I have been making my way through The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Tim Keller since Saturday. I’m only through part 1 in which he looks at the objections commonly raised against Christianity. Keller utilizes a kindly Van Tillian approach. Greg Bahnsen, for instance, would often use a scorched-earth, win at all costs, type of approach that made many Christians rejoice, but left unbelievers feeling totally minimized and victimized. Keller models a kind hearted manner, one which is willing to acknowledge where those he disagrees with have a valid point. He also models a method of gently showing them their own “defeater beliefs”, beliefs that are just as unproveable as those they criticize (self-defeating) or that borrow intellectual or moral capital from Christianity (or at least theism).
The chapters are relatively brief, but have plenty of footnotes. One interesting thing he often does is bring in the ideas of other unbelievers to undermine the ideas of the most scathing skeptics. Keller’s goal is always engagement to lovingly persuade. He wants people to examine their own beliefs (especially their presuppositions) and see if they measure up the criteria of proof they demand of ours. His goal is not to pummel people into submission.
Toward the end of the section a light bulb went on. I felt like saying, “Steve, you fool.” Tim Keller talks about a Stepford God who will never say anything that upsets your intellectual or moral applecart. It is built on an idea found earlier:
“For sake of argument, let’s imagine that Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God. If that were the case we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect. If Christianity were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting our thinking at some place.”
In thinking about culture and Christianity before, I noticed that our cultural discomfort points to the cultural idols. What I mean is that when a Christian is uncomfortable with an aspect of culture if often points to an idol of that culture. For instance, I am uncomfortable with sexual immorality (I pretty much endorsed it before becoming a Christian), and it points to how our culture has made an idol or savior of sexual immorality. Freedom is said to be found in freedom of sexual expression.
In talking to someone about Christianity, their discomfort with a particular biblical teaching (or their misunderstanding of it) reveals their idols (this was the lightbulb moment). God is not a Stepford God, affirming all their progressive and civilized notions. Rather, He insults them and they are truly offended. Rather than face the fact that they might have wrong notions, they argue that the Bible is wrong, misguide, archaic and out-dated. John Frame, in his more technical Apologetics to the Glory of God, calls this the flight from accountabilty.
These flights from accountability show where that person is seeking life. For example, some people really find complementarianism (male headship) offensive and somehow demeaning to woman (when used to abuse and dehumanize women it is evil). They have revealed that they seek life in the modern notion of ‘equality’ not just of essence but of function. So when God talks about authority figures, which impinges on our functional equality, they become angry.
We should not do battle on that particular issue, but deal with what Keller calls the “deep end of the pool”. We are not trying to convert them to a particular belief of Christianity, but to Christ Himself. Should they be so converted, they may begin to realize that they have been enslaved to falsehood. But we can contextualize our discussion by affirming the fact that God made men & women together in His image. Both have dignity! We have met them halfway as far as truth is concerned. Now let’s look at the Creator and how He seeks to restore what we have destroyed by our rebellion.
Tim Keller consistently models this approach. More Christians need to read this book, perhaps we might more consistently ensure that the Cross is the offense they find, not a peripheral view or how we try to whack them over the heads as verbal opponents. And if we cannot do that (yes, we are sinners) perhaps offering them the book would be helpful.
Cavman Considers 
I just recently read Van Til’s Systematic Theology, in which he tried to make Warfield, Kuyper more consistent in their apologetic method. Van Til was concerned NOT only with the ‘Defense of the Faith,’ and therefore, the title of his book — but with also the content of faith, therefore, syste-matics. Van Til’s unique contribution to the church, and therefore in the founding of Westminster, was his unique synthesizing of biblical studies, systematics and then his transcendental apologetic method. However, Van Til talked about ‘not leaving’ the castle to defend the castle — but he also talked about the presumed ‘content’ of faith in his Systematic Theology. This was always based on a correct doctrine of Scripture. Keller, doesn’t outline this doctrine, which is essentially in any systematic theology — nor does in his ‘third way,’ he exegete, or tell us where this ‘third way comes from? Also, in his metanarrative of ‘big bang,’ into ‘dancing,’ he makes no attempt to tell us how he derives at these ideas? Are they from Scripture — from nature, from culture? From where? Therefore, I find Kel-ler’s ‘point-of-contact’ suspended from air. Therefore, his method is neither transcendental nor foundational. Is this the ‘third way?’ Therefore, he is not applying Van Til, nor Scripture — He is inventing his own hermeneutic….from ‘air?’
Humbly
I’m not exactly sure what to make of your comments just yet.
I haven’t read the 2nd half of the book, in which he should get to the content of Christianity.
Keep in mind that you can’t say everything, and the purpose of the book. Van Til covered this ground in a series of books: Intro to Systematic Theology, Defending the Faith etc. Keller is putting out a single book that is addressed primarily to skeptics, not theological students.
So, I think I’ll take it for what it is rather than demand it meet a different set of standards.
I also keep in mind Keller’s larger body of work, particularly his sermons. You may be the only person who claims he has made up his own hermeneutic. He mentions Luther quite often, so I see him doing his historical-grammatical work. He also, I would say, derives much of his hermeneutic from the Scripture by keeping it Christ/gospel-centered, and exposing the idols of people. Both of those are not from thin air, but the pattern of Scripture.
Oh, did Paul “leave the castle” in Acts 17 :& Titus by quoting their culture’s poets, and affirming that what they said is true? If people are still made in the image of God, there will be remnants of truth in their thinking- they are not as wrong as they could be. Nor are they as right as they should be.
I, too, particularly enjoyed his turn of phrase, “Stepford God.” I’m enjoying the book and have enjoyed the dozens of google/youtube videos of his Veritas Forum lectures, etc…. He’s pretty forthright about his eptistemological jumps. However, as Richard would say, “You can’t say everything….”
You read him right when you read that his concern for undermining the defeaters which non-Christians rely on as more too the point than trying to systematize a theological construct which says it all. He admits as much.
I’ve read a number of questions regarding the quality of Keller’s reformed orthodoxy most of which are half-cocked.
I’ve really enjoyed reading the blog and filling in the gaps since seminary. Seems you’ve been busy.
In the words of Kip, “Peace out, Napoleon.”
Randy
CC,
His method is also that of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Listening to his sermon of Acts 1 now- the focus is to be on the person, not the message, of Jesus. For Lloyd-Jones had an emphasis on knowing Christ, not just propositions about him (though those are important). Too often in evangelism we get caught up on the peripheral matters instead of the main thing: Jesus, Son of God and Savior of men.
The ‘gospel’ has been around for a long time. It is not just a concern of post-modern man, to present the faith to doub-ters. Also, I believe, that the book is MORE for so-called evangelicals, who are not content with the way the gospel has been presented in the past — and are looking for a new ‘tract.’ However, if one would even read ‘Chick’ publica-tions — the message is clearer. Therefore, I believe, Keller’s allusions to C. S. Lewis, are the foundations he is building on. In Van Til’s own writings, he said, that Lewis was fore-mostly a fiction writer -even with ‘christian mythological content.’ Therefore, I find the apologetic that Keller is dea-ling with — also with the pre-established reasons-not-for believing a total western social construction. As someone NOT from the west, I find the entire ‘discourse’ a problem of western unbelief. In Harvie Conn’s book, we have the pro-blems of God’s Eternal World and changing worlds — I don’t believe that Keller established the relatively of un-belief — especially in its tongue-and-cheek post-Inter-varsity Chris-tian Fellowship ingrown lingo. I have shown the book to many skeptics both of western, eastern backgrounds and African backgrounds — they too find the book totally parochial in its ‘case studies’ method of non-belief. Instead of employing a neo-Aqui-nas ‘block-house’ methodology which is clearly western –why don’ we just rely on the transcen-dental gospel –which starts from eternity, and comes into time. Then, we as Lisa Miller, who critiqued Keller in News-week, won’t lapse into the parochialisms of upper east side unbelief, or the parochialisms of neo-evangelical dissastifaction of the claims that Paul alluded to: ‘preaching Christ crucified.’ As Kuyper insisted on the antithesis, “vive le antihesis” in the now-not-yet and eternity! Let us not be trapped by the booby-traps of any particular culture.
Yes, the gospel has been around since at least the days of Noah.
The objections of unbelievers can be different depending on the culture and time. Yes, he is writing to address western concerns. This makes sense since he lives and labors among western cultures.
We’ll disagree on whether or not Keller established the relativity of unbelief. We’ll disagree with whether or not he uses in-grown IVF lingo, particularly since he quotes many of the objections from unbelievers.
You are attempting to totally eliminate the reality of culture, as if Christianity is not contextualized to “give God’s answers to their questions in ways they understand”. The Bible reflects the cultures of its original audience.
so this essentially makes discussion impossible. You act above such culture-bound, in-grown verbiage: yet, you are speaking to me in lots of technical, culture-bound, in-grown verbiage. Let’s say I find it ironic and altogether unbiblical. Sorry we will just not agree. I am just not “theologically correct” for you.
I believe then, that in essence you are reifying why many lapse from the Christian faith in the west — as Charles Taylor said, ‘we defend the gospel with sources of the western self –giving people the impression then, that it is ONLY a western social construction. But I believe it is NOT. But Keller reifies these misconceptions. Therefore, in rea-ding it, I become MORE skeptical — NOT more of faith! Do you see the problem? Confused, versus built up in faith. We cannot defend the Bible -without the Bible. That is my point. And that was Van Til’s only ‘apparently’ solipsistic method.
I don’t think we’ll make any progress.
Keller’s approach is pretty much like that used by Frame & Pratt in their books on apologetics from a “van til” or presuppositional approach.
I guess you are more of a ‘purist’. But your logic is not always consistent, nor biblical, so you are not persuasive.
Could it be that you just don’t like Tim Keller?
Great post and analogy. As a counselor when we have a client get “triggered” in an area, it is widely assumed that the best line of attack isn’t to engage in debate since emotions play more of an issue than the intellect. So, Keller is on to something here I think.
Regarding Keller’s hermeneutic: seems he’s more a puritan. His sermons and text engagement is much like Sibbes or another english puritan (name is escaping me right now) where he takes a simple phrase and uses it to come up with 700 contemporary illustrations. So, I listened to his sermon on envy. The sermon assumed that there are 7 reasons why envy is bad, 3 kinds of envy, and 4 things envious people can do (or something like that). Rather than spend time talking about the historical aspects of the text, he expected that his audience needed convincing that envy is bad, that it is part of their life, and that they need help from the Cross to repent of it.
Its a style that works for a sermon. Maybe not for a commentary, but since when do we go to church to listen to a reading of a commentary.
I don’t think you are being objective at all. It is not one of personal likes or dislikes, as an academician, we need to look at the text. In his book, Mr. Keller doesn’t allude at all to Van Til. So, how in any honest assessment can he claim to be a Van Tillian. At the same time, he makes massive allusions to others. Look at the people he quotes: 1) a while chapter to Lewis; 2) no reference at ALL to Van Til? 3) not even mentioning his name in the list of references? We need to be intellectually honest. NOT slippery nor dishonest. I have graded many undergraduate papers in my life time. This is what I have told my freshman. Quote, reference. Let’s get back to basic ‘freshman scholarship.’ Vive ‘honesty’ and integrity. Let’s be more objective here — rather than getting into personal debate. Let’s READ THE TEXT and see what is says!!! For crying out loud!!
I just have to laugh.
CC,
Yes, in this book Keller makes no mention of Van Til. He does pay homage, so to speak, to Lewis and Edwards.
Remember what I said about the larger body of work ….
I believe it was his lecture at the 2007 Desiring God National Conference when he discussed “defeater beliefs”, I probably have a post on it. At that time, he connected it with Van Til. I think I have a post on it, you can do a search of the site.
What he does in this book is very similar to what I’ve seen Bahsen (who annually paid his dues into the Van Til fan club) do in debate with an atheist, just in a far less abrasive way.
Since I have now finished the book, I find your characterization unfair. He does point to Scripture, often, though he also brings in lots of other thinkers to shed some light on the matter as well.
In the future, when I have time, I will post a brief explanation of Van Til’s method. Prior to that I will read “Defense of the Faith” to supplement my understanding of his Intro to Systematic Theology and books by those who have followed in his footsteps (Pratt & Frame primarily).
Van Til’s presuppositional approach to ‘defending the faith,’ is connected to a defense of the ‘content of Scripture,’ which is organized in what is called, Systematic Theology. However, if you look at any Systematic Theology, which is an outline of ‘doctrines,’ it is built on a correct understan-ding of a doctrine of Scripture. While Mr. Keller, alludes to Scriptures, he does not clearly outline a doctrine of Scrip-ture. Without doing that first, we don’t even have a foun-dation — and therefore, our house of doctrines, becomes a house of cards –built on what? At the same time, when Keller makes ‘mucho’ references to Lewis, and then to Edwards, he doesn’t himself develop a healthy doctrine of revelation, or of Scripture. Therefore, in not doing that — the so-called Van Tillian apologetic method — is not just ‘destroying other people’s arguments,’ it is in fact, defending the Christ of Scriptures. That is crucial to a bib-lical apologetic, as it was then fine-tuned by Van Til — based on making Warfield at Princeton — and then Kuyper, from the Free University, who gave the Stone Lectures at Princeton Seminary — MORE consistent to Biblical faith + Content. Also, I find it rather skeptical that if Mr. Keller himself is so indebted to Van Til, that he makes NO mention of him. I find that very skeptical in and of itself: 1) it is dishonest in terms of scholarship; 2) and even as non-Christians in the academy we are taught to ‘quote’ sources. Mr. Keller made references to a LOT of people. If he was REALLY trying to show his cards — he would have men-tioned Van Til. Even, if he tried to ‘improve on him,’ at least a reference to ‘borrowed capital’ from him, would have been justified. Or, was Mr. Keller, trying ‘ignore,’ or slap the face’ of the father, whose lap he is sitting on? This is an illustration that Van Til often used about how the unbe-liever suppresses the knowledge of God. Are we so his-torically dishonest to not quote where our ideas are coming from? Therefore, we need to be more intellectual and christiantly honest of those who went before us. Heb. 11. We are not here because only of Lewis, or Edwards. Mr. Keller was on the faculty of Westminster himself — doesn’t it behoove him to give credit where credit is due?
I don’t know about you Cavman but I wonder if Keller isn’t giving credit to Van Til because it should go to our Lord.
“The heart of the wise makes his speech judicious and adds persuasiveness to his lips. Gracious words are like honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body.” Prov. 16:23-24
From what I’ve read and heard “The Reason for God” certainly drips
and satisfies in just such a way.
Of course it is important to give credit where credit is due. Whether it be in the field of Apologetics, Systematics, or the like.
I am curious if Consistent has revealed his sources, when speaking, with as much consistency as he desires Mr. Keller to do.
It sure is hard to remember who said or wrote everything I’ve ever heard or read. How about you?
Oh great … I was trying to let that dog lie.
All I’ll say is that I’m more concerned with the progress of the gospel than the standards of academia.
And …
The vast majority of western civilization doesn’t know who Cornelius Van Til was. Only about 1/3 of the Reformed community does. I do wish it was a different situation.
Sorry I kicked the dog. You know me and dogs.
Look at the references to the other authors. NOT one to Van Til, in which then Keller gives a lecture — both at Westminster and Penn? Such an obvious deletion. Why then does he quote Lewis, Edwards or Plantinga? Also, Van Til, specifically disagrees with Lewis’s apologetics. Therefore, it is a clear deviation from the Westminster Van Tillian tradition of apologetics. At Westminster there are a few buildings — one named after Machen, another after Van Til. There are NO buildings named after Lewis, Plantinga or Keller. It is so obvious as to the ‘conspiracy theory that is taking place in these circles. One need not be a genius to know what is taking place. Anyone who has studied at Westminster Seminary knows EXACTLY what is taking place — the buy out, and sell out of Van Tillian Reformed epistemology and apologetics to ‘another ‘ method — is that Keller’s method? Read Van Til’s Defense of the Faith and Systematic Theology — NOT the Frame version of it, NOR the Pratt version of it. READ VAN TIL himself! Such bad scholarship indeed!
If you are really interested in the state of the gospel, and Keller is himself..why is targeting asian MBAs who work on Wall Street? At the same time, the title of his book is also addressed to skeptics, who live on the upper east side. Also, if you examine his latest lecture circuit, he has been courting primarily Big time IVY Leaguers. Therefore, you are ignorant and in denial about the marketing efforts of Keller, and his gang. If he were really interested in the gospel -he also wouldn’t be targeting just the westerners, or the Asians who are upwardly mobile in the west. He would be concentrating his efforts on the growing non-western Christianity. He is targeting the elite. Just look at the website of his church. His movement, is sociologically on the side of the strong and wealthy. It is the opposite of Pauline theology – or of Christ for that matter. Also, prior to the planting of his church on the upper east side – there was a previous PCA ministry which met on the Bowery. These ‘fact’s are all being suppressed. Perhaps, now the truth of the whole PCA, and Redeemer strategy should be revealed now? Also, if he is truly interested in reaching the skeptics, in the Academy, etc., then we need to be concerned about evangelica sloppiness. In fact, the books have already been written: 2) Mark Noll’s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind; 2) David Well’s Whatever happened to Evangelical Truth. Therefore, if we were really wanting to be Pauline, we would merely proclaim the gospel — using the power of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to writing a book for so-called skeptics, in which he is misrepresenting non-believers, and also getting stuck in his own evangelical quagmire. Need we be repeating the mistakes of the dumbed down evangelical past? Also, why ONLY gather yuppies on the upper east side — the MOST expensive area of Manhattan? Also, why write a book, and then appear on the New York Times Best Seller? Paul wrote letters, from prison. Why isn’t their ministry to the downtrodden? Let’s not be deceived by an upwardly mobile gospel so tainted by Americanisms. We need purification and truth — NOT market driven elite ministries. Why is it that the gospel is growing in the non-west, meanwhile shrinking here in the west? When will be face up to the complicities of the so-called gospel which refuses to address issues that even our political leaders are tackling. I rarely have heard Mr. Keller address any of these concerns. Shame on preachers who gather those who will hear what their ‘itching ears want to hear?’
Dude, I repent. God obviously hates upperly mobile white people. The gospel is certainly NOT for them. Paul would never talk to skeptics like on Mars Hill. (okay, I’ll stop with the Pauline sarcasm).
CC- please don’t post again. I don’t think people are edified by these pointless rants and attacks. As I said much earlier, we aren’t going to disagree.
So I shall follow Paul’s advice to Timothy and advise you to stop fighting about such matters. I know you think you are defending the cause of truth, but your comments reveal what seem to me bitterness and animosity towards your brothers. Beware of the root of bitterness! Beware of your superior attitude and the accompanying self-righteousness.
[comment deleted by Cavman]
As I read thru Calvin’s Institutes again, I am struck by how often he quotes the poets and philosphers to make his points. Keller is following Calvin’s example in using what may be familiar voices among unbelievers to make his point. Calvin is pulling a Paul, following his example in Acts 17 and Titus.