- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (2/12)
- Next Post »A La Carte (2/13)
Book Review - "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller
- 02/12/08
- 16
There are many people I “know” primarily through their books. I read constantly and find that books allow me to understand the people who write them, especially when the author has written several books. As I read through the corpus of his writings I learn to understand how he thinks and learn to understand what he believes. Even if I have never met an author face-to-face, I often feel like I have met him in his books. Because Tim Keller has written so little, I do not know him in the way I feel I know many of his peers—pastors and theologians who have written extensively. So it was with great interest that I read The Reason for God, only his second book (besides edited volumes to which he has contributed a chapter) and certainly his most significant. Published by Penguin and with a positive review by Publishers Weekly, it has all the makings of a bestseller.
The Reason for God is written for skeptics and believers alike. It is a response to or perhaps an antidote to the the writings of popular authors like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. And it is a fine one, at that. While the skeptic has several volumes he can hand to a believing friend (many of them written by the aforementioned authors), the believer has fewer to choose from. So many introductions to Christian beliefs were written many years ago and simply do not resonate with today’s skeptics. They assume too much and deliver too little. Keller’s volume seeks to fill that void, and it does so well.
The Reason for God arrives at a unique time, for we are at a point when both belief and skepticism are on the rise. “Skepticism, fear, and anger toward traditional religion are growing in power and influence,” says Keller. “But, at the same time, robust, orthodox belief in the traditional faiths is growing as well.” As each grows, those who hold to each become increasingly convinced that they are in imminent danger. The world is polarizing over religion—or at the very least our culture is polarizing over religion. “We have come to a cultural moment in which both skeptics and believers feel their existence is threatened because both secular skepticism and religious faith are on the rise in significant, powerful ways. We have neither the western Christendom of the past nor the secular, religionless society that was predicted for the future. We have something else entirely.”
Attempting to find a way forward, Keller suggests that both believers and skeptics look at doubt in a whole new way. Within the book he does not make the classical distinction between believers and unbelievers, but rather between believers and skeptics. His thesis depends on this distinction between unbeliever and skeptic because, he says, we all believe something. Even skeptics have a kind of faith hidden within their reasoning. Understanding what we believe about belief is crucial. His thesis is this: “If you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs—you will discover that your doubts are not so solid as they first appeared.” He seeks to prove that thesis in the book’s first part.
In the first seven chapters Keller looks at seven of the most common objections and doubts about Christianity and discerns the alternate beliefs underlying each of them. This section is titled “The Leap of Doubt” and answers these seven common critiques:
- There can’t be just one true religion
- A good God could not allow suffering
- Christianity is a straitjacket
- The church is responsible for so much injustice
- A loving God would not send people to hell
- Science has disproved Christianity
- You can’t take the Bible literally
In the second half of the book, titled “The Reasons for Faith,” he turns to an examination of seven reasons to believe in the claims of the Christian faith.
- The clues of God
- The knowledge of God
- The problem of sin
- Religion and the gospel
- The (true) story of the cross
- The reality of the resurrection
- The Dance of God
The book begins with an Introduction, between the two parts is an Intermission, and following it all is an Epilogue.
The Reason for God is, at least to my knowledge, unique. The reader will soon see that Keller follows closely behind C.S. Lewis whom, along with his wife and Jonathan Edwards, he counts as his primary theological influences. Yet he sets Lewis and Edwards in a new context. And really, much of the book only makes sense within our contemporary cultural context. The arguments that matter here and now are different from those of days past and, I’m sure, different than ones in days to come. But the arguments Keller makes are compelling and reasonable and targeted pointedly at today’s skeptics. If you have read our day’s leading skeptics you owe it to yourself to read this as well.
Nobody but Tim Keller could have written this book. It seems likely to me that nobody but Tim Keller will agree with everything he says. For example, many believers will be uncomfortable with his defense of evolution—not the naturalistic evolution of so many skeptics, but a theistic evolution that attempts to reconcile rather than ignore the creation accounts of the Bible. Others will take issue with his description of hell and the thread of ecumenism that runs throughout the volume. But if we heed his exhortation to major on the majors, to look to what’s most foundational to the faith before focusing on matters of secondary importance, both believers and skeptics have a great deal to learn from this book.
Publishers Weekly has said well that this is a book for “skeptics and the believers who love them.” Believers will rejoice in a book that carefully and patiently answers the objections of their skeptical friends and does so with grace and in a way consistent with the Bible. Skeptics will see that even their skepticism is founded on some kind of faith and will be challenged to discern those underlying beliefs. May this book convince us all that we can believe and can believe reasonably, even in this age of skepticism.

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 
Comments (16)
this sounds like an excellent read - i'll have to get a copy of this and see his take on things.
while i admire dawkins' scientific enthusiasm, energy and sheer intellect, he belittles himself by building up straw men he can tear down to denounce religion. sadly, though, i've seen the pro-God forces just as quick to quell discussion by falling back on defenseless arguments like, "well, God's ways aren't man's ways," and, "i guess we'll just understand things when we get to heaven." those are intellectual cop-outs, and they've probably ended more potentially stimulating encounters than "i have a headache"...
i look forward to reading the book, especially if as you imply he seeks to bring the sides to discussion instead of just adding another lobbed-over-the-wall grenade to the war.
thanks for the heads-up.
Tim Keller also preached a six-week (or maybe seven) series on these topics that are worth getting from the Redeemer store. They go into more detail then what is contained in the book.
Series: The Trouble with Christianity: Why it's so Hard to Believe it1 Exclusivity: How can there be just one true religion? 2 Suffering: If God is good, why is there so much evil in the world? 3 Absolutism: Don't we all have to find truth for ourselves? 4 Injustice: Hasn't Christianity been an instrument for oppression? 5 Hell: Isn't the God of Christianity an angry Judge? 6 Doubt: What should I do with my doubts? 7 Literalism: Isn't the Bible historically unreliable and regressive?
I think this book will be the best Valentine's Day present yet:)
I just ordered four copies. One to read and lend and three to give away.
Thanks for the review Tim. I've read Dawkins's The God Delusion, McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion, and Robertson's The Dawkins Letters (which was a very helpful little book - thanks for reviewing it too!). Thanks also for taking note of the distressing absence of an intellectual Christian response to the "New Atheism". Blessings.
Thanks for the review. I've been looking forward to this book since I saw it was coming out. I was introduced to Keller through the Resurgence podcast and spent a time devouring everything I could find by him. I especially recommend his sermon titled "Doing Justice." Very intelligent and gifted man.
Thanks for your useful review, Tim.
I'll admit that my exposure to him is minimal, but so far my observation is that while he is clearly driven by a desire to win people to the Lord Jesus as revealed in scripture, I wonder if he will sometimes allow his apologetic impulse to overwhelm the shape of his gospel.
So for example, in this paper from his church website, he has some wonderful and rip-offable ideas about how to answer basic objections to the gospel. Where he seems to come unstuck, however, is where he tries to present the gospel in a winsome way, to line up with the deep aspirations of the unbelievers he is addressing. This example of a gospel presentation. taken from the paper I linked, is a real low moment:
Why we are here. The one God is a community – a Trinity of three persons who each perfectly know and defer to one another and love one another and therefore have infinite joy and glory and peace. God made a good, beautiful world filled with beings who share in this life of joy and peace by knowing, serving, and loving God and one another.
What went wrong. Instead, we chose to center our lives on ourselves and on the pursuit of things rather than on God and others. This has led to the disintegration of creation and the loss of peace – within ourselves, between ourselves, and in nature itself. War, hunger, poverty, injustice, racism, bitterness, meaninglessness, despair, sickness, and death all are symptoms.
What puts the world right. But though God lost us he determined to win us back. He entered history in the person of Jesus in order to deal with all the causes and results of our broken relationship with him. By his sacrificial life and death he both exemplifies the life we must live and rescues us from the life we have lived. By his resurrection he proved who he was and showed us the future — new bodies and a completely renewed and restored new heavens and new earth in which the world is restored to full joy, justice, peace, and glory.
How we can be part of putting the world right. Between his first coming to win us and his last coming to restore us we live by faith in him. When we believe and rely on Jesus' work and record (rather than ours) for our relationship to God, his healing kingdom power comes upon us and begins to work through us. Christ gives us a radically new identity, freeing us from both self-righteousness and self-condemnation. This liberates us to accept people we once excluded, and to break the bondage of things (even good things) that once drove us. He puts us into a new community of people which gives a partial, but real, foretaste of the healing of the world that God will accomplish when Jesus returns.
While there is some great stuff there, it beats me how you can have a gospel presentation that omits reference to the wrath of God and final judgement, and so severely downplays the nature of sin and the lordship of Christ.
I hope I haven't been too harsh there. As I said, my exposure to TK is minimal. I would be interested to know if you or others agreed with this observation.
PS to my comment above: Out of fairness to Tim Keller, I should point out that he's responded on my blog, here.
(Oh, and thanks Tim C for removing those triplicate posts!)
Hi,
From this link
It would seem that Tim Keller does not believe in theistic evolution according to Ed Stetzer's post. Erm... so what's the exact context of the "defense" of theistic evolution in the book? I have not got the book yet... don't think it's available in SIngapore yet.
cheersEdward
So according to Tim it seems that the section you quoted was not meant to be a stand alone gospel presentation? That is good enough for me.
Gordon, a passive wrath of God motif is present in that snippet. So are you saying that the active wrath of God and the propitiation of the Cross is the only angle of the Cross that legitimizes a short gospel presentation? If so why doesn't the Bible meta-narrative always take that angle?
The aforementioned sermons that formed something of the basis for this book where available for free at Justin Taylor's blog. They are tremendous, especially the ones on absolutism and literalism.Also, since someone else mentioned a favorite Keller talk, check out his talk "Gospel Centered Ministry," at the Gospel Coalition site. Top drawer and great talk on gospel-centered preaching
Tim Keller has responded here to the claim that he believes in evolution. He denies the six-day view, but he says that doesn't mean he believes in evolution. Do you have any specific quotes from the book that suggest he's publishing one thing and then saying another?
See more here also.
Gordon, a passive wrath of God motif is present in that snippet. So are you saying that the active wrath of God and the propitiation of the Cross is the only angle of the Cross that legitimizes a short gospel presentation?
dwigt, I'm not completely sure I've understood your question. When we are dealing with omnipotent and omniscient deities — and I admit I only know one ;-) —Is there a difference between active and passive wrath? One seems sneakier, but that may be just me projecting.
And do you find this distinction in the Bible, with respect to God? The usual examples I've heard tend to anthropomorphize God, as if when he hands people over to some bad thing, he somehow is able to wash his hands of responsibility, not unlike Pontius Pilate or some other minor bureaucrat.
Jeremy: Do you have any specific quotes from the book that suggest he’s publishing one thing and then saying another?
"For the record, I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory. One commentator on Genesis captures this balance well: "If "evolution" is...elevated to the status of a world-view of the way things are, then there is direct conflict with biblical faith. But i f"evolution" remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which—at the level of biology—God has gone about his creating processes."" (94-95).
Our weekly home study group has decided to read/discuss Tim Kellers (TK) book, Reason for God. I've been tasked with leading the discussion for chapter 2, "How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?"
I have not read the rest of the book, only the Intro and Chapters 1 and 2. So far, I find it wanting...very wanting...and I hate to say it, Biblically dishonest.
For example, in Chapter 2 TK compares Christianity with other religions and their take on future end times. But TK writes:
"The Biblical view of things is resurrection - not a future that is just a consolation for the life we never had but a restoration of the life you always wanted. This means that every horrible thing that ever happened will not only be undone and repaired but will in some way make the eventual glory and joy even greater." (Emphasis mine.)
Then a few paragraphs later, TK brings up the climax of the trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, where Gamgee discovers that Gandalf is not dead. In his joy and at finding his friend alive, Gamgee is excited and says "Is everything sad going to come untrue?" Here's TK's answer:
"The answer of Christianity to that question is--yes. Everything sad is going to come untrue and it will somehow be greater for having once been broken and lost.
What? Really? Where is that substantiated in Scripture? Where is the Biblical promise that "everything sad" is somehow, going to be made "untrue"? It's a stretch, but perhaps he's referring to born again believers, but certainly not for those who are not chosen by God unto salvation.
And even then, everything? You mean, I'll get to see my non-believing Dad again? My dog will be in Heaven?
The last few sentences in the chapter are equally confusing. Continuing to write about the resurrection, he says:
"This is the ultimate defeat of evil and suffering. It will not only be ended but so radically vanquished that what has happened will only serve to make our future life and joy infinitely greater."
Now, this would be true for believing, born-again Christians. But lets be honest here - Scripture nowhere indicates a life like that for those in the Lake of Fire.
Sadly, there's more, and I'm not even out of Chapter 2. It's almost as if this chapter was written by Joel Osteen, and not a respected pastor like Tim Keller. I know this book is intended for the skeptic, but how far off-base would you want to lead a skeptic?
So perhaps I'm missing something...like reading the rest of the book! Yes, I will read the rest of the book - but with a heightened level of discernment.
Finally, I apologize for sounding harsh, but I would never, ever, ever, tell an unsaved, unrepentant, skeptic or atheist that his/her life will somehow end up full of joy without first repenting of their sin, surrendering all, and following Christ. That's Biblical. And that's the truth.