Review of Tim Keller's The Reason for God:
While reading this book it immediately becomes clear that Rev. Keller is casting a wide net to reach a diverse (yet strangely similar) crowd. It reads like an engaging sermon, full of personal anecdotes and references to books that his urbane crowd is undoubtedly familiar with. The projected audience is sophisticated, secular with spiritual leanings, not too keen on abandoning all religious affiliation, yet at the same time trying to cope with an palpable sense of cosmopolitanism. To me, he provides a breath of fresh air by really pushing aside what people think Christianity is, and what Rev. Keller proposes it actually is. By and large, I think he does a decent job at expelling the (erroneous, or otherwise inconsistent) philosophical underpinnings of modern man's qualms with religion and proposing the gospel as something not only true (historically), but as an ideal that even if one could not believe in, one ought to want to believe in.
His argument proceeds simply by first attacking philosophical underpinnings of what his urbane audience hold and reaching (a surprising, but true) conclusion that their beliefs are completely arbitrary. However, this is where it begins to fall apart. Perhaps it is precisely because he is trying to reach out to so many people, or maybe he has just dug himself a hole, but Rev. Keller fails to adequately explain why the philosophical underpinnings or simple assumptions of Christianity are not arbitrary and/or are true.
The worldview that he speaks from, of course, is biblical. However, there is little if any satisfactory explanation of why the Bible is (or why we should believe the Bible is) a proper medium of divine revelation and transmission. Admittedly, this seems to be a gaping hole in theology especially with convincing explanations for the purpose and transmission of the Bible (Don't worry, I am currently reading Enns), but it must be addressed. Rev. Keller's presuppositions are biblical, but there is no charge given why we ought to believe in the Bible as he sees it. Or perhaps someone might argue and say, "But Jae, he wasn't trying to say something about the Bible, but the reality of the events that lead up to the composition of the various books" but that itself is a large question itself.
I cannot help but think, "That's it?" when I finish reading this book. Rev. Keller was, admittedly, speaking from his own decades-long experience when composing this book. He was not, I do not think, producing an academic paper. He is deeply committed to the heart of the issue: the historical reality of the resurrection and the ontological reality of a triune God, both things that are very necessary to Christian faith, yet those do not come without its own set of presuppositions. Just to be clear, I agree with him on many things by faith (and not by a thorough understanding of the topic itself. Perhaps that is simply blind irrationale?). There are various other things that I (gingerly) disagree, particularly his claim of Christianity's soteriological uniqueness and Moral Obligation, but overall, there needs to be a more robust understanding of these topics before I am fully willing to wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, this might take an entire forest of paper and might not happen till the eschaton.
Verdict: Good introductory book, breathes life into contemporary objections to religion, (though not necessarily Christianity), but skimps out on very fundamental issues of transmission and reliability. Particularly troubling is the lack of any discussion of Old Testament material. But, admittedly, that wasn't his aim.
Next Book to be Reviewed: James L. Kugel's, How to Read the Bible
Following: Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation
While reading this book it immediately becomes clear that Rev. Keller is casting a wide net to reach a diverse (yet strangely similar) crowd. It reads like an engaging sermon, full of personal anecdotes and references to books that his urbane crowd is undoubtedly familiar with. The projected audience is sophisticated, secular with spiritual leanings, not too keen on abandoning all religious affiliation, yet at the same time trying to cope with an palpable sense of cosmopolitanism. To me, he provides a breath of fresh air by really pushing aside what people think Christianity is, and what Rev. Keller proposes it actually is. By and large, I think he does a decent job at expelling the (erroneous, or otherwise inconsistent) philosophical underpinnings of modern man's qualms with religion and proposing the gospel as something not only true (historically), but as an ideal that even if one could not believe in, one ought to want to believe in.
His argument proceeds simply by first attacking philosophical underpinnings of what his urbane audience hold and reaching (a surprising, but true) conclusion that their beliefs are completely arbitrary. However, this is where it begins to fall apart. Perhaps it is precisely because he is trying to reach out to so many people, or maybe he has just dug himself a hole, but Rev. Keller fails to adequately explain why the philosophical underpinnings or simple assumptions of Christianity are not arbitrary and/or are true.
The worldview that he speaks from, of course, is biblical. However, there is little if any satisfactory explanation of why the Bible is (or why we should believe the Bible is) a proper medium of divine revelation and transmission. Admittedly, this seems to be a gaping hole in theology especially with convincing explanations for the purpose and transmission of the Bible (Don't worry, I am currently reading Enns), but it must be addressed. Rev. Keller's presuppositions are biblical, but there is no charge given why we ought to believe in the Bible as he sees it. Or perhaps someone might argue and say, "But Jae, he wasn't trying to say something about the Bible, but the reality of the events that lead up to the composition of the various books" but that itself is a large question itself.
I cannot help but think, "That's it?" when I finish reading this book. Rev. Keller was, admittedly, speaking from his own decades-long experience when composing this book. He was not, I do not think, producing an academic paper. He is deeply committed to the heart of the issue: the historical reality of the resurrection and the ontological reality of a triune God, both things that are very necessary to Christian faith, yet those do not come without its own set of presuppositions. Just to be clear, I agree with him on many things by faith (and not by a thorough understanding of the topic itself. Perhaps that is simply blind irrationale?). There are various other things that I (gingerly) disagree, particularly his claim of Christianity's soteriological uniqueness and Moral Obligation, but overall, there needs to be a more robust understanding of these topics before I am fully willing to wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, this might take an entire forest of paper and might not happen till the eschaton.
Verdict: Good introductory book, breathes life into contemporary objections to religion, (though not necessarily Christianity), but skimps out on very fundamental issues of transmission and reliability. Particularly troubling is the lack of any discussion of Old Testament material. But, admittedly, that wasn't his aim.
Next Book to be Reviewed: James L. Kugel's, How to Read the Bible
Following: Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation
1 comment:
Hey Jae - I agree. After I finished it, I was like...that's it? It seemed like he was trying to cover so many topics and reach out so widely that the chapters were a little too broad and generalized. I might not have been convinced if I were an unbeliever. But still a good book I thought.
Rebecca
Post a Comment