- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (10/30)
- Next Post »A La Carte (10/31)
Book Review - The Prodigal God by Tim Keller
- 10/30/08
- 22
After the publication of The Reason for God, Newsweek hailed Tim Keller as "a C.S. Lewis for the twenty-first century." That is a lofty comparison and one I'm sure must make Keller quite uncomfortable. Yet at some level the comparisons are becoming undeniable. Keller's ability to communicate to believers and unbelievers alike and to do so on an intellectual level clearly parallels that of Lewis. Where Keller's first book offered an explanation as to why we should believe in God, his second, The Prodigal God, focuses on Jesus' best-known parable (and arguably the best-known and most-loved story of all-time) to challenge both believers and skeptics.
In this book Keller makes no claim to originality. He states forthrightly that the message he conveys here is based on a sermon first preached by Dr. Edmund Clowney. That simple sermon, a fresh take on the parable of the Prodigal Son, changed Keller's life and in many ways shaped his ministry. Over the years he has often taught from this parable, both at his church and elsewhere, and he has seen God's hand of blessing in this message. And here he offers it in the form of a short book.
Traditionally, readings of the parable of the Prodigal Son have focused on the younger son and his reconciliation with his father. We learn from such readings that God is willing to receive all those who wander from him. Yet too often we overlook that third character--the older brother. Were the story only about the father and the younger son we would expect that the Pharisees, among those who first heard Jesus tell this parable, would react with joy. Yet we know from Scripture that they walked away in disgust and disbelief. Why? Because the parable pointed to them as examples of the older son. As Keller says, Jesus' purpose in this parable "was not to warm our hearts, but to shatter our categories."
He begins by ensuring the reader has a sense of Jesus' original audience as he taught this parable. There were two groups near Jesus at the time. The first was tax collectors and sinners while the second was composed of Pharisees and teachers of the law. The tax collectors and sinners correspond to the younger brother--people who left the traditional morality of their families and social groups and engaged in what others would consider wild living. The religious leaders, on the other hand, correspond to the older brother, representing the moral and obedient who have never turned from the traditions of their culture and religion. Where the first group seek God through some kind of self-discovery, the second group seeks him through a type of moral conformity. Jesus' message is that both of these approaches are wrong and in this parable he offers his radical alternative. "There are two ways to be your own Savior and Lord," says Keller. "One is by breaking all the moral laws and setting your own course, and one is by keeping all the moral laws and being very, very good."
While Keller focuses attention on both of the brothers, he gives more time to the elder brother. He wants the reader to know that a self-imposed standard of morality is not the same as truly knowing and following Christ. He wants those who are outwardly religious to search their hearts to see if there is an inner faith that goes along with the outward conformity. He challenges Christians with the fact that churches tend to be havens for the older brother kind of believer. "Jesus' teaching consistently attracted the irreligious while offending the Bible-believing, religious people of his day. However, in the main our churches today do not have this effect. The kind of outsiders Jesus attracted are not attracted to contemporary churches, even our most avant-garde ones. We tend to draw conservative, buttoned-down, moralistic people. The licentious and liberated or the broken and marginal avoid church. That can only mean one thing. If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners doesn't have the same effect on people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did. If our churches aren't appealing to younger brothers, they must be more full of elder brothers than we'd like to think."
It is rare that a book effectively spans an audience of both believers and skeptics, but Keller bridges that gap. For skeptics this is a presentation of the gospel message of human sin and God's extravagant grace; for believers it is a recounting of a story that never grows old. For skeptics it is an encouragement to be like the younger son by turning to the loving father who welcomes all who come to him; for believers it is a means of examining hearts to see if we have become like the older brother, so secure in our position that we take the Father's love for granted and even resent it when that love is extended to those whom we feel are less deserving of it.
Though it is unlikely that The Prodigal God will achieve the same level of numerical success as The Reason for God, it remains an exceptionally useful and valuable contribution. While the book's audience is broad, it may well prove most beneficial to Christians. It will set the gospel before them in a fresh way, forcing them to do some difficult but necessary heart work.
Parenthetically, The Prodigal God is this year's second major book dealing with the parable of the Prodigal Son. John MacArthur also wrote about it in A Tale of Two Sons. In both cases, these authors focus fresh attention on the older brother; in both cases they accurately convey the sense of the text. While The Prodigal God is an excellent book, I think I almost preferred MacArthur's take through his slow, steady exposition of the text. But honestly, both books are well worth reading.
*****
Monergismbooks.com is offering a special on this book. If you purchase through Monergismbooks, you can apply a coupon code and receive 10% off your entire order. After you places the final item in "Your Shopping Cart". Scroll below the shopping cart type the text prodigal in the "Coupon or Promotional Code" box. Click "APPLY." You will need to have a customer account before this will work. Click here to take advantage of this deal.
*****
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (22)
I got Keller's book by pre-order the other day. Love his exposition on the parable of the prodigal son, or as Keller would put it, the parable of the two lost sons. Keller also does a good exposition of this parable in his Galatians study guide (with Galatians being a very essential book for understanding adoption in Christ as the joy of faith).
Thanks for this review, Tim. Suggestion: it might be good for the Toronto Pastor's Fellowship Book review package in the future. I'm sure the guys would really appreciate learning about this. But if you discern the other reviews would be better, I'd bow to your expertise.
Actually, I've been listening to a class from RTS called 'preaching Christ in a postmodern world' team-taught by Edmund Clowney and Tim Keller (free from iTunes). They focus on preaching Christ from the whole Bible, as well as intentionally making that message rub in the world we live in. It was taught in 2001 and the thrust is much the same as this book. Keller is one of those authors who I like most of, but need to soak in a lot before I have enough of a handle to be shaped in my preaching, if you know what I mean!
Thanks again for the helpful review.
In Christ, Ian.
Tim,
I have to stop reading your blog. I have an urge to buy more books based upon your reviews. :)
I heard John MacArthur preach on this parable. That changed the way I view about my own Christian walk in my church.
"The kind of outsiders Jesus attracted are not attracted to contemporary churches, even our most avant-garde ones. We tend to draw conservative, buttoned-down, moralistic people. The licentious and liberated or the broken and marginal avoid church. That can only mean one thing. If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners doesn’t have the same effect on people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did. If our churches aren’t appealing to younger brothers, they must be more full of elder brothers than we’d like to think.”
Wrong. Our churches should never try to appeal to the unbeliever or even the believer. We should always conduct worship services according to the regulative principle of worship. Church isn't for unbelievers it is for believers to come before God and worship and glorify Him. If an unbeliever comes to our church and the Holy Spirit regenerates him through the hearing of the Gospel, that is wonderful! However, evangelism belongs outside among the unbelievers.
Sarah,
You are absolutely correct in what you say about what the focus on the church should be. I don't think that the quote you are responding to is arguing that the church should be "seeker friendly" or change in order to draw in unbelievers, however. I think the point is that our churches are too often more concerned with rules and regulations and the traditions of men than they ought to be, at the expense of things of vastly greater importance.
I know what he's talking about from first-hand experience. I was raised a good Baptist, and if anybody knows how to make a church legalistic, it's a Baptist. The pastor of the last church I went to told my Wednesday night Bible Study group about a note he received from one of the church members. The note was complaining about the shoes that a young man wore when he sang a solo during a Sunday morning service.
It does not take a theologian to understand that there is something wrong with placing more importance on someone's shoes than on the message they brought. It is an extreme example, but it is indicative of a greater issue. The church was only welcoming to people who dress the way they are supposed to - conservative, buttoned-down, moralistic people. The preaching at that church is excellent and biblical, but the people got caught up in the trivial and the way things have always been. I was having a rough time spiritually and did not want to attend church there because there was so little room for people to actually be imperfect human beings.
Churches should be a place where believers gather together in the name of Jesus Christ to worship God and spur one another on to love and good deeds. Again, I do not disagree with you on what they should be about. However, I see what Keller is talking about in our churches, and if people are not seeing Jesus Christ where His children are gathered, there is something wrong.
I deeply appreciate the way Keller emphasizes that the true gospel as the work of Christ ALONE as opposed to our accomplishement. Keller said "...the gospel is news about what God has already been done for you, rather than instruction and advice about what you are to do for God. The primacy of his work, not our work, is part of the essence of faith. In other religions, God reveals to us how we can find or achieve salvation. In Christianity, God achieves salvation for us. The gospel brings news primarily, rather than instruction. "
Btw, the Best Price on the Internet for Keller's The Prodigal God is for registered customers of Monergism Books when you use this discount. IN fact, Buy you get 10% off your entire orderReformation Day Book Special
“There are two ways to be your own Savior and Lord,” says Keller. “One is by breaking all the moral laws and setting your own course, and one is by keeping all the moral laws and being very, very good.”
That quote is a keeper - so much truth in such a brief statement. I have two unbelieving children; that statement just about perfectly describes the opposite ways in which their unbelief has expressed itself.
Sarah,
Who's regulative principle? Raising hands? A little bit of dancing as well? I was just curious....who are some pastors or theologians you enjoy or look up to? Thanks.
Yes,the regulative principle of worship means that we not only put into our worship services those things that God has commanded, but we also leave out those things which He has not commanded. For example, He never said that we couldn't jump in the pool as the opening act to worship but He also never commanded it, hence, we don't do it. So it's God's regulative principle of worship not man's. I enjoy my pastor, Mark Jenkins pastor of Providence OPC, R.C. Sproul, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon. I'm quite sure there are other very good ones, but these men feed me well...along with my own studies. Right now I'm reading "Concerning the End for Which God Created the World" by Edwards. It certainly reminds us where we stand as humans and where God stands. If we are appealing to God in our worship service, then those He wants to benefit through those services will. We don't have to make them appealing to man to be like Jesus....quite the opposite.
Angie,sorry I didn't see your comment before. I think you're confusing seeker sensitive with the church of which this author speaks. Normally, seeker sensitive churches are the opposite of "conservative, buttoned-down, moralistic people". The seek sensitive churches are very relaxed, dress in jeans, have coffee shops in their churches, their churches can be in theaters, and they don't follow the regulative principle of worship. They love that younger brother and will do ANY thing they can to entice him into their churches. That isn't what this author states in the statement I quoted. In this quote, he speaks of churches who forgot about grace and loves the law which is just as bad as the seeker sensitive church who loves grace and not the law too. However, instead of guiding the church to appeal to Christ, which would ground and center the church, he wants us to appeal to the "younger brother". He states that even our Avant-garde churches (defined as: represents a pushing of the boundaries of what is accepted as the norm or the status quo, primarily in the cultural realm) leave these people out. Frankly, I have a hard believing that the seeker sensitive church does this but that's another discussion. His attention and focus is on churches "leaving the worse of the worse out of church" because they love the law instead of grace. His heart's grief (at least it sounds like it from this quote) is what is happening to mankind in church instead of how these lovers of the law instead of grace/law is grieving God in the worship service. Perhaps he states this in his book, but I wasn't commenting on his entire book on the the quote which I quoted. A church will never get it right if we are trying to appeal to any person.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience in your church. Sounds like some church discipline was in order there. You can always go to the one sinning and if they don't listen then you can go to the Session, then the Presbytery or then the General Assembly...your church might call those levels of government something different but it doesn't matter...those men are there to enact discipline on the congregation according to Biblical commands. They are there to help you. You should never feel alone in a church. God gave us shepherds to take care of us and we should make good use of them. Since the preaching was excellent at your church, I would have encouraged you to stay and used those means of government to solve the problem of legalism in your church. I hope you found a good Bible preaching church in the end.
Tim--Thanks for a very good and useful review. Keller's work has been very helpful to me. I will order this book.
Quote: "One is by breaking all the moral laws and setting your own course, and one is by keeping all the moral laws and being very, very good."Very close to "thin red line". When I see trends in today church, and examples of behaviour of people, who support "postmodern evangelism" I already know the way how they will react:- the main problem (center of parable) is on the side od older son (pharisee, like all people in traditional church)- the younger son is example for them - love the world, live in the world, be happy and rich and have wonderful relationship- no moral standards are neccesary, just live freely, love Jesus (they often don't know enough who Jesus is and what He did for us, so in reality they are driven by sentiment)
IMHO it isn't from Bible. But I have heard it from "biblical lessons", articles etc. The main problem is that their idea is - criticize traditional church - make place for their felt-need psychology, to tell people what they want to hear, not what the Bible says- they often (I have personal experience) have problem with basic moral standard (manipulation, deception, falseness, unfair bahaviour, etc.), - what I often call "situation ethics" - they think, that it is possible to be Christian, and it isn't necessary to be honest and moral.
Summary: Morality should be standard for christians. A quote from teeneger book "don't think a lot of about shortsight morality, follow your purpose" is false. But christianity is a lot of more than morality (even wordly person can be moral).
"If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners doesn’t have the same effect on people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did. If our churches aren’t appealing to younger brothers, they must be more full of elder brothers than we’d like to think.”Again, there is neccesary to be careful, very careful. There are many byways which are "interesting to people", but not biblical. But on the other side, it is neccesary to properly understand and preach biblical message.
Sarah,
Read again what I said:I don’t think that the quote you are responding to is arguing that the church should be “seeker friendly” or change in order to draw in unbelievers
I by no means confused what he was describing as a seeker sensitive church. The whole point of the shoe complaint story was to describe the kind of thing to which he is referring - the church that is so caught up in the way they think things should be done that they lose sight of what matters.
I go to a church now that has a coffee shop, where people wear jeans, where the music is loud and written recently. The preaching is biblical and I have never once heard anything that sounded ear-tickling. The coffee shop is for older believers to meet with younger believers for discipleship. I wore jeans even to the buttoned-down church, for several reasons that I won't go into here - frankly, what a person wears to church is between themselves and God and really shouldn't be anyone else's concern unless it is something legitimately offensive, distracting or immodest. As for the music, I will just say that content is more important than style, and as someone who was involved in music ministry for several years, I know how divisive that subject can be.
I don't know who made the comment about the shoes at the old church, so I could not confront them. The pastor knew, and he told us about it not to get the shoes changed but to warn against really silly arguments. The church leadership was aware of it and legalism and traditionalism were discussed from the pulpit more than once. I left because I found the church to be unfriendly and they very quickly shunned people who didn't toe the line. I also left because I'm a single person in my upper 20s and was looking for a place that did not lump me in with the college students (now this is a place where the church fails to minister to its own - there's something for seniors, married couples, families, children, students...but not for single people past the age of 22). Legalism did not drive me away, but it did not give me much inducement to stay. I unfortunately stopped going to church for a while (not because of the church, because of my own selfishness), and when it was time to go back I opted to go to a new church. That's what happened, and I'm in a small home group through the church with both married and single people in it and and very happy with that!
Great review Tim. I look forward to ordering and reading the book.
Not to take away from the discussion already going on but I was just wondering if anyone knows why the title 'Prodigal God'. I always thought the word 'prodigal' meant wasteful. I just looked up the definition of the word again and, in addition to wasteful, there are alternate definitions such as "giving or yielding profusely" and "lavishly abundant" but this doesn't really seem to fit in with the subject of the book. I wonder if this has puzzled anyone else or if someone has insight into Keller's use of this phrase. Thanks.
Angie,the reason why I said that I thought you were confused and then described one set of seeker sensitive church and then described the author's seeker sensitive church is because I believed you to believe that the author's position was outside of the seeker sensitive church. I believed you to think there was only one type of seeker sensitive church which would be the most identifiable one. His position of argument attacks the button-up, conservation, moralistic church for not appealing to the worse or the worse unbeliever. This is no different than the most common type of seeker sensitive church (the jean-wearing, coffee Lotte-drinking church) looking to do anything it can to reel in that unbeliever. So, in short, what I was trying to say is this: you can be in the most common seeker sensitive church which appeals to the unbeliever or you can be in the button-up, conservative, moralistic church working to change people's attitudes to appeal to the unbeliever. It's all the same. Both churches are now seeker sensitive with their own set of sins that they should deal with for God's sake and not to appeal to the unbeliever nor the believer. I never meant to say that you do not know what the most common looking sensitive church looks like and so you thought that the button-up, conservative, moralistic churches are those most common looking sensitive churches. So for that miswording of mine, I apologize. I hope this comment is more clear. Maybe if you read this one which is more clear (hopefully) and then read the one I first wrote to you (minus what you thought I meant about you not knowing what the most common looking seeker sensitive church looks like...because I didn't mean that), then you will be able to see that I am saying the same thing only in a different way.
Also, I never said that wearing jeans to church was wrong. I only said that to describe the most common looking sensitive church in order not to name specific churches who don't preach the whole Gospel. I sometimes wear jeans to church with a nice top. I agree with you that modesty is key.
I am not trying to pick on you, Angie. However, what is this suppose to mean: "(now this is a place where the church fails to minister to its own - there’s something for seniors, married couples, families, children, students...but not for single people past the age of 22)." Was this church dividing people up into groups in some fashion and sending them away while the worship service was be conducted? That doesn't make any sense to me. The "something" that should be in every church should be God's people coming together to worship God according to the regulative principle of worship. It's all about God and not finding "something" for your age group. I can sympathize with you on their coldness toward you and others since I myself went to a "Reformed Baptist" once and most were cold as ice. That is a GREAT sin for God has called us to love one another as ourselves and to think more highly of others than ourselves. That preacher of your former church can preach all day long that the congregation should not be legalistic and to be more loving, but until he exercises discipline nothing will change. Again, I hope you have found a Bible preaching church which strives to appeal to God which will naturally appeal to those of the elect.
Yemi,that is a good question and one that I'm sure I'm not qualified to answer since I haven't read the book. But perhaps he named it as such with tongue in cheek. So for example, the church remains but because God is no longer needed because they have their moralistic behavior which will save them, they have thrown out God and God is now the prodigal. Perhaps the author is calling for people to turn to God and "bring" Him back or in better words repent of their sin so that God will return their lamp stand and be among the people. I hope the author is calling people to do this...although from what I've read the emphasis for doing this "bringing of God back" is to appeal to the younger brother which of course would be the wrong reason for "bringing" God back into the Church. This is all speculation on my part, of course. The author might have a completely different reason for his title.
Many of you are probably aware that the title of the book "Prodigal God" is causing quite a stir among Reformed Christians. In fact many will not even crack the book open because they believe that the word "prodigal" can only be used in the negative sense, regardless of Keller's claims to the contrary.Although I think they are nitpicking here. I would however like to find concrete information that shows that the word "prodigal" can legitimately be used in the positive sense.
Tom
If people pass this book up because of a title, then ironically they are the people that are in most need of this book. I highly recommend it!!!
Danny
In fairness to some of the people I talk to who are offended at the book's title. I thought they might be better represented if I let one speak for themselves.
"Prodigal love" (referring to CH Spurgeon sermon) is a far cry from "Prodigal God". And personally, I couldn't care less who, outside of the inspired writers of Scripture, uses that term, it is derogatory and an assault against God's character. Twisting the meaning, which in the vast majority of cases, and which is accepted in our society, which is NEGATIVE doesn't negate the incongruity of it. Is this any different than someone using the name of God or any of the three persons of the Trinity in a joke who's intention is good yet which violates the 3rd Commandment?
In good conscience I cannot and will not refer to God's love as "prodigal" nor especially to God Himself as "prodigal". When I read Isa. 6:3, I do not read of the seraphim crying out, "Prodigal, prodigal, prodigal is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory."
Actually as I think about my friends arguement here, I can definately understand where he is coming from. In a way, this is not nitpicking. If indeed the word 'prodigal' can not legitamately be used in the positive sense.
Yemi
Here is the reason why Tim Keller used the title. (I am trying to find out if his reasoning is legimate or not.)
Why "Prodigal God"?An Explanation of the Title from the Author, Tim Keller
The word 'prodigal' does not appear in the Greek text. It is an English word that has become attached to the parable of the two lost sons in Luke 15. But it is a good, suggestive word that helps us understand the parable's teaching.
The word 'prodigal' is an English word that means recklessly extravagant, spending to the point of poverty, of 'being in want' (Luke 15:14.) The dictionaries tell us that the word can be understood in a more negative or a more positive sense. The more positive meaning is to be lavishly and sacrificially abundant in giving. The more negative sense, is to be wasteful and irresponsible in one's spending. The negative sense obviously applies to the actions of the younger brother in the Luke 15 parable of the two sons. But is there any sense in which God can be called 'Prodigal'?
First, the elder brother is offended by the father's extravagant and (to him) irresponsible welcome of his younger brother. The father, of course, represents God, and legalists are always offended by the gospel of free grace. They see it as wasteful and unfair. After all, they worked for their acceptance. These are the people to whom Jesus was telling the parable in the first place—the Pharisees who objected to Jesus' lavish grace to tax collectors and sinners. They certainly thought Jesus was being far too free and irresponsible with the love and favor he was promising them from God. Jesus depicts them in the parable as the elder brother upset with his father's prodigality.
Second, the positive meaning of the term 'prodigal' is definitely true of God. He spent himself to the uttermost on the Cross. He did so 'recklessly' in the sense that he did not reckon the cost to himself. Jesus was someone who spent himself into helpless poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and was 'in want' in the most extreme way.
So, in summary, the title 'Prodigal God' calls attention not only to the mistaken way that legalists regard God's gospel of grace, but also to how Jesus, though he was rich, spent everything without thought for himself, that we might be saved.
I thought I would mention that some of my Reformed friends saw Tim Keller's explanation of why he used the title and among other things they said, one said it was a very lame excuse.
All this goes to show that we should choose our word's carefully, especially when it comes to the thrice holy God.I think Tim Keller must have known that the title would cause controvercy. Which other wise takes away from what looks to be a very good book.
Tom
Tim:Thanks for the great review. I read the book in a couple of sittings and, as usual with Tim Keller's stuff, was moved to tears. You mentoined in your review something those of us who sat under his teaching for years marveled about: his ability to touch and challenge seekers, young believers, and the mature alike. He continues to challenge me.
Take care,Holiday Longing
PS. And, Sarah, I think if you were to attend a Redeemer service, you'd see plenty of the regulative principle in action. You ought to read what Tim Keller has written about worship. Moreover, one reason so many come to Redeemer and come to faith there (besides the sovereignty of God, but his secondary means), is that Tim continued to stay true to the gospel and orthodox Biblical teaching.