Review: "The Reason for God"

For some time I have been urged to read Timothy Keller and, specifically, his book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. I have finally done so.

In the first part of the book, “The Leap of Doubt,” Keller addresses objections to Christianity: There can’t be only one true religion. A good God would not allow suffering. Science has disproved Christianity. Etc.

In the second part, “The Reasons for Faith,” Keller argues for the reasonableness of Christianity, looking at the knowledge of God, the problem of sin, the history of Christianity and the Resurrection.

To a large degree, I was impressed: Keller is obviously extremely well-read and can handle the material he works with – not merely the philosophers of old, but those who raise questions on our college campuses and coffee houses. Yet, Keller reads like a well-known friend, not some unapproachable scholar. Keller ministers in New York City and God has obviously gifted him to interact with the people of the city, through empathy, sympathy, and intellectual prowess.

Keller has a wonderful way of cutting through the fog an nailing down the actual issues and possibilities when confronted with a question. For example, in the first chapter, in which the skeptic argues that there must be more than one true religion, Keller addresses the divisiveness of religion and argues that is there is more than one true religion then society has only three solutions: outlaw religion, condemn religion, or keep religion completely private. Of course, Keller will have none of those answer and bring the reader back to the answer that there is nor reason why there cannot be only one true religion. He argues compellingly through the book.

Yet, I do have some criticisms:

First, the title of the book is The Reason for God. It does not seem to me that Keller ever gives the reason for God, much less an irrefutable argument for God’s existence.

Second, in the second chapter, Keller wrestles with the question of how a good God could allow suffering, but neglects to argue the biblical (and rational) position that human beings sin (do bad) and, therefore, bring suffering upon themselves and others – deservedly so.

Third, I wonder about Keller understanding of the biblical teaching on Hell. When he discusses how a loving God can send people to Hell (76ff), he talks about Hell as separation from God, but he does not seem to have a place for real physical suffering, which is taught in the Bible. (He even quotes the history of Lazarus and the Rich Man on page seventy-seven, which clearly shows physical suffering, bu says nothing of it.)

Fourth, on page eighty-seven he posits theistic evolution. While I know a great many good believers that hold to this position, I do not see how one can square it with the Scripture, without doing violence to the historical reality of Adam and Eve.

Fifth, and I have not heard Keller’s preaching, I was disappointed in the lack of Scriptural reference. It is, after all, through hearing the Word that one comes to belief. (Perhaps Keller would argue that one is reading, not hearing his book and that it is not a sermon, and for that I will acquiesce.)

There are a few other little things, but I would not want to give the idea that I think this is a bad book. No, it is one of the best presented and argued modern Christian books I have read, and I will read more Keller, D.V. My point would be to say that as much as I enjoyed the books, with a few qualifications, Christians ought to be careful not to think that mere reason will convert.