| Book Review: The Reason for God (part 2) |
Buy The Reason for God by Tim Keller at amazon.com!
This is the 2nd part of a lengthy interaction with Tim Keller’s recent book, The Reason for God. To start at the beginning, click here.
Introduction
while Keller’s obvious focus in the book is ‘reason’ (hence the title), he writes in the introduction of running into three barriers to his faith, one of which was that he ‘had never experienced God’s presence personally.’ this is an important to point to me, and one which i argue repeatedly: that all the verses the addicted-to-exeJesus crowd wants to cling to with their ’sola scriptura’ armbands will only take you so far. in the end, what we read and what we are taught are validated by experience, and not the other way around. well, maybe that’s too harsh: as with everything, there is a continuum between experience and pure reason whose only points of error are at the opposite ends.
another of the problems he encountered was when he found “a group of Christians who had a concern for justice in the world but who grounded it in the nature of God.” this is important: again, a continuum perhaps from the i’ve-got-mine-you-get-yours attitudes of moralists to the no-basis-for-my-altruistism secularists. i find both of these problem areas in my own life, so Keller’s views seemed to carry extra weight after i read this.
another point in his introduction is the “us” and “them” fracture in both America and Christianity that has polarized us. he argues, though, that the impasse “won’t be solved by calling for more civility and dialogue.” i find this troubling, as i think that’s exactly what we need. in fact, i would argue that it is exactly what Keller provides in his book. further, he says that each side should accept the fact that both sides are growing – i.e., neither atheism nor fundamentalism is dying, neither liberals nor conservatives see their numbers decreasing. and he makes an excellent point (if only because it’s the one i keep making, too): “such an admission is not only reassuring, but also humbling.” i supposed i’d have said, “…should be humbling;” each side certainly needs a heapin’ helpin’ of humility these days.
a quick aside: and i was thinking about this the other day. it’s a paradox, but the more we know, the more humble we really should be. because the more we know, the more we become aware of how much we don’t know. the people who shout the loudest and mouth the most words in arguments are, in my experience, the most narrow-minded and arrogant. and the least wise. mac davis sang, toungue in cheekly, how ‘it’s hard to be humble’; everyone needs to use a little self-deprecating humor and realize that God refused to give one group all the answers simply because he knew of our tendency to lord things over others. Keller writes, “Religious believers should … be much less dismissive of secular skepticism [and] should reflect on the fact that such large sectors of our formerly largely Christian societies have turned their backs on faith. Surely that should lead to self-examination.” amen.
his solution to the problem is to “look at doubt in a radically new way.” he writes, “It is no longer sufficient to hold beliefs just because you inherited them. Only if you struggle long and hard with objections to your faith will you be able to provide grounds for your beliefs to skeptics, including yourself.” today, too many people in churches are content to avoid looking at uncomfortable questions, preferring instead to spout the party line like an automaton or take the easier (and, i might argue, more peaceful) road of ignorance and blind acceptance. rather, honestly looking at issues, says Keller, should “…lead you, even after you come to a position of strong faith, to respect and understand those who doubt… There will be an understanding, sympathy, and respect for the other side that did not exist before. [We] will rise to the level of disagreement rather than simply denouncing. This achieves civility in a pluralistic society, which is no small thing.” i am, of course, in total agreement, since i’ve argued here repeatedly (or, as some of my critics might say, ‘ad nauseum’…) that not only America’s pluralism, but our global community’s as well, has never been challenged like it is today, and the future will only bring more as technology removes the few barriers that delineate peoples and places in the 21st century.
Continue on to There Can’t Be Just One True Religion.
Leave a Reply