Interview Transcript
Question: What inspired you to write “The Reason for God”?
Keller: The fundamental argument of “The Reason for God” is that it makes more sense of life to believe in God than not to believe in God. [There’s] a lot of things out there that we see, and if there is a God, I believe that makes more sense of the things we see than if you say there is no God. So, it’s actually an argument for what I believe. And it came out of the fact that I moved to New York City 20 years ago, I was surrounded by people who didn’t believe in God or Christianity and they said, “Why should I believe it?” and I just had a dialog with them and it’s really a book that simply summarizes all those conversations. The second book, “The Prodigal God” is the essence of the model of ministry we have at Redeemer which sees both moralism and you might say relativism as being antithetical to the gospel and that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is “I’m saved by sheer grace and therefore I want to live in a way that pleases God, but I’m doing it out of a sense of gratitude for God’s grace, not as a way of putting God in a position where he has to bless me.” So, we put it like this in “The Prodigal God.” Religion is, I obey therefore God accepts me, and the gospel is I’m accepted through what Jesus Christ has done on the cross, therefore I obey. So, in religion, I’m obeying out of fear that God is going to reject me and in order to feel good about myself, whereas in the gospel, I’m obeying out of gratitude and joy, not to get things from God, but just to get God delight in him and nearness to him and it brings a humility because it’s all an act of grace, it’s all a function of grace. And so, in “The Prodigal God,” we’re bringing that fundamental model to people as to what it means to be a Christian and why it makes us different in the city.
Discuss
Musycks on March 1, 2009, 9:21 PM
To Big T editors everywhere.
Guys, I’ve been an avid user of your site since last May… this is a good example of why expert posts in the way they are done is problematical. Here Mr Keller is saying the reason for god is because of what he sees around, being it makes more sense for him to believe than not. But no details.
I don’t expect him to condense his book in 2 minutes, but nothing… no argument from design, no first cause, nothing!
Clicking on an idea that is titled ‘The Reason for God’ it’s not unreasonable to expect it’s outlined to some extent. Now I can’t ask Tim what he means as I’ve yet to see an expert reply to a plebian like me.
please don’t swamp us with multiple posts from people that won’t debate with details thin on the ground.
cheers,
Michael Roberts
Brendon Desrochers on April 17, 2009, 12:37 PM
Musycks,
I’ll start with more of a semantical response, but you’ll notice that “The” is capitalized in the headline of this “idea” and not in other Tim Keller headlines. That’s because “The Reason for God” refers to Keller’s book and not simply to the fact that he’s going to give the reason why he thinks God exists in a soundbite.
I’ve read his book, and while most vehement atheists do not find it entirely convincing, it is generally compelling, and it’s not intended to be a complete tome to shoot down the Dawkinses and Hitchenses of the world. Each of Keller’s chapters could be expanded into its own book, so it’s hard to expect him to be complete in his explanation of each idea in even one chapter, and, of course, it’s even more difficult to expect him to give an explanation that would address every concern of an skeptic in a 2-minute clip.
If you do read his book, you’ll notice that he has a couple of main theories/themes —
1) All perspectives on the world and how the world should be are, to the extent that they’re not empirically provable, faith-based positions. Therefore, it’s not just the “religious” or “faithful” who make assumptions and judgments about the world based on faith but indeed everyone. He expands on this idea often in the book.
2) (And this is more of an argument for Christianity rather than simply for God.) Keller claims that, based on the scholarship of folks like N.T. Wright and Richard Baukham, the New Testament is trustworthy as a set of historical documents in part because of how those books were first recorded and in part because those scholars indicate that the explanation of Jesus’ life, death, after-death/resurrection in the gospels makes more sense (based on the scholarship, writing, culture of the time) than any other explanation for those events. He’s not saying that it’s provable, but he is saying that the gospels and the scholarship can get you to the point where it’s not hard to determine that it’s very possible and indeed more likely than any alternative explanation. And, if it is true — that Jesus rose from the dead — then he is who he says he is (God) and we must respond to him from there.
Allow me to caution you before you read — if you end up reading it, and I think it’s worthwhile — that Keller is not primarily trying to rebut or refute the arguments of the popular atheist scholars/writers of this time. He ends up doing that to some extent and in some places, but Keller’s primary goal is to respond to problems with faith/God/Christianity that he’s encountered as a pastor at a church in New York City for the last 20 years.
Thanks for reading. I hope I didn’t misrepresent any of Dr. Keller’s points.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register