I just finished chapter 4 last night, which wrestles with the challenge of the church perpetrating so much injustice in the world.  Keller approaches the question in a couple different ways:

1. He addresses the common argument that Christian nations have been responsible for war, genocide, slavery, destruction of culture, and a host of other evils.  Keller appeals to the universality of these injustices throughout secular and religious governments alike (using the examples of communist states, imperialist Japan, and few others), and ties this universality to the human propensity for evaluating some belief to supremacy, whether God or an ideal.
2. Secondly, he takes the opportunity to speak about the comparative morality of many within the church, and their deficiency relative to secular counterparts.  His argument leans essentially on one important point of doctrine: common grace.  The idea that all good things flow from God, including those which lead to social and moral stability, is the explanation for how a completely secular individual could appear so much “better” than a Christian.  Coupled with the inherent attractiveness of the gospel of grace to those who are broken, and the long road of sanctification, it is easy to see how this picture could form
3. Finally, Keller deals with the idea of fanaticism by essentially pointing out those who practice the condemning form of faith do not have a full comprehension of the gospel.  He does this biblically through the Sermon on the Mount, pointing out Jesus’ treatment of the “religious”.

The close of the chapter discourses through the idea that the capacity to critique the Christian faith comes mostly from within the faith itself, not outside it.  A purely secular worldview has abject poverty to critique the faith because it is based upon self-driven motivation, which manifests itself in an honor/shame-based culture.  This concept of selfish motivation has no intrinsic motivation to seek justice on behalf of the weak, and it is only because our cultural worldview is deeply built on a historical Christian base that we have any value for the poor and oppressed.

This chapter was an excellent, yet short dialectic that answers many common objections to rational assent to Christian faith.  Keller has a way both intellectually and pastorally explaining his ideas from a position of great humility, and I have appreciated both the soundness and tenor of his ideas.  This is indeed a great book thus far!

I’ve found myself needing to repent of my lack of reading actual books as of late, so I’ve got a few things on the docket I want to read.  I just picked up and started Tim Keller’s The Reason for God, and I must say it’s a good read.  Although the concepts aren’t mind-blowing, Keller has an aptitude for communicating simple answers to complicated questions.

Chapter 1 was about the exclusivity of the Christian truth claim, and how ultimately every person has an exclusive claim, regardless of their faith or skepticism.  I thoroughly enjoyed his simple response to the fact that everyone adopts a world-view or a fundamental narrative, whether they claim to or not.  Whatever grounds an individual has for denying an exclusive claim is in fact still making an exclusive claim.  My presumption is that he will answer doctrinally later on in the book the basis for the Christian world-view as the inspired Word of God.

Chapter 2 delved lightly into the question of suffering, and the supposed challenge that it is to the existence of an omnibenevolent God.  Keller answers this challenge by pointing out that anyone who claims God cannot exist because of evil has a concept of just and unjust that presupposes an extrinsic concept of justice.  To be logically consistent with a self-driven, Darwinian world-view, you cannot uphold this idea of justice.  He then goes on to understand that the Christian narrative is probably a better apologetic for the existence of God.

I’m looking forward to reading more…

Any thoughts from you who have read the book?