The Reason for God

Dr. Timothy Keller

3/17/2011

A book report by Andrew Snavely

 The Reason for God

Rather than discussing the topic of apologetics, Tim Keller’s The Reason for God

functions as an apologetic itself. His is an evangelistic approach, and he writes so as to

inductively lead his skeptical audience toward faith in Christ. His consistent interactions

with young professionals in Manhattan have provided unique experiences that help him

develop the tone and strategic explanations of Christianity.

Summary: Keller’s presentation is divided into two parts: objections against

Christianity and arguments for Christianity. An introduction, intermission, and epilogue

bookend the two sections.

Introduction: Keller writes with both educated, postmodern-leaning skeptic and

Bible-believing Christian in mind. In order to bring both (often militantly opposed)

parties to the same theological table, Keller discusses the benefits of doubt. Because

doubt can both expose unrealistic assumptions and confirm reasonable faith, he

encourages its helpful use. “As believers should learn to look for reasons behind their

faith, skeptics must learn to look for a type of faith hidden within their reasoning” (xvii).

The doubts are reflected in common objections to Christianity.

Objections to Christianity: He addresses each objection first by giving real life

quotes by New Yorkers and restating their concerns and impressions in an objective,

accurate way. He then points out misimpressions or invalid assumptions as he responds to

each objection. Finally, he includes in his discussion a compelling orthodox summary of

the topic being discussed.

I suggest grouping these objections into three categories. Postmodern objections

assert that Christianity is too exclusive and restrictive. No religion can claim to be

absolutely true, and if so, narrow-road Christianity certainly can’t be that religion. Keller

responds that all worldviews are in essence exclusive (expecting all others to abide by

their own concept of right and wrong) and religious (reflecting a belief about God, man,

the ultimate purpose of life, etc.). He shows that the “restrictions” of Christianity are in

reality principles obeyed out of love for the all-wise Designer of life. Empirical

objections revolve around the credibility of Biblical claims in regards to science and

history. Keller points out that scientists operate on certain anti-supernatural assumptions

that cannot be empirically verified. The whole realm of the supernatural (including

miracles and a divine being) is irreproducible and unobservable; in reality their own

worldview is also sustained by faith. Historians likewise discredit the NT Gospels as

inaccurate because of their own basic assumptions. Yet the Gospels prove to be too early,

too counterproductive (citing the testimony of women and the disciples’ own failures),

and too detailed to have emerged from mere legends. Moral objections focus on apparent

injustice, either injustice of “Christians” throughout history or God’s injustice in allowing

suffering or condemning sinners to hell. Keller responds to these genuine questions by

clarifying the character of God (wise enough to oversee, loving enough to empathize, and

powerful enough to reverse the effects of suffering). He observes that those Christians

who seem to misrepresent Christianity through their violence, hypocrisy, and

uncontrolled fanaticism in reality “are not Christian enough” (57). Finally, Keller shows
that a person questioning God’s justice is in reality establishing his own standards of

morality above God’s. Instead, a person is in fact culpable and deserving of

condemnation in hell because of his or her selfish choice to reject God: “Hell, then, is the

trajectory of a soul, living a self-absorbed, self-centered life, going on and on forever”

(77).

Intermission: Keller’s intermission stands out by far as the most important

element of his book. He identifies and rejects “strong rationalism” based on “‘the

verification principle,’ namely, that no one should believe a proposition unless it can be

proved rationally… or empirically” (118; referring to Dawkins’ rational evaluation in The

God Delusion or Clifford’s challenge from “The Ethics of Belief”). Such a standard is

assumed and, therefore, self-defeating. In addition, every human approaches the existence

or nonexistence of God from a biased perspective. Thomas Nagel, transparent atheist,

contributes a thought: “It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that

I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God…”

(119). Instead, Keller proposes “critical rationality,” an approach which evaluates a

theory based on its plausible explanation of the observable data. In this scenario, the

theory is not proved to the listener but accepted by the listener. Concluding, Keller asserts

that “belief in God… explains and accounts for what we see better than the alternative

account of things” (121).

Case for God: After highlighting the clues to God’s existence (including both

ontological and cosmological arguments), Keller points to our conceptions of morality,

beauty, and logic as indications of a greater Mind and Design than evolutionary science

and postmodernism can consistently allow. He demonstrates how scientists, artists, and

philosophers are unable to practice their trade apart from assuming universals, universals

which shouldn’t exist according to their atheistic worldview. In contrast, a biblical

worldview based on the assumption that the transcendent, all-wise God has created our

world expects to find universals of logic, beauty, and science. Keller concludes, “It is

dishonest to live as if he is there and yet fail to acknowledge the one who has given you

all these gifts” (158).

With the background of God’s supreme importance, Keller introduces the concept

of sin as turning from the glorious God to self in order to find deepest meaning and

identity. He explains, “Sin is seeking to become oneself, to get an identity, apart from

[God]” (162). Based on Kierkegaard’s model of sin, the “wrong” is failing to find one’s

identity and significance in God. The hopeless result is that people will seek identity for

themselves from without, only to wake up the next day and find themselves still the

same. Once the problem is recognized, Keller distinguishes Christianity from all other

God-impressing religions. Christianity alone rests in what God has done to win the love

and obedience of His creation.

Keller introduces the essential doctrines of the Gospel in a very relational light. In

the atonement, the God Who has been offended has stooped down to forgive His creation.

He has absorbed the offense of their rebellion, exchanged their weak, faulty guilt for His

perfect righteousness, and offered them complete forgiveness and reconciliation with

Himself. The effect is both humbling and comforting. In the historically-factual

resurrection, Christ displayed His power and confirmed His position as conqueror over
death, as advocate for the oppressed, as victor for the weak. With the eternal trinity, the

renewed creation can join in on the “dance of God” enjoying the fellowship of love and

anticipating the renewal of the created order.

Analysis: After discussing some initial observations, we will consider both the

strengths and weaknesses of Keller’s work before concluding the review.

Initial observations:

1) Apologetic approach: Keller utilizes a composite of the apologetic

methodologies discussed in Cowan’s Five Views. While he rejects the classical and (to a

degree) evidential presupposition that God’s existence can be essentially proved (through

“strong rationalism”), he does adopt both strategies in presenting clues to God’s existence

and asserting the valid historicity of Christ’s resurrection. In addition, his encouragement

to “put on Christianity like a pair of spectacles” (123) reflects the presuppositionalist’s

strategy. Strands of reformed epistemology’s theory of knowledge filter through his

discussion of assumed universals. Overall, Keller’s is a cumulative case presentation: he

encourages a perspective that reviews entire theories then evaluates “which account of

the world has the most ‘explanatory power’” (122).

2) Amount of citations: Keller proves to be a well-researched writer. A brief

survey of his endnotes reveals a broad array of writers (Alister McGrath, Richard Rorty,

C.S. Lewis, Mioslav Volf, Jonathan Edwards, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Michel Foucalt, G.K.

Chesterton, Christopher Hitchens, Leonard Bernstein, Francis Collins, Jean-Paul Sartre,

Friedrich Nietzsche, Flannery O’Connor, and George Marsden) and sources (newspapers,

magazines, journals, book reviews, novels, social critiques). In addition, he uses sources
in a balanced, unbiased manner to accurately summarize both Christian and secular

viewpoints.

3) Breadth of discussion: Throughout his book, Keller addresses a number of

different philosophies and worldviews. He discusses Marxism, legalism, slavery, civil

rights, postmodernism, empiricism, and religious moralism.

Strengths: The unquestionably greatest strength of this book is its tone. Keller

does an excellent job of interacting with the reader; he writes always with his skeptical,

unfamiliar audience in mind.

Keller develops his points in a thorough, readable style. He opens each chapter

with an intriguing quote that resonates with the reader. For example, H. G . Wells’s

contradicting views of humanity before and after World War II serve to introduce the

chapter on sin. In addition, Keller develops the chapter’s discussion by objectively

describing an objection or misperception and then pointing out various errors or

misinformation. He anticipates questions and seems to dialogue with the reader

throughout, citing reliable sources that validate what he is saying.

Keller also connects with his reader in foundational ways. Both current research

and cultural allusions (“Star Wars,” Lord of the Rings, The Da Vinci Code, and the

“Rocky” movie among others) establish him as a credible, contemporary writer. He

makes use of the first person plural to describe universal characteristics of all people

(“We have a sense that the world is not the way it ought to be. We have a sense that we

are very flawed and yet very great….” [122]). His use of real life conversations and

scenarios add a reality to the discussions that in a sense relieve the reader of direct one-
on-one confrontation. Yet, pointed confrontation is still compassionate and resonates

when employed: “I’d like to demonstrate that you already know that God does exist”

(142). Even humor helps establish the relational tone (Darth Vader’s “I find your lack of

faith—disturbing”). His writing reflects an approach that has developed through his years

as a pastor.

Weaknesses: Not surprisingly, what serves as Keller’s greatest strength also

contributes to his greatest weakness. In an effort to relate to his postmodern audience, he

at times dilutes doctrine in order to explain truth to the reader. In his chapter on hell,

Keller emphasizes “one’s freely chosen identity apart from God” (78) and God’s giving

people what they ask for as the basis for condemnation, but a sense of God’s active

justice is lacking. The same pattern of overemphasis can be found in Keller’s summary of

sin. What he considers misguided focus is in reality a rebellious rejection of God’s

authority. Although he mentions repentance of sin (“we should repent not only for things

we have done wrong… but also for the motivations beneath our good works” [233]), the

general tone and prayer of repentance (235) imply that the sinner can confess only his

misguided efforts. Thirdly, Keller does not seem to give enough weight to the nature of

the atonement. He mentions substitution but only as an exchanging of strength for

weakness and vice versa. His relational approach helps to explain some aspects of the

Gospel but may give an unhealthily partial explanation of the Gospel.

In addition, Keller does not expect a believer to separate from the world and its

dangerous influence. He quotes Desmond Tutu (Anglican Archbishop Emeritus of Cape

Town), the Catholic Church, and Bono (lead singer for the British rock group U2) as
exemplary figures within Christianity. He does not emphasize the need for change once

Christ has been acknowledged as Lord and Savior. His epilogue expects the only change

to be a greater determination to pursue social justice and a greater anticipation of the day

when God will renew His earth, not a holy life reflecting change and intent on seeing

other people changed.

Conclusion: Keller gives a comprehensive (though at times shallow) summary of

Christianity that effectively addresses key postmodern objections to Christianity. His is

an excellent model of dialogue, communication, and confrontation. This book has

strengthened both my faith and my ability to utilize doubt.