Book Review: The Reason for God by Timothy Keller

Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Riverhead Books, 2008. 254pp. $16.00.

0cec69c028853f708858c875b6693795_400x400In his 1952 book by the same name, C.S. Lewis attempted to defend what he coined ‘mere’ Christianity. He described Christianity as a house that included Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and various strands of Protestantism. When a person is first converted, that person is a mere Christian in the great hallway of the house. From that hallway, a mere Christian can and should choose to go into one of the various rooms (denominations). Lewis was not as concerned with getting unbelievers into his particular room as he was with getting them into the great hallway. In keeping with Lewis’ emphasis on converting unbelievers to mere Christianity, Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, seeks to meet unbelievers in their doubts and lead them into the great hallway. In Keller’s own words, “I am making a case in this book for the truth of Christianity in general—not for one particular strand of it” (121).

Summary

In The Reason for God, Keller strikes a very pastoral, almost conversational tone. He is not primarily speaking to Christians; his intended audience is made up of doubters. Like C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and Cornelius Van Til’s Why I Believe in God, rather than being an apologetics textbook, The Reason for God presents as a conversation piece for Christians and unbelievers. The main body of the book is broken up into two main parts—Part 1: The Leap of Doubt, and Part 2: The Reasons for Faith.

The Leap of Doubt

In this section, Keller addresses a host of misconceptions about God and Christianity. In the first chapter, he addresses the assumption that exclusivity in religion leads to bigotry by demonstrating that Christianity, while being exclusive, is a religion comprised of members who should themselves have been excluded. Writing Chapter Two, in dealing with the problem of suffering, Keller paints pictures of God and of heaven that are so desirous that, in theory, it retroactively erases all pain experienced this side of death.

Chapter Three is a case for the glory of slavery in the service of a King who became a Slave and died for His subjects. Keller’s goal in the fourth chapter is to point out the inconsistency of committing injustice while claiming the name of Christ. In Chapter Five, he demonstrates the fact that the God of the Bible is not a God primarily comprised of an all-inclusive love, but neither is such a god found in any of the texts of the myriad religions of the word. The seventh and final chapter of Part One demonstrates the folly of trying to interpret God and the Bible through the lens of a modern approach to history and culture.

The Reasons for Faith

After a brief intermission where Keller offers a brief apologetic for his approach to the subject matter, he returns with Part Two: Reasons for Faith.  Having briefly dealt with several reasons unbelievers may have to doubt Christianity, he turns to a positive case for faith. Chapter Eight is Keller’s case for the Christian approach to empirical evidences and against evolutionary science’s unsatisfactory attempt at dismissing divine evidences. He points to internal evidences such as moral obligation, in Chapter Nine, as evidence for God’s existence.

With Chapter Ten, Keller attacks the issue of sin and shows the necessity of the cross. Chapter Eleven is devoted to the demonstration of grace’s triumph over self-righteousness. His twelfth chapter is a demonstration of the relational and social implications of the cross. In Chapter Thirteen, he lays out his apology for the resurrection. The fourteenth and final chapter is a brief treatise on the glories of heaven. Keller concludes this work with an epilogue titled: Where Do We Go from Here? In this section, he walks the unbeliever through the process of conversion and incorporation into the body of Christ.

Critical Evaluation

Christians can gain much from reading The Reason for God. One thing that is immediately noticeable is the fact that no one can write on this subject without upsetting some, if not all, parties: believers and unbelievers, liberals and conservatives, evidentialists and presuppositionalists. However, Keller strikes a tone in this book that can be described in no other way than pastoral. While a case may be made that he makes too many concessions, he does not draw lines in the sand and die on hills where it is not dictated by the subject matter. When writing with such pastoral overtones, it can be difficult to toe the line between unbiblical compromise and gross reactionism. Keller is not always successful in toeing this line, but no one could argue that he has not made a valiant effort at doing so.

Furthermore, though Keller is very accessible and pastoral in his writing, it must be noted that he is widely read on the subject matter at hand. He quite obviously reads broadly, quoting from a wide array of Christian and non-Christian authors. The subject is doubtlessly one of great importance to him, one that he does not think worthy of minimal research and much conjecture. Keller’s heart and his effort in The Reason for God is to be commended highly.

However, there are a few concerns that arise in his method of argumentation. Keller approaches the doubt of an unbeliever as something that is ethically neutral. He makes the gross error of equivocating the common with the honorable. Everyone has their doubts. Thus, it must be honorable to put your doubts on display, right? Wrong. If Christians were to understand doubt for what it is: the sinful suppression of truth, they would reject this equivocation and cease treating the doubts of Christians and non-Christians as something to be praised.

At the end of Keller’s “Introduction,” he describes two scenes where Christ dealt with doubt in others. When found in the apostle Thomas, Christ is said to exhort Thomas to believe and to give him the evidence for which he asked. This is an incomplete account of the confrontation. Christ also rebuked his sinful doubt, “do not be unbelieving” (John 20:27; NASB), and compared him in a negative light with those who do not doubt (vs. 29). In the same way, the father of the epileptic boy in Mark 9 obviously understood the sinfulness of persistent doubt when he said, “I do believe; help my unbelief” (vs. 24). The Greek word here rendered “help” is a word meaning “come to the rescue of.” The direness and sinfulness of doubt are not adequately conveyed in Keller’s approach to unbelievers. Rather, he appears content to applaud their honesty, and join them in it, as long as it moves them to the next point in the discussion.

Of further concern is Keller’s doctrinal minimalism. He admits, as does Lewis in Mere Christianity, that he does see a point where every Christian ought to assume a broad-reaching doctrinal and corporate identity. However, his primary concern in the book is to make a case for “the truth of Christianity in general” (121). As such, the question must be asked how soon a new Christian ought to find a local church. Keller addresses this issue only as a byword, and only after much admitted trepidation, in his Epilogue. He affirms that new Christians must find local congregations with which to identify, but all-the-while passively validating their residual disdain for the bride of Christ (246-247).

Conclusion

In The Reason for God, Timothy Keller sets a commendable example for approaching unbelievers. He is always very cautious to breach the tough topics with much gentleness and humility. However, his method is not representative of a proper hamartiology (doctrine of sin). Doubt is not neutral as it relates to sin; it certainly is not commendable. Christians who engage the unbelieving world do them no favors by pretending that it is, whether in word or deed. Readers would do well to imitate Keller’s tone and patience with the unbelievers with which they come into contact. They would do just as well to approach his many concessions with great discernment, careful not to die on non-essential hills, but willing to draw the line in the sand on matters that are unquestionable in God’s Word.

________________________

 

Pick up The Reason for God today:ReasonForGod_040809.inddThe Reason for God paperback

by Timothy Keller

Calvinism: The Only Soteriology Consistent with Prayerful, Spirit-Dependent Evangelism

This semester and last semester, I took two evangelism classes. One was a single credit undergraduate class, and the other was a three credit Masters level class. At the end of these two rather enlightening and challenging classes, I still am convinced that anyone who holds to a form of Calvinism that pushes him away from evangelism rather than toward it either does not hold to a historic understanding of Calvinistic soteriology or is not living consistent with it.

I have held to this view strongly ever since having been introduced to Calvinism as a young Christian. However, I have never thought about whether or not a person who holds to a soteriological view other than Calvinism could practice a prayerful, Spirit-dependent evangelism in a way that is consistent with his soteriological perspective. I say “in a way that is consistent,” because there are many Christians who share their faith who are not Calvinists.

I understand that it is the default to say that it is indeed consistent for non-Calvinists to share their faith. As such, Calvinists are often, if not always, the ones who are put on the defensive in this regard. Not only am I arguing here that it is consistent for Calvinists to evangelize, but I am also arguing that Calvinistic soteriology is the only soteriological system consistent with the type of evangelism prescribed in the Bible. Any soteriological commitments other than Calvinism fall short in this regard and are thus inconsistent with biblical evangelism.

Prayerful, Spirit-Dependent Evangelism

The Holy Spirit’s work is essential in the work of evangelism. There is no corner of orthodox Christianity where this truth is denied. The question is, outside of a Calvinistic understanding of salvation, does the Holy Spirit truly have any power in evangelistic encounters? If He does, as nearly every evangelist will claim, who gives Him that power?

The reason these questions are important is that the natural response of most to the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s work is to push the importance of prayer. Hence, professors, pastors, and parachurch gurus have long pushed church-wide prayer meetings, prayer walks, and persistent personal prayer for the lost. The idea is, if the Holy Spirit is not working alongside you in your evangelism, you have no reason to expect your evangelism to result in the making of disciples.

Here, our problem with a non-Calvinistic approach to evangelism arises. In this instance, it certainly seems as though a form of election is taking place, though it is obviously not divine election. In a non-Calvinistic framework, Christians, though they may not be able to elect people to salvation, can certainly elect them to reprobation through their unfaithfulness in prayer. According to many who write on the subject, Christians decide how effective their evangelism will or will not be based on how persistent they are in prayer.

Calvinism, More Consistent

But Calvinists must admit that they also hold to a strong view of prayer as it relates to evangelism. Spurgeon wrote on many occasions of the need for more prayer in order to see the gospel advance in the world. However, the argument is not that prayer is unnecessary for evangelism to be effective. It certainly is. The argument I am here making is that Calvinists are the only Christians who can account for such an emphasis on prayer without doing injustice to their soteriological framework. Calvinists have the only soteriology that makes sense of such fervent prayer for evangelistic effectiveness.

When a Calvinist prays for the salvation of unbelievers, he believes that one of two things is the case. Either he is praying in accordance with the will of God and, thus, God will work through his prayers to effect the salvation of the unbeliever in question, or the desired effect is not God’s will, in which case the Calvinist rightly prays, “Nevertheless, not my will but Yours be done.” Two questions that naturally arise then are, What exactly is the non-Calvinist praying that God will do to make his evangelistic efforts more effective? and, Based on your answer to that question, why would his evangelistic efforts be less effective apart from prayer?

Divine or Human Reprobation?

The question in evangelism is not whether or not someone is elect or reprobate, but who elects them and who damns them. In virtually all non-Calvinistic frameworks, the lost seem to have no more choice in the matter than they do in the Calvinistic framework, unless they have heard the gospel from someone who is “prayed up.” At the end of the day, they still remain subject to powers outside their own control. If the Christian prays, he has a chance. If the Christian does not pray, kiss that chance goodbye. In other words, the Christian wields the power to withhold salvation from others, salvation the Lord had hoped to grant.

In the end, only a Calvinistic soteriology, which sees God working through secondary means like prayer and the proclamation of the gospel to accomplish His will, is consistent with prayerful, Spirit-dependent evangelism. All other soteriological frameworks are woefully flawed at this point. Those who hold to them can pray for the Spirit to make their evangelism more effective, and they can exercise a fair amount of dependence upon the Spirit, but none of them can account for the fact that they assume something outside of the hearers’ control that hinders them from repenting and believing.

The Christian’s prayerlessness, and subsequent lack of aid from the Spirit, works toward the hearers’ reprobation. The best such a person can say is, “At least it wasn’t God’s will that the hearers perish. It was simply not my will that they be elect.”

Conclusion

As a Calvinist, I would urge Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike to pray and ask God that the Holy Spirit would be at work in their evangelism. I certainly believe this to be biblical. I would particularly urge Calvinists to do this more fervently and persistently. It is only when Calvinists do not pray and do evangelism that I believe they are acting in a way that is inconsistent with their soteriology. I would also urge all who hold to a soteriological framework other than Calvinism to re-examine their beliefs to see if what I have written here is true. In the end, none of us pray enough or evangelize enough. So, if you think anyone who makes others reprobate is a monster, consider pointing the finger at yourself before you consider pointing the finger at the God represented in Calvinism.

A Working Definition of Evangelism

With a view toward making disciples and covenanting them to a local church, where they will be baptized in the name of the Triune God and taught to obey all that Christ commanded, evangelism is the articulation of the holiness of God, the sin of man and its wages, Christ’s accomplishment of redemption through His incarnation, perfect life, death, burial, and resurrection on behalf of sinners, and the proper response of sinners: repentance from sin toward God, and faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

BF&M – Article XI, Evangelism and Missions

It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations. The new birth of man’s spirit by God’s Holy Spirit means the birth of love for others. Missionary effort on the part of all rests thus upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life, and is expressly and repeatedly commanded in the teachings of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the preaching of the gospel to all nations. It is the duty of every child of God to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ.

( Genesis 12:1-3; Exodus 19:5-6; Isaiah 6:1-8; Matthew 9:37-38; 10:5-15; 13:18-30, 37-43; 16:19; 22:9-10; 24:14; 28:18-20; Luke 10:1-18; 24:46-53; John 14:11-12; 15:7-8,16; 17:15; 20:21; Acts 1:8; 2; 8:26-40; 10:42-48; 13:2-3; Romans 10:13-15; Ephesians 3:1-11; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 2:1-3; 11:39-12:2; 1 Peter 2:4-10; Revelation 22:17 )