily laden with adjectives and adverbs, with which the reporter is interjecting his own value system and personal preferences into the matter under discussion.
That would apply to a blog too.
Not just on the issue of Covid.
If you argue in a particular way; you set that standard for others in your community. It’s not enough to make an isolated, one-off plea.
That’s meaningless by itself.
Actions speak louder than words.
When you see a scandalous accusation against a person or organization, go to their website to see what they actually say or advocate. Do not allow their opponents to put words into their mouths. Google the subject to see if the accusation has been disproven or the matter already resolved.
Yeah. You could do that.
Maybe you should do that.
“So why don’t you give me your definition of atheism? (Mine came from the 1967 edition of Webster’s Collegiate, which has been my trusty companion since I graduated from high school).
Turn over a new leaf. Be better. Actions speak louder than words.
Do you have a better nature?
Are you capable of reform?
I hope so.
I didn’t go looking for this. It found me. Even I am shocked by the numbers for evangelicals.
“Among religious groups, atheists are the most likely to say they would get a vaccine or already received one dose, while White evangelical Protestants are the least likely. Nine-in-ten atheists said in February that they would definitely or probably get a vaccine or had already received one. Around eight-in-ten agnostics (80%) and Catholics (77%) said the same. The share was considerably smaller among Black Protestants (64%) and especially White evangelical Protestants (54%). Slightly under half of White evangelicals (45%) said they would definitely or probably not get a vaccine to prevent COVID-19.
Intent to get vaccinated against COVID-19 varies by religious affiliation in the U.S.
Religious affiliation often correlates with party affiliation, but even among Republicans, White evangelical Protestants stand out as less inclined to get a coronavirus vaccine.
Beliefs about the role of community health are strongly tied to intent to get a vaccine, including among religious groups. On balance, White evangelical Protestants are less inclined than people in other religious groups to think that community health effects should have a lot of sway in an individual’s decision to get a COVID-19 vaccine. More in this group say community health concerns should have only a little role or no role at all in individual decisions about getting a vaccine.”
Link
Yes, I have seen similar statistics, and am greatly saddened by them. Many Evangelicals are too caught up in politics, as though Donald Trump was their savior, and forget that what the real Savior said was to love your neighbor as yourself. What that means in practical terms is wear a facemask in public, practice social distancing, and get vaccinated when it becomes available. (I got both of my shots). You might want to take a look at a blog post I did a couple of months ago on “Christians and the Coronavirus” (Nov. 21, 2020).
Checked it out. I also went to the original source which was so bad that I was inspired to make a comment on it.
Glad to hear you have both your shots.
I had a precautionary volunteer Covid test just this week and it was all good.
But even with the vaccine, don’t take chances. I’m sure you know this but a vaccine does not give you a “Get out of jail free” card.
It doesn’t make you Superman.
A vaccine is only as good as the numbers of people who take it as a population; not on an individual basis.
(Mutually assured protection, so to speak.)
You protect your neighbor, your neighbor protects you.
Relying on perfect protection from your vaccine while still surrounded by potential carriers is a sucker’s bit.
Eventually the numbers will overwhelm you.