Tim Keller is a guy who I have been intrigued by and have enjoyed listening to. In particular I have been impressed with his ability to communicate the gospel clearly and creatively. So it is only natural that I found myself encouraged and eager in the days leading up to the publication of The Reason for God.
Keller aims to call both sides of the rival religious camps (believers and skeptics) to the table for intelligent and logical conversation. Keller believes that our current culture is in an interesting station; on the one hand we are increasingly secular and in some cases being labeled ‘post-Christian’ on the other hand, as Keller notes, Christianity is experiencing a great resurgence. Amazingly, both sides, says Keller, “feel their existence is threatened because both secular skepticism and religious faith are on the rise in significant, powerful ways.” (from the introduction)
In the first section of the book Keller puts on his pastoral hat and attempts to answer some of the most common ‘issues’ folks have with biblical Christianity. The chapters are by no means exhaustive but they are helpful in stimulating further thought and reflection. I found that Keller did was fair in his interaction with the objections while also demonstrating the truth from the Scriptures. In many cases he showed the inconsistent thinking and logic that tends to pervade such discussions. I have included the chapter titles below for your reference:
There Can’t be Just One True Religion
How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?
Christianity is a Straitjacket
The Church is Responsible for So Much Injustice
How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
Science Has Disproved Christianity
You Can’t Take the Bible Literally
In the weeks since reading this book I have found myself revisiting these chapters and rereading things. I definitely have come to like the book more since. There are some prevailing issues that I still have some difficulty with. I realize that most of the reviews within the Reformed circles are very favorable, and I don’t want to discount them, I agree with many of them. However, there are some things about the book that I continue to have issue with. At the risk of sounding negative I want to list them here:
First, the book’s audience appears to be skeptics. As a result Keller writes clearly and (thankfully) labors to communicate truth. He does this in a variety of ways, including, movies, novels, poems, personal stories and Scripture. Given that the book is intended to be apologetic, I would have anticipated a bit more Scripture in the book. This brings me to a bit of a side issue. Many have labeled the book ‘presuppositional’. That is it is demonstrative of a presuppositional apologetic approach. Being painted with this stripe got me pretty eager to read it. This would make sense given Keller’s history at Westminster. However, in reading the book it seemed much more “Schaefferian” (Francis Schaeffer) than “Van Tillian” (Cornelius Van Til). All of this to say, if you are a ‘hyper’ presup guy this book will probably not be your apologetics fix.
Keller also does not rule out the possibility of theistic evolution. Keller says, “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.” (p.94) Further, Keller believes that this issue (evolution) is an “intramural debate”.
Keller also comes across a bit more chummy with the Roman Catholic Church than I am comfortable with. I am unsure where Keller would come down on this when asked. I would assume that he would believe that any who do not hold that one is justified by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone is not a Christian. However, Keller lumps Roman Catholics in with Christians on a few occasions.
Finally, there just seemed to be a bit of a check swing on many major components of the gospel. This is not to say that Keller is not preaching the gospel, however, I am saying that in what appears to be an effort to be understood and relevant he compromises the clarity and punch that the Scripture gives. For example, Keller describes hell as, “If we were to lose his presence totally, that would be hell—the loss of our capability for giving or receiving love or joy.” (p.76)
I just find this to be drastically understated. I was really looking for Keller to unpack rebellion, idolatry, worship and God’s right to judge. I don’t think Keller swung and missed, I just think it was a check swing.
In the second half of the book Keller unpacks the gospel. I found myself really enjoying this section (in spite of my concerns listed above). His chapters Religion and the Gospel and The Reality of the Resurrection were excellent and in my view worth the price of the book. Finally in The Dance of God we see a lot of the influence of Jonathan Edwards coming out in Keller. This chapter is also a gem.
Overall I like the book. I have personally sent a copy to an unbelieving friend with whom I have had the opportunity to talk at length with about the gospel. My hopes are that it will spark additional conversations and interaction around the gospel. Despite the few bones that I picked out, I have little doubt that if you are a believer you will find yourself encouraged and further equipped to communicate truth in reading The Reason for God.
If you are interested, discounted copies are available at Westminster or Amazon: