Book Review: The Reason for God - Belief in an Age of Skepticism

Book Review: "The Reason for God - Belief in an Age of Skepticism," Timothy Keller, New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2008. 310 pages.

Before we begin, here's a little bit of background on Timothy Keller. He is the founder and pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan since 1989. He has grown the church to six thousand regular attendees at five services as of the writing of this book. They have also planted many daughter churches. Timothy has an engaging style, making it a part of his strategy as a pastor to deal with people's objections to the faith. This book is a natural byproduct of that commitment.

The book deals with the major objections to Christianity and belief in God that Keller has been confronted with over the course of his ministry. The introduction begins with his personal spiritual journey. Having been raised in the church, but exposed to the conservative/liberal debate within it, Keller's faith eventually became a casualty of a socially radical liberal university. He speaks of three barriers to faith which were erected in his life: Intellectual - did Christianity make sense? Personal - was God knowable? and Social - Could you believe in God and the Bible and also have a social conscience? Timothy has obviously resolved those conflicts in his mind and entered the ministry to help others do the same.

This book is really about engagement; opening a discussion about faith with those who do not believe. Keller "urge(s) skeptics to wrestle with the unexamined 'blind faith' on which skepticism is based, and to see how hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do not share them." He also provides first-hand accounts of real people in their spiritual journey. But first he deals with objections to faith which he's encountered.

Objection 1: There Can't Be Just One True Religion
The claim to exclusivity for Christianity is one of the main reasons people gave Keller for rejecting it. This arises partly from the growing liberal value of tolerance - we don't like for anyone to tell anyone that they're wrong - and a negative view of religion in general as divisive and a root of many of the world's problems. Keller deals with this objection by first laying out the options some would propose: we can outlaw religion; condemn religion or keep religion completely private.

Keller explains the presuppositions behind each and then shows why each approach has and will fail. He then launches into an apologetic for Christianity, and a call for the church to follow the model of the early church in bringing its very best into society.

Objection 2: How Could A Good God Allow Suffering?
Here again we find one of the most common objections to belief in the God of the Bible. If God is loving and all-powerful, why doesn't He intervene to prevent suffering? The problem with this objection is that it begs the question: on what basis do we believe that suffering and evil are wrong? As C.S. Lewis concluded, in a purely naturalistic world, we should expect that pain and suffering would be the norm. Yet we have a sense that this ought not to be. Where did that come from? We all must ask, believers and non-believers alike, where does evil come from?

For the Christian, we find the answer in the Biblical record of the Fall of Man and the introduction of sin into the world. According to Keller, "Embracing the Christian doctrines of the incarnation and Cross brings profound consolation in the face of suffering. The doctrine of the resurrection can instill us with a powerful hope. It promises that we will get the life we most longed for, but it will be an infinitely more glorious world than if there had never been the need for bravery, endurance, sacrifice or salvation."

Objection 3: Christianity Is A Straitjacket
The argument here is that since Christianity adheres to a moral code and to a source of absolute truth, the resultant religion must be the enemy of freedom. The questions that must be dealt with here are multifaceted: the nature of truth, community, Christianity and freedom. The underlying assumption here is that "true freedom is freedom to create your own meaning and purpose." It also assumes that all truth is relative, but is it?

Keller answers each of these questions, first by pointing out that, despite our protestations, we all cling to some source of truth, either objective or arbitrary - it's unavoidable. He then demonstrates that within each community there must be an underlying set of agreed upon beliefs and practices which, of necessity, are somewhat restrictive. He also shows that Christianity, far from being culturally rigid, has from the beginning allowed for cultural diversity while maintaining an adherence to orthodox faith. Finally, of freedom itself, Keller tells us that "freedom is not so much the absence of restrictions as finding the right ones, the liberating restrictions." Within Christianity we are free to be the people God created us to be.       

Objection 4: The Church Is Responsible For So Much Injustice
Here Keller identifies three issues: First is the issue of the glaring character flaws of many Christians; second is the issue of war and violence and the church's complicity; third is the issue of fanaticism - what of Christians on the fringe? The first issue is based on a misconception that Christians believe that faith in God makes them better people. It doesn't. One can find Christians at all stages of character development because behavior change is a gradual process, and church should be full of people who are flawed because they are people in process. The second issue is more troublesome, for it is obvious that a great deal of harm has been done in the name of Christ over the centuries. It is wrong and goes against the very teachings of Christ. Finally, fanaticism, tending to express itself in legalism, has pushed many honest seekers out of the church.

It is important to remember that the Bible is also critical of people who act like this. Keller reminds us that "true faith is marked by profound concern for the poor and marginalized." It's not only the church that has been guilty either. In the twentieth century the greatest cause of injustice (human rights abuses, pogroms, death camps, genocide, etc...) were atheistic regimes. This in no way excuses the church when it has been wrong, but it demonstrates that injustice is a human problem, not a Christian one. On the other hand, it has been those motivated by Christian motives who worked to end slavery, campaigned for civil rights and lead the way in social reform, often at great personal cost.

Objection 5: How Can A Loving God Send People To Hell?
With this subject, Timothy shares that many secular minds believe that it is a contradiction to believe in the equality of all people and yet believe in the concept of hell. Keller found several connected beliefs lurking beneath the surface of this one: a God of judgment simply can't exist; a God of judgment can't be a God of love; a loving God would not allow hell. At their root these are preferences. We all would prefer that there would be no hell. The first belief in particular goes against our Western sensibilities and our doctrine of tolerance at all costs. Keller goes to C.S. Lewis to demonstrate that this belief is a cultural adaptation.

As to the second and third charges, relating to the love of God, the implication is that God cannot be both judging and loving. But is that true? The Bible clearly teaches that God is both. Yale theologian Miroslav Volf says it this way, "If God were not angry at injustice and did not make a final end to violence - that God would not be worthy of worship..."

Objection 6: Science Has Disproved Christianity
The famous atheist Richard Dawkins stated that one cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold religious beliefs. Is he right? In this chapter Keller shows how the supposed war between science and Christianity exists only in the minds of those who hold certain (unscientific) presuppositions. For example, the presupposition that "No supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible" is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one. He could have done more with this chapter, but this quote is telling: "A majority of scientists consider themselves deeply or moderately religious - and those numbers have increased in recent decades. There is no necessary disjunction between science and devout faith."

Objection 7: You Can't Take The Bible Literally
Keller draws on his own student experiences for this chapter, recalling how many of his college courses caused him to question the reliability of Scripture. It was when he began to do research on his own that he realized how little evidence there was for this revisionist school of thought. The influence of this skeptical view of Scripture has been waning in recent years. Anne Rice, who converted to Christianity after a successful career as a novelist, wrote that "I discovered in this field some of the worst and most biased scholarship I'd ever read." Keller goes on to deal with the typical challenges to the reliability of Scripture, providing solid reasons that the Bible can be trusted historically and culturally.

He quotes C.S. Lewis, who just happened to be a world-class literary critic, as saying: "I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, and myths all my life. I know what they are like I know none of them are like this. Of this (gospel) text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage... or else, some unknown (ancient) writer... without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative..."

In the remaining chapters of the book Keller moves from a defensive posture to providing a positive case for believing, including chapters on:

• The Clues of God
• The Knowledge of God
• The Problem of Sin
• Religion and the Gospel
• The (True) Story of the Gospel
• The Reality of the Resurrection
• The Dance of God

Even a synopsis of these would take up considerable space but, suffice to say, the book is worth reading, whether you are a skeptic, a seeker or a Christian wanting to deal with some questions. It's not an accident that this book hit the New York Times bestseller list. I'll end with a great quote from Keller: "Jesus's life, death and resurrection was an infinitely costly rescue operation to restore justice to the oppressed and marginalized, physical wholeness to the diseased and dying, community to the isolated and lonely, and spiritual joy and connection to those alienated from God. To be a Christian today is to become part of that same operation, with the expectation of suffering and hardship and the joyful assurance of eventual success."

Related Articles:  
Who Do You Read?
Divine Appointments
Book Review: Mere Apologetics
What is Truth?
"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias

 

     

Can We Talk About It?

It was Timothy Keller, author and pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, who wrote that “Tolerance isn't about not having beliefs. It's about how your beliefs lead you to treat people who disagree with you.” We all nod our heads in agreement as we read, but this is not what we Canadians popularly understand when we speak of tolerance.

Tolerance, for many in Canada, has come to mean an unquestioning acceptance of any and all viewpoints - excepting perhaps that of traditional Christianity. There has been a remarkable trend in mass media, social media, and human rights tribunals towards the muzzling of viewpoints that are not "tolerant." But what do we mean by that?

The dictionary definition says that tolerance is: "The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." It is akin to the old saying by Evelyn Beatrice Hall that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This, I believe, is necessary in a civil society: thoughtful debate in the free marketplace of ideas.

We, in Canada, have largely lost this ability. (Though, admittedly, social media is turning those tables, for better or worse.) We find, for example, at Ryerson University in Toronto where a young woman, wanting to establish a "Men's Issues" club, was denied permission by the Student's Union. This is not new, but it's usually pro-life groups that are shut down in our universities. In our Human Rights tribunals, it tends to be outspoken critics of hot-button issues related to homosexuality or Islam that are singled out. 

We have blindly accepted assumptions and believed lies, which have then influenced social policy. It is commonly held in Canadian society that all religions are basically the same. Therefore, criticizing a religion is considered out of bounds, unless, of course, you're talking about majoritarian Christianity. So, some unquestioningly accept that Muslims ought to be able to practice their religion the way they see fit. This lead to the wrong-headed suggestion in 2004 that Islamic Sharia law should be instituted in the Muslim community in Ontario through tribunals. 

The reasoning was that since Christian protestants and Catholics could use religious tribunals to settle disputes, they ought to be able to as well. But, again, this ignores the fundamental differences between the brand of Muslim faith, practiced in most majority Muslim nations around the world, and that of Christianity. In the minds of our "tolerant" society, the only "fair" response was to ban all religious tribunals. This happened in 2005. 

There are too many rabbit trails to pursue on this issue, but my point is this: it's time to re-institute the civil public square. Perhaps this is being done through social media, but my hope is that we can truly begin to dialogue in the mainstream about meaningful issues.There are some principles that I've tried to put into practice in my life that have helped me; perhaps they can help someone else.

Everyone is worthy of respect.

I might not like you, but it doesn't mean that I can't treat you with respect. I can and should separate what you are saying and what you represent from how I treat you. As long as you are civil and not abusive, we can continue to dialogue. When people start calling names, that tells me they've run out of ideas. We don't have to agree about everything to be friends.

Everyone has the right to be heard.

The truth is, some people's views are downright offensive, but we live in a free society. Our freedoms ought to be limited when we do real harm to others. As someone has said, "My freedom to swing my arm ends at your nose." The caveat ought to be, once again, that we speak respectfully to one another. (Perhaps this lesson could be taught in our provincial and federal legislatures.) 

I believe that one of the greatest challenges to our free society is political correctness. A great many people feel as though they cannot be heard because someone has decided that an issue is off-limits. The most obvious example to me is the absolute refusal of the mainstream media to allow a pro-life perspective to have any meaningful airtime. But, once again, I digress.

Everyone should be faithful to the facts.

It's too easy to throw out facts and figures, but are they true? As they say, 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot. When we play fast and loose with the truth we ought to be held to account for it. While there will be honest differences of opinion, they are usually over the interpretation of the facts.

This last part is for Christians. As followers of Christ we have an added responsibility to represent Him well. That means, regardless of the situation and circumstances, we are to treat others the way that we would like to be treated ourselves. Paul tells us to "speak the truth in love." While we do have a responsibility to stand up for the truth, the Biblical path has always been the high road. Remember, Mother Teresa and the Westboro Baptist Church (those who picket funerals and hate homosexuals), both claimed to be following Christ. Which do you think was truly following Christ's example?

The following is most often attributed to Mother Teresa, but was actually written by Kent M. Keith. Either way, it's good advice. 

“People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.
If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway.
If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.
The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway.
For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.” 

Related Articles: 

The Great Debate 

Wading Into the Chic-Fil-A Battle 

Can We Talk? I Guess Not. 

An Open Letter To Stephen Harper 

Aren't All Religions Equally Valid?