Tim Keller’s new book, “The Reasons for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism,” is my next blog-review. Here’s a little background that might help you as you read my review of Keller, and as I make personal notes in its midst. I interned while in seminary at WTS with Ron Lutz at New Life for four years where Tim Keller, Jack Miller, and more (Harvie Conn, Tremper Longman, Bruce Waltke, Anthony Bradley, etc.)served and worshiped. Tim, Jack, Ron, and David George who now pastors Valley Springs PCA outside Sacramento, Ca. They all used to go and do boardwalk ministry on the Jersey shore together as students at WTS (actually it was Ron Lutz, Clair Davis, and Tim Keller that had a prayer accountability together, I think David George was in the mix somehow but I’m not sure). A few summers back I got to meet David and enjoyed an afternoon talk with him and my wife, long story short we were out in Ca trying to make contacts for ministry and my buddy is David’s Emerging Church pastor who also runs a concert venue out of the church. And a few WTS alumni friends of mine now pastor with Tim Keller as assistants at Redeemer.
So my educational, pastoral, and interpersonal relationships are in their own small way connected to Tim Keller. I have no direct personal knowledge or relation to Keller but I feel that in some ways circles of influence in his and my life have crossed. Due to this my assumption before opening Keller’s new book was that there would be some shared assumptions and values in answering unbelief both in the world and the church, so far I’ve found that to be the case. Tim’s answers to the world reflect in several ways the many streams and conceptions that WTS holds as a community, and his answers to the church remind me a lot of Ron Lutz’s tone and message, and of coarse Jack Miller’s sonship principals regarding the gospel and new identity.
So without further adue here’s the first of many blog-reviews on “The Reason For God”.
Introduction 00
We’re living in a polarized yet on the rise time, when both skepticism and faith are growing by leaps and bounds in cities in the most unthinkable of places like London, like New York. When Keller moved to Manhattan in the 1980′s with his family and said we’re planting a church here people said your crazy, particularly because of the orthodox positions of his church but here they are today at 5,000+ strong with over a dozen daughter church plants, influencing several thousand other churches all over the world.
In a time of polarization Keller’s own story seems uniquely fitted to minister within it, having grown up in a lutheran conservative background but entering into the other side of the gambit Keller knows that neither ends up with a complete answer. He needed answers as a college student but couldn’t find them, three things happened to change all of that: 1) there was an intellectual one; 2) a personal one; and a 3) social one. Believe or not Keller still sees these as some of the major barriers people must cross today.
What does today look like? Well I already mentioned that the sides of skepticism and faith are both on the rise and polarizing how does Keller answer this dilemma, listen in, “First, each side should accept that both religious belief and skepticism are on the rise…[Tim] recommends that each side look at doubt in a radically new way.” What this means for believers is that they begin to see the presence of doubt as a healthy thing, an antibody in their life so that when harder issues or arguments come to bear upon them they know what its like to live with them. For unbelievers it means that they need to realize that their own skepticism is based on a leap of faith. What this will do is encourage humility and a genuine earnestness to listen to the other side which in turn will give your own position greater clarity.
Enter the Clowney, Conn, Dillard, Schaffer, and many other WTS professors and alumni who are passionate about “third way” approaches to tough issues. Keller’s third way on the polarization and rise of these two not to mention the divergent nature between liberal and conservative Christian traditions, is none other than this hope and reality;
“The new, fast-spreading multiethnic orthodox Christianity in the cities is much more concerned about the poor and social justice than Republicans have been, and at the same time much more concerned about upholding classic Christian moral and sexual ethics than Democrats have been.
Are these types of Christians real, can real skepticism and real faith collide? Keller gives three stories that bear out a more positive exposition of the faith – June a Ivy League grad living and working in Manhattan; Jeffrey was a New York City musician, raised in a conservative Jewish home; and Kelly an Ivy League atheist. Stories of real New Yorkers engaging this new spiritual third way literally line Keller’s work. Keller sends his readers off with a reminder from Jesus own approach to doubts, engage them and explore them, a deepened understanding of them will “exceed anything you can imagine,” Jesus is not afraid of doubts.
Chapter 1: There Can’t Be Just One True Religion 01
“What is your biggest problem with Christianity? …One of the most frequent answers I have heard over the years can be summed up in one word: exclusivity.” Ok maybe you’re let down by the first ‘Leap of Doubt’ Keller engages, perhaps you thought New Yorkers would have moved onto some higher cultural arguement against the faith than exclusivity, well if you were let down by the first leap you won’t be let down by Keller’s response, check it out;
It is widely believed that one of the main barriers to world peace is religion, and especially the major traditional religions with their exclusive claims to superiority. It may surprise you that though I am a Christian minister I agree with this. Religion, generally speaking, tends to create a slippery slope in the heart.
Yes he did go there, Keller agreed, but hang out because the ending is where his ‘hook’ will stick and produce a world of good in you. There are three responses to the destructive nature of world religion: to outlaw it; to condem it; or to keep it private. Keller shows just how well read he is in the way he both lays out these defeaters and answers them, from world events, to sociology, to philosophy and religious studies. Keller has made his way around the room of these arenas.
To read how he responds to these options buy the book, here’s his third way ending; for Keller Christianity is the best chance to save the world. How so?
Christianity has within itself remarkable power to explain and expunge the divisive tendencies within the human heart…
It is common to say that “fundamentalism” leads to violence, yet as we have seen, all of us have fundamental, unprovable faith-commitments that we think are superior to those of others. The real question, then, is which fundamentals will lead their believers to be the most loving and receptive to those with whom they differ? Which set of unavoidably exclusive beliefs will lead us to humble, peace-following behavior?
We cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ, yet who can deny that the force of Christians’ most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 17, 2008 at 8:26 pm
D G Hart
I appreciate your taking the time to review the book. It could mean that I won’t have to read it. I’m half joking and half serious. I am after all a believer, not a skeptic, and am not sure why I as a believer need to hear arguments for the plausibility of belief.
But if I may ask you a question or two: you highlight the third way aspect of Keller’s argument (as well as a variety of other WTS folks). What are the other two ways? Liberal vs. evangelical? But where is Reformed Christianity in these “ways”? And also, when Keller defends Christianity, which one? Easteran, Roman or Protestant (and within that world, which one, Presbyterian, Baptist, Pietist, Congregationalist, Lutheran)? The point is that to decide upon a third way, it helps to clarify what the other two ways are. But I sense that these other ways are straw men because as I count them in this comment there are at least 3 ways out there, plus about 6 among Protestants alone.
I also wonder how you are going to get to a third way by looking to the heart. The Bible seems to be full of dichotomies between those who love God and those who don’t. One could plausibly argue that a third way at this level would be the moderation that is condemned as Laodician.
So I’m wondering about the value of third way approaches, not to mention ones that claim to be new and radical. Usually radicalism doesn’t split the divide. Moderation and caution does.
February 18, 2008 at 1:36 am
setsnservice
Dr. Hart thank you for commenting and raising several valuable questions. As to whether there is necessity for believers to hear arguments for the plausibility of belief I think the very presence and force of unbelief in one’s own heart is reason enough.
But there is further reason in the nature of apologetics itself as an enterprise in which we offer the hope that is within us to ourselfs, to our brother and sister in Christ, and to the world. Providentially I just had an RTS student share this very message with our youthgroup tonight.
And while I’m honored that you would take the time to read my humble review, as a serious historian you know much better than I the benefits of reading ‘source’ material firsthand. My review will no doubt have its own faulty portrayals of Keller’s book and perhaps Keller himself so please by no means consider my review as a replacement for reading the book yourself. I have benefited much from it and happily offer it up to your critical and curious eyes.
In answer to your questions I believe that the ‘third way’ of some within the WTS tradition is less about finding the heart of the matter and denegrating the polar sides because of their absence of it though that temptation is always present, and more about learning to appreciate the values and weaknesses of each sides ethos and worldview.
Point in case for Keller his third way was to take the theological orthodoxy of the conservatives and unite it to the social concerns of the liberal tradition. He does this in maining a healthy appreciation of substitutionary atonement while also emphasizing the Kingdom of God theology of the NT.
When he discusses ‘Christiaity’, ‘Liberalism’, ‘fundamentalism’ and more he’s not using the level of technical definitions people in your guild do, i.e. that of serious historiography but that in itself shouldn’t be grounds to undermine its pedagogic value in leading people to realize that we often miss the redeemable value in traditions, movements, or perspectives that are not our own. I think people like Keller lay the ground work for a re-enlivened interest in these discussions and expect serious historians like Mark Noll, George Marsden, yourself, and others to take it the next step.
I appreciate the concern you expressed in the closing question about looking at the heart but I think the third way is less about individual hearts and more about corporate ethos’s being de-polarized…as I understand it currently.
To my knowledge Keller never claimed to be new or radical in his ‘third way’, were you thinking of another persons ‘third way’ on a separate topic?
Again thank you for the comments here. Tony Stiff
February 21, 2008 at 11:19 am
D G Hart
Tony (is it?): You’re right. I should read the book. But there are lots of books I should read and finding a Cliff Notes version on line for one of them can be a help.
I appreciate your willingness to learn from the historians. But I do wonder how deeply Keller has read the history of American Presbyterianism. The point being that his third way of wedding evangelism and social justice is not new but was the way of the Federal Council of Churches. It was a social gospel organization that still had lots of concerns for evangelism. And it went the way of liberalism.
The reason for its capitulation to liberalism, in my view, was the equation of word and deed as equally important. Once you make deed a mark of true Christianity, then you have elevated this world to the same kind of importance as the next world. And once you do that, Christianity loses its fundamentally otherworldly character. (Not to mention that once you make deed important, you start realizing the other Protestants who also do deeds and you decide that being Presbyterian is less important than working with other Protestants who are doing deeds.) I understand that otherworldliness has its problems and can make the gospel look irrelevant. But I also think that come the time of death, relevance is overrated.
What I would like to see from Keller or his advocates is a defense of mercy ministry that says “I know where this led a century ago and here is how we avoid that this time.” Instead, I sense that this version of word and deed is new and improved. “It can’t happen here.”
On the new and radical stuff, I thought I read that in one of your quotations from Keller. But maybe it was your own prose.
Thanks for your response.
February 21, 2008 at 8:21 pm
setsnservice
Dr. Hart thanks again for conversing,
“I do wonder how deeply Keller has read the history of American Presbyterianism.” To raise that question in my mind is to also take on the responsibility of ‘quantifying’ what accounts for deep reading and what accounts for naivety. It also raises the matter of whether it is better to speak of American Presbyterianism or American Presbyterianism’s, point in case Keller’s article on different cultures within the PCA.
As a historian it doesn’t surprise me that your interest is in a historical defense, but what about Keller’s theological defense of mercy ministries in “Ministries of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road.” I hinted at some of his theological reasons in my response above regarding his use of the Kingdom of God theology in the NT as a reason for Mercy, added to that would be his handling of “The Good Samaritan” parable.
If Dr. Hart you like Craig Troxel do not see the church as having a corporate call to mercy than in my mind its really a theological difference that is the barrier between you and Keller and not a historical one. The historical argument may be more of an illustration of bad theology materialized for you than a reason why uniting the two is problematic. After all you don’t want to argue that something is wrong because there have been problems with it in the past…why not throw out the corporate experience of the Lord’s Supper after all we all know what happened in Corinth right???
Mercy in the life of the church in my mind is far more about fidelity to the full-orbed euangelion than it is about being relevant (see Harvie Conn’s Evangelism text), come the time of death fidelity IN CHRIST will have eternal significance…
My thoughts for what they’re worth.
February 22, 2008 at 11:30 am
D G Hart
Thanks for your response.
You know, right, that Keller’s kingdom of God theology is not the theology of the reformers or the Westminster Standards. Those Reformed folks interpreted the kingdom of the NT as a spiritual entity. I also think the contrast that Paul makes between the spiritual (eternal) and physical (temporal) informs the kingdom theology of older Reformed teaching.
But while I have you, let me see if I understand the kingdom theology to which you point. You seem to believe that the kingdom comes when poverty, hunger, and strife are reduced. Is that fair? If that’s the case then I see two possible problems. One is that suffering is not part of God’s kingdom. Yet the NT speaks often about the suffering that Christians will have to endure. So it seems hard for me to understand how the alleviation of certain wants is part of the coming of the kingdom.
The second problem concerns God’s rule. That would appear to be the essence of his kingdom. Yet, your (and Keller’s) kingdom theology seems to suggest that God is not ruling in those situations where poverty, hunger, and strife exist. Again, that’s not what I thought the sovereignty of God was about or providence and the idea that all things work together for our good.
February 22, 2008 at 3:00 pm
setsnservice
Quick note Dr. Hart, I didn’t say Keller’s kingdom of God theology is not the theology of the reformers or the Westminster Standards…I’m out of town this weekend so I can’t reply in a longer fashion. I think Keller POV on Kingdom of God theology is spot on, and fully in the bounds of Reformed Presbyterian perspectives…more latter.
February 22, 2008 at 8:53 pm
D G Hart
Thanks. Happy trails.
February 27, 2008 at 5:14 am
Baus
you wrote:
“added to that would be his handling of ‘The Good Samaritan’ parable.”
I’ve heard/read Keller on this, and this is where he departs from a neocalvinist viewpoint (and also a confessional presbyterian view). The parable does not teach that the institutional church has a diaconal ministry to those outside the church.
Those in reformed churches who adhere to a “contextualist” missiology/ecclesiology (e.g. Harvie Conn) don’t make the proper distinctions here and fail to hold to sphere sovereignty / spirituality of the church.
However, that is not to say that dimensions of his apologetic evangelism in this book are not valuable for us.
February 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm
setsnservice
Baus thanks for acknowledging not only your different POV on the parable as well as Keller’s continuing value for people like yourself in the OPC.
I can’t say I’m really surprised by your comment, I had several conversations with Craig Troxel in his Reformed Spirituality class, and Hart has had several conversations with a number of us over at Conn-versation blog on this same point. Having read Kuyper, Bavinck, Ridderbos, and more I’m left unconvinced of your ‘statement’.
Until I really see an argument for your position I’ll just have to leave it at that, but thank you for commenting and reading the review. I hope your time at Princeton coming up is fruitful and full. Loved the bio pic of you over at your sight man, very renegade meets traditionalist
February 29, 2008 at 12:20 am
Darryl Hart
Tony, if you’ve read the Dutch Calvinists, what do you think of sphere sovereignty? That Kuyperian position would indicate that there are things the church should not do. But the point of Keller seems to be “bring it on” for the church. That’s the logic of wholism. Sphere sovereignty rejects wholism because it leads to cultural homogenization and political tyranny. In other words, it leads to the French Revolution and Napolean (not the pastry). For Kuyper those were no-no’s.
February 29, 2008 at 4:37 am
setsnservice
Darryl, I certainly have not read the Dutch Calvinists beyond Kuyper and the regulars, and I’d have to admit my reading in them is only in the texts assigned at WTS. I’m at a disadvantage in weighing Keller’s thoughts against that discussion, though I do not see in say Kuyper’s “Lectures” book a necessary tension between what he says about the ‘windows of the church….and salt’ and what Keller says about making a countercultural impact in the world. Nor do I see a direct problem with the way Kuyper describes Diaconate work and the way Keller does unless one of course would make a negative argument from silence on pgs. 84-85.
My own rub on Kuyper’s “Lectures” and on sphere sovereignty as I ‘currently’ understand it is that it is lacking a more mature development of the Kingdom of God message present in the NT, and in that a poorly developed expression of how OT eschatology motif’s like shalom were being interpreted in the light of both Christ resurrection and pentecost. Having only read light in Nicholas Wolterstorff’s works my asumption is that he develops it much more keenly…but again my historical theology is in many ways less matured than say my biblical studies awareness. Though I take refuge in people like Herman Ridderbos who himself noticed that the Kingdom of God theology in the NT had not been developed well by the early reformers…
My question to you Darryl is what do you do with Keller’s biblical-theological arguments, how do you address his exegesis of the Good Samaritan beyond just saying you don’t think it fits with the reformed tradition.
February 29, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Darryl Hart
First, is the Good Samaritan really an object lesson about mercy ministry or is it a parable for Jews to understand what’s about to happen with the kingdom which is not going to be ethnically bound after Christ? Many of the miracles and teachings of Christ are saying more about the demographics of his kingdom then they are about the activities that go on in the kingdom.
Second, the Good Samaritan is a valuable lesson for all Christians. It is less clear that it has to do with the institutional church. Husbands love your wives is written to husbands, not to the church at large, unless we want to follow John Humphrey Noyes and practice communal marriage.
Third, what do you say about the WCF which teaches that the kingdom of Jesus Christ is the visible church (in contrast to the invisible) and that there is no ordinary way of salvation outside it? This is where Keller departs from the Reformed tradition. It is a relative novelty among the Reformed for his expansive view. Just look at Calvin on the kingship of Christ.
March 1, 2008 at 3:19 am
Baus
I appreciate the well-wishes and pic compliment.
you wrote:
“Having read Kuyper, Bavinck, Ridderbos, and more I’m left unconvinced of your ’statement’. …Until I really see an argument for your position I’ll just have to leave it at that”
You mean to say that Kuyper, Bavinck, and Ridderbos somehow support an interpretation that the Samaratin parable teachs that the institutional church has a diaconal ministry to those outside the church? If you have references for this, I would like to see them.
I don’t know if you’re asking about an exegetical argument concerning the parable specifically, or a general biblical & confessional argument concerning the spirituality of the church & her mission, or an argument concerning the neocalvinist conception of sphere sovereignty…
For the latter (I don’t consider the ecclesiastical point directly, but you’ll get the gist), see HERE.
Do also visit The Kuyperian.
I’m working on an Apologetics study too.
March 2, 2008 at 5:57 am
Baus
Forgive me for multiplying comments.
Here’s Kuyper on the “church member restriction” of diaconal ministry:
“…the service of church philanthropy, in the diaconate… as an indispensable and constitutive element of ecclesiastical life… [deacons are] stewards of what is [Christ's] property; and in His name it must be distributed to His poor, –our brothers and sisters. The poor church-member…. Always and ever we have a religion, and a church, for the sake of God, and not for the sake of man.”
(Lectures on Calvinism, p.67-68)
This is in keeping with Woolley’s and Kline’s view too:
“There is no scriptural warrant for the church as church to establish, or otherwise identify with its name, institutions devoted to the practice of medicine or of any other profession which belongs in the sphere of the cultural mandate that God has given to men as men.
There is no scriptural warrant for the church as church to make official appointments of individuals to a ministry of mercy which is directed exclusively or even primarily to those outside the household of faith.”
In its restoration of the diaconate, the Reformed churches early-on made the distinction that the proper subjects of the ministry were to be those ‘in the household of faith.’
October 6, 2011 at 11:12 am
The Good Samaritan and Two Kingdoms « Analytic Theology, et cetera.
[...] the good Samaritan being about radical NT ethics and treatment of those outside the group. I could cite guys like Darryl Hart, who writes: “First, is the Good Samaritan really an object lesson [...]