I am sure many of you are familiar with Tim Keller, pastor and church planter extraordinaire of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, and a PCA poster boy for his church planting work in New York. And if you are familiar with Tim Keller, then you are probably familiar with his latest book, The Reason for God.
Now, what I am about to say may come across as “heresy” to my fellow PCA’ers given that Keller is a man highly esteemed in the PCA, and I have only heard nothing but praise concerning Keller’s new book.
So here goes….
I have had the priviledge of reading The Reason for God and though there are some good parts in it, there are a few red flags in the book that have deeply disturbed me.
First off, let me make a few comments about what I think is good about his book:
- The tone of Keller’s writing is non-threatening, non-condescending, gentle, and humble. If you were to juxtapose his book with Dawkins’, Harris’, or Hitchens’, the difference in the polemic is like night and day.
- Keller does an excellent job of critiquing the non-believing and atheistic worldviews by showing their utter bankruptcy and inconsistency when followed out to their logical conclusions.
- A thread of ecumenicism runs throughout the book. At one point he talks about how protestants and catholics both believe they are justified by God in the end, but they just so happen to differ as far as the details concerning it. He makes it sound like this is a secondary, non-essential issue. Towards the end, he encourages the reader to find a church, but really does not give any discernment or guidance with choosing a particular church.
- What happened to using Scripture? I understand that this book was written for skeptics and non-Christians, but very little Scripture is used in the book to back up what he is arguing.
- This is the biggest problem I had with the book that I found deeply troubling and disturbing: Keller’s explanation on hell. He treats hell as if it is some sort of psychological identity crisis. It is a place where one’s identity is lost as they continue in an eternal plane of disintegration of their identity. He talks about how God is not throwing people into hell (Revelation 20:15????) but hell is a place where the doors are locked from the inside (Scripture reference…..???). Neither God’s holiness nor the vindication of it is ever mentioned once. I find it interesting that he names Jonathan Edwards as one of his three greatest influences. If so, I wonder if he’s ever read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God? One of Keller’s other great influence is C.S. Lewis, and you will notice that C.S. Lewis is quoted more than Scripture. By the way, C.S. Lewis was by no means a fantastic theologian (he denied the inerrancy of Scripture and believed in purgatory, just to name a few), so I wouldn’t be making sure my explanations follow in line with Lewis. Now, here is what I’m getting at. One can be as cute and clever as they like when trying to make hell not seem so bad and God’s holiness seem not so holy. But the question at the end of the day is this: are you being biblical? Clever explanations may prove to be convincing enough for some skeptics, but is it true when aligned with Scripture? I read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity after reading Keller’s book and noticed the similarity between the two through the use of clever explanations to disarm hostility towards God and the Bible. Both books, though they each had their good parts, in the end left me frustrated because I felt that being clever was a higher authority than Scripture.
- “Hell, then, is the trajectory of a soul, living a self-absorbed, self-centered life, going on and on forever” (77).
- “In short, hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity” (78).
- “The people in hell are miserable…we see raging like unchecked flames their pride, their paranoia, their self-pity…They are utterly locked in their prison of self-centeredness…They continue to go to pieces forever, blaming everyone but themselves. Hell is that, writ large. That is why it is a travesty to picture God casting people into a pit who are crying, “I’m sorry! Let me out!” (79).
- Keller defines sin and says the best definition of it is (borrowing from philosopher Simon Kierkegaard’s definition) building your identity on anything but God.
- Keller places more emphasize on the idea that hell is within us and there is a disintegrating fire within us: So it is not a question about whether God quote-end-quote, sends us to hell. But in everyone of us, there is something growing up in us that will be hell if it’s not nipped in the bud.
- C.S. Lewis always said that the doors of hell are locked in from the inside.
- Hell: Isn’t the God of Christianity an angry Judge? - Tim Keller
- Judgment Day - Dr. Steven J. Lawson
Now, if you have listened to both, I want you to ask yourself the following question: who is being biblical and who is inventing cleverly devised tales?
In conclusion, I just wanted to throw some concerns out here to generate some discussion. As biblically minded Christians, we always need to discern and test everything in light of Scripture, regardless of whether the person is from our PCA camp or not (just think back a little bit about how the FV & NPP heresies cropped up in the PCA by certain PCA (now ex-PCA) pastors).
Danny, I haven’t read the book yet, so my comments will be provisional. If your account is accurate, then I have great concern for the usefulness of this book.
1. The RC part is not surprising, but lamentable.
2. Why would there not be scripture everywhere in the book? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Imagine a reader reading the book and being exposed to scripture along the way. Otherwise, its just one man’s argument.
3. Hell. Again, not surprising. Sad though.
[...] Posted by Les Prouty on June 16, 2008 Danny Simpson has written a post about Tim Keller’s book The Reason For God. I would encourage you to go there and read Danny’s post. I haven’t read the book yet, but according to Danny there may be some concerns. Read it here. [...]
The Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword. That statement may not be applied to some acculturated interpretation of what we think might be palatable to the unsaved, sparing the audience of course of something that we feel they may not be able to process or feel comfortable with in their pomo categories.
I hope that gives you a sense of how I come out on this question.
I do have a question…what has happened to the human condition (specifically in the last few years) that (1) renders the unsaved heart more receptive to these approaches (2) that was not applicable in other generations.
Danny,
I haven’t read Keller’s new book either, but I’ve listened to some of his sermons on the same topics and I share your concern with his approach. From what I’ve seen, some people are drawn so strongly to the approaches/methods of men like Keller or Driscoll (not that they’re all that similar)that they refuse to listen to any critique against them. It’s as if they can do no wrong. Have you experienced this also?
If you have time, Danny, I have a question for you about Covenant. I recently met a guy named Eric who’s also just moved to St. Louis to attend Covenant in the Fall. During our conversation, he told me that the reason he picked Covenant was because of their view of Epistemology. I didn’t have time to ask him, but in light of the rest of our conversation (obvious ECM leanings) I couldn’t help but wonder if he was referring to Epistemological humility. I’ve wondered myself where Covenant stands on this. Any thoughts?
Well, the question was raised over at Les’ blog about whether Keller’s view on hell is orthodox. To those who are interested, Keller describes what he calls “caricatures” of hell on pages 76-79 of his book. Not verbatim, but pretty close…Keller says it’s a caricature to say that God allows people so much time on earth to make good choices and then when they die, God declares time has run out and then casts them suffering into eternity with the hell-bound crying out in despair.
I really apologize for being so doggone stupid, but that sounds like Hebrews 9:27 to me…but then I am just an old fogey fundy I suppose.
If that’s a caricature, would someone please help me understand eternal conscious torment?
Keller says that “fire” is disintegrating, and suggests that literal fire is not part of hell…too literal I suppose.
Keller says that hell is the trajectory of the soul choosing their own selfish desires…and end up not enjoying God. Is this an adequate, biblical description? Would someone please help me here?
First, I would recommend reading the book. It’s amazing.
As far as ecumenism goes, our denomination and tradition could use a heavier and biblical dose.
As far as not using Scripture, Keller’s own explanations of that are best. Keller had a certain audience in mind for the book, mostly people who do not believe Scripture is the Word of God. As such, even though he does not actually quote Scripture his book is riddled with truths that one could only know through God’s revealed and authoritative Word.
As far as his views on hell, can someone point out to me where Keller is not orthodox?
I don’t have Keller’s book with me today, but I’ll go back and look at the hell sections when I get a chance.
I have had the opportunity to teach on hell in youth group, and I posted some misunderstanding that we have of hell over at my blog:
http://wesvanderlugt.wordpress.com/?s=hell
The last misunderstanding is as follows: “many people tend to misunderstand hell by claiming to know exactly what hell is like and by taking metaphorical language literally. In the Bible, hell is described as darkness, separation, fire, crying and grinding of teeth, punishment, death, and destruction. The only way that hell can be both total darkness and blazing fire is if these are not literal descriptions but metaphorical descriptions of a reality that is too horrible for us to imagine. Hell is real, but the reality of hell is beyond our literal description.”
The metaphors understate the ultimate reality.
I understood your concern about Keller’s teaching on Hell – but I think fundamentally he stress the realism of hell rather than the literalism of hell. Just like many people don’t think that heaven is literal paved with gold, many others are not convinced that hell is filled with literal fire either.
But Keller’s point is that, whatever hell is, it will be horrible beyond what we could ever imagine.
I agree, Bumble. Randy, do you think that hell will involve literal fire?
Randy, you asked:
“I do have a question…what has happened to the human condition (specifically in the last few years) that (1) renders the unsaved heart more receptive to these approaches (2) that was not applicable in other generations.”
I really think the seeker sensitive approach is the focus, which in many cases simply leaves people with a false assurance of salvation. In a typical American Evangelical church, the Christian message and response has been simplified to a quick prayer, a signature on a card, and permission to live like hell because tomorrow they’ll be in heaven.
The whole idea of church has been completely turned upside upon its head where the focus is seeking after the unbeliever, while in the Bible, the focus was on the believers.
Wes, you asked…”Randy, do you think that hell will involve literal fire?”
Perhaps. Why not? Far be it from me to say what God would not do to the condemned in hell.
The point is not entirely whether there is literal fire in hell, towhich is an entirely possible reality. I really cannot improve on Danny’s comments above under point #3, with which I agree.
Wes, after you read Keller on pages 76-79, why don’t you give us your take on whether Keller is doing a faithful job in describing hell.
I am personally disappointed in what I read and could not recommend the book.
Nathan, you said:
“From what I’ve seen, some people are drawn so strongly to the approaches/methods of men like Keller or Driscoll (not that they’re all that similar)that they refuse to listen to any critique against them. It’s as if they can do no wrong. Have you experienced this also?”
I couldn’t agree more. That is why I posted this: to give a critical perspective instead of just giving it a rubber stamp of approval because it’s Tim Keller.
As far as Covenant’s epistemological viewpoint, I haven’t been there long enough to know, but I will be taking Apologetics & Outreach this Spring. Maybe Wes would have a better idea? I don’t know if they would fall on the category of Epistemological humility because WCF 1 seems to state otherwise, but who knows? I agree that we could know nothing about God except what He has revealed to us (through creation, the Bible), so I don’t know if that would be defined as epistemological humility or not, because we don’t KNOW everything about God. However, I wouldn’t say that our scriptural presupposition is incomplete (as many in the Emergent movement would).
Here’s an excerpt from Keller on Hell (from an article in Leadership Journal, which is very close to what he has in his book…). After you read it, tell me whether it is an adequate treatment from a biblical perspective. Does it uphold the righteous character of God?
Here it is…verbatim from Keller.
C. S. Lewis’s depictions of hell are important for postmodern people. In The Great Divorce, Lewis describes a busload of people from hell who come to the outskirts of heaven. There they are urged to leave behind the sins that have trapped them in hell. The descriptions Lewis makes of people in hell are so striking because we recognize the denial and self-delusion of substance addictions. When addicted to alcohol, we are miserable, but we blame others and pity ourselves; we do not take responsibility for our behavior nor see the roots of our problem.
Lewis writes, “Hell … begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps even criticizing it…. You can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine.”
Modern people struggle with the idea of God thinking up punishments to inflict on disobedient people. When sin is seen as slavery, and hell as the freely chosen, eternal skid row of the universe, hell becomes much more comprehensible.
Here is an example from a recent sermon of how I try to explain this:
“First, sin separates us from the presence of God (Isa. 59:2), which is the source of all joy (Ps. 16:11), love, wisdom, or good thing of any sort (James 1:17)….
“Second, to understand hell we must understand sin as slavery. Romans 1:21-25 tells us that we were built to live for God supremely, but instead we live for love, work, achievement, or morality to give us meaning and worth. Thus every person, religious or not, is worshiping something—idols, pseudo-saviors—to get their worth. But these things enslave us with guilt (if we fail to attain them) or anger (if someone blocks them from us) or fear (if they are threatened) or drivenness (since we must have them). Guilt, anger, and fear are like fire that destroys us. Sin is worshiping anything but Jesus—and the wages of sin is slavery.”
Perhaps the greatest paradox of all is that the people on Lewis’s bus from hell are enslaved because they freely choose to be. They would rather have their freedom (as they define it) than salvation. Their relentless delusion is that if they glorified God, they would lose their human greatness (Gen. 3:4-5), but their choice has really ruined their human greatness. Hell is, as Lewis says, “the greatest monument to human freedom.”
Wes, you mentioned, “As far as not using Scripture, Keller’s own explanations of that are best. Keller had a certain audience in mind for the book, mostly people who do not believe Scripture is the Word of God.”
But that’s the problem. Is Keller’s reasoning biblical? The moment you take away your highest epistemological presupposition (Scripture), who cares what someone asserts as True. Scripture forbids neutral thinking and reasoning when defending the faith (Prov. 1:7, 9:10, John 17:17, Col. 2:8, 1 Peter 3:15). I know Keller comes from the Van-Tilian camp in some ways but wonder if he has flirted too much with neutrality. Intended-neutrality is fallacious throughout.
Just some thoughts.
Blessings,
Danny
Contrast this from RC Sproul…
A breath of relief is usually heard when someone declares, “Hell is a symbol for separation from God.” To be separated from God for eternity is no great threat to the impenitent person. The ungodly want nothing more than to be separated from God. Their problem in hell will not be separation from God, it will be the presence of God that will torment them. In hell, God will be present in the fullness of His divine wrath. He will be there to exercise His just punishment of the damned. They will know Him as an all-consuming fire.
Bumble, you mentioned,
“I understood your concern about Keller’s teaching on Hell – but I think fundamentally he stress the realism of hell rather than the literalism of hell. Just like many people don’t think that heaven is literal paved with gold, many others are not convinced that hell is filled with literal fire either.
But Keller’s point is that, whatever hell is, it will be horrible beyond what we could ever imagine.”
I agree that he focuses on the realism of it, but is it biblical? Is hell a place of an identity and psychological crisis of addiction or is it being punished and tormented for eternity in the presence of God and by God? He seems to make it sound as if it is so horrible because of us and not because of God.
Just some thoughts…
Blessings,
Danny
I see Keller describing hell as the way that God ultimately deals with evil and the place to which he condemns people to eternal punishment, disintegration, and isolation. I think these are biblical ideas drawn from all the metaphors of hell in Scripture.
Yes, he explains biblical words such as “fire” as metaphors, but this is a historical position of the church and many Reformed contemporary theologians (like our very own Robert Peterson, as well Sinclair Ferguson etc.) Of course it is possible that hell is literal fire, but we must be concerned with good exegesis, which means recognizing that these descriptions are metaphors, pointing to a reality worse than we can even imagine.
I am sure if Keller was writing a systematic theology, which is the last way this book could be described, he would elaborate much more on his views of hell from Scripture, but to the intended audience of the book, I think he has done a good job introducing the subject and engaging the secular mind from a biblical perspective.
Randy, do you want to be specific about your problems with Keller’s description of hell in his book? Do you think they are contradicting Scripture?
As far as your questions, Danny, I would say that most professors at Covenant Seminary take a stance of epistemological humility, as we all should based on the noetic effects of the fall and our finite and limited knowledge of God.
As far as Keller’s use of Scripture, do you think that we need to quote Scripture in order for an idea to be biblical? In addition, do you think there is room for biblical inferences? And even more, is there room for imaginative reflection on the metaphors of Scripture? I know these are big questions, but I think they undergird what you see Keller doing in his book.
I don’t have any more time to comment today, but I think this is a fruitful discussion, so hopefully I can visit again tomorrow. Thanks-
Wes
Randy, I also think that Keller errs by thinking that hell is merely the absence of God (see my post on misunderstandings of hell). I think God is present but not present in a covenantal sense. But my difference with Keller on this matter does not lead me to withhold my recommendation of the book, which has a myriad of other virtues to commend it!
Wes, you asked…”Randy, do you want to be specific about your problems with Keller’s description of hell in his book? Do you think they are contradicting Scripture?”.
Please refer to my comments 14 and 16, and the contrast between them.
And I am concerned about good exegesis as well.
Simply put, I find Keller’s approach quite inadequate from a biblical perspective on hell. Sometimes, the damaging approaches do not overtly contradict Scripture…they just don’t tell the whole story or they re-cast what is being said in the Word, which I believe Keller does.
Here’s an excerpt from Tim Challies’ review.I am one of the folks he identifies as having great problems with theistic evolution and Keller’s approach to hell. Unlike Challies, however, I do not view these as secondary matters. Here’s Challies…
Nobody but Tim Keller could have written this book. It seems likely to me that nobody but Tim Keller will agree with everything he says. For example, many believers will be uncomfortable with his defense of evolution—not the naturalistic evolution of so many skeptics, but a theistic evolution that attempts to reconcile rather than ignore the creation accounts of the Bible. Others will take issue with his description of hell and the thread of ecumenism that runs throughout the volume. But if we heed his exhortation to major on the majors, to look to what’s most foundational to the faith before focusing on matters of secondary importance, both believers and skeptics have a great deal to learn from this book.
Wes, your comment and mine apparently crossed.
I understand why you would feel comfortable recommending the book, but I do not share that perspective.
Wes you said,
“As far as your questions, Danny, I would say that most professors at Covenant Seminary take a stance of epistemological humility, as we all should based on the noetic effects of the fall and our finite and limited knowledge of God.”
How do you define “epistemological humility?”
Randy, don’t you think it’s possible to recommend a book with some personal reservations added, especially when there is so much good in a book to be commended? Why do you need to throw the whole thing out? You could say something like…”There is a lot of great stuff in this book, but I disagree with Keller on his views of hell, so read carefully there.”
There are a lot of aspects to epistemological humility, some of which include a recognition that complete knowledge of God is an illusion, even though the knowledge we have is accurate…a recognition that our minds are tainted by sin…a recognition that we are cultural and historically situated…a reliance upon the Holy Spirit for knowledge of God etc…recognizing that we must believe in order to know. Those elements come to mind off the top of my head.
Wes, a couple of thoughts:
“I see Keller describing hell as the way that God ultimately deals with evil and the place to which he condemns people to eternal punishment, disintegration, and isolation. I think these are biblical ideas drawn from all the metaphors of hell in Scripture.”
However, I think all of this puts the focus on man and not God. To Keller, hell is simply a place of psycho-insanity of an endless disintegration of personality and an endless addiction. To Keller, what makes hell so hellish is the person and their circumstance, and I would argue that that idea is NOT biblical but misleading. What makes hell hell is the presence of God pouring out His divine wrath (which I think Sproul describes so well in Randy’s post) against sinners. Keller never once mentions this but puts the focus totally on man.
“Yes, he explains biblical words such as “fire” as metaphors, but this is a historical position of the church and many Reformed contemporary theologians (like our very own Robert Peterson, as well Sinclair Ferguson etc.)”
I don’t take issue with this. I listened to a 6-part series by R.C. Sproul on hell and he said that imagery such as darkness, fire, etc. point to something far more greater. However, I disagree with Keller when he says that hell and the flame is what is inside of us.
“… but to the intended audience of the book, I think he has done a good job introducing the subject and engaging the secular mind from a biblical perspective.”
I guess my whole reasoning for my post is that half-hearted truth is not truth. I don’t think he has done a faithful job to Scripture because I don’t believe his viewpoint is biblical but simply clever to tickle the post-modern mind.
A couple of quick thoughts:
“As far as Keller’s use of Scripture, do you think that we need to quote Scripture in order for an idea to be biblical?”
I think all of our ideas must be rooted and grounded in Scripture, whether explicitly or logical inferred (for example, P1: Murder is wrong (6th commandment), P2: Abortion is murder, C1: (logical inferred) Abortion is wrong.
“In addition, do you think there is room for biblical inferences?”
There is a difference between inference based on good and necessary consequence and being cute and clever like C.S. Lewis. If you listen to his sermon or read the chapter, you hear over and over, “C.S. Lewis…Lewis…C.S. Lewis…C.S. Lewis….”
“And even more, is there room for imaginative reflection on the metaphors of Scripture”
I think there is a difference between reflection and making assertions based on reflection. Calvin reminds us again and again that we must limit ourselves to what Scripture says and not permit ourselves to wander beyond the paths in which Scripture leads us. So I would have to quote Calvin, “Where Scripture tells us to stop, there we must stop.”
Anyways, thanks for the good comments, thoughts, and feedback.
-Danny
Wes and Randy both said, “but we must be concerned with good exegesis”
And this is my biggest issue (especially listening to his sermon). There is very, very little biblical exegesis. He spends his time quoting philosophers, talking about addiction, etc.
You won’t hear much exegesis in the sermon, but you will hear a lot of exegesis of C.S. Lewis… “C.S. Lewis said…C.S. Lewis writes…C.S. Lewis remarks…C.S. Lewis concludes….”
Wes, I don’t recommend The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel for the same reason I would not recommend Keller’s book. In my estimation, both books fail at precisely the same point in their inadequate view of hell.
Would I throw the whole book out? I wouldn’t put it that way. I simply would not recommend the book, but respect the fact that others feel differently on such things.
I know it’s a side to the main discussion here, but because of the importance of the epistemological question (the “Truth” question), I highly suggest Phil Johnson’s short post on “Epistemoligical Humility” from March:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/03/epistemological-humility.html
Wes, what do you think about Phil’s definition of this brand of “humility”. Would you say that the professors at Covenant align with this view of truth?
Randy, would you enforce different standards for different authors? Specifically in contrasting Stobel, who is a “laymen”, to Keller, a trained, reformed minister of the Gospel?
Wes, what qualifications would you put on a possible recommendation, and to whom would you recommend this book?
As far as epistemological humility is concerned, I found these Spurgeone excerpts to be incredibly helpful:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/03/epistemological-humility.html
Tom, you’re scaring me. I’ve been trying for over an hour to get my comment below to be added. It keeps telling me that I’ve already added it.
I know it’s a side to the main discussion here, but because of the importance of the epistemological question (the “Truth” question), I highly suggest Phil Johnson’s short post on “Epistemoligical Humility” from March:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/03/epistemological-humility.html
Wes, what do you think about Phil’s definition of this brand of “humility”. Would you say that the professors at Covenant align with this view of truth?
Tom, you asked…”Randy, would you enforce different standards for different authors? Specifically in contrasting Strobel, who is a “laymen”, to Keller, a trained, reformed minister of the Gospel?”
In short, no.
I expect more of a vocational minister than a journalist (although Strobel is quite skilled and apparently well educated). But, no…it would not make a difference to me in terms of recommending the book.
When I recommend a book, and especially when I give a book away to someone, I feel a weight of responsibility for what’s in the book.
Lest I be misunderstood here, I realize men differ on what’s primary and what’s secondary. Speaking strictly for myself, I consider hell a primary subject. And if i am giving a book to an unbeliever and it deals with hell and how to avoid it, I choose to not recommend books that fall short on that subject.
Are there good parts to the book? Readers will differ on how much and what parts are “good” and worthy of recommending. I believe the flaws in Keller’s discussion on hell are sufficient to put it on the “do not recommend” list.
Wes asked if I couldn’t simply say read with caution when you get to the hell discussion. That’s a fair question. I could of course, but I won’t. Again, I realize people differ.
Tom, here’s another link to an article on epistemological humility that is helpful…
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-07-01
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.