The (True) Story of the Cross

The question of the cross is the primary question of Christianity, for it is the question of God’s love and justice. Usually it is asked something like this, “Why can’t God just forgive people, especially those who feel sorry for their wrong doings?” Keller offers a good answer to this question in three parts in Chapter 12 of his book, The Reason for God. The Cost of Forgiveness Keller points out that any forgiveness is costly. If someone damages your property there is a cost for the restoration or replacement. The other person pays, or you do (or some combination). But to fix what is broken, cost is necessary. Shift the damage to emotional or personal damage like an insult or cruelty or injustice or worse and the payment becomes much harder to quantify, but someone has to pay. If I am hurt by you, I want some recompense. Sometimes I get it by making you feel bad. There are other ways as well. But even if I get you to feel bad, it doesn’t really help me. Instead of feeling satisfied, I often become harder towards you or/and others. If my friends tell me I should just forgive you for the hurt you caused me, I have to pay. I pay via the agony of letting it go, of acting as if it never happened. And I suffer more hurt if my payment doesn’t cause any positive change either in you or in our relationship. The point is, all forgiveness requires some kind of payment. That is what the cross is all about. The wonder is not just that God accepted someone else’s payment for my sin, but that He entered into to the world to make the payment Himself. The cost of this forgiveness is beyond understanding. A Personal Exchange To understand the cross, it is helpful to consider the personal nature of the payment. Keller points out what many of us already know. Whenever a person needs help, real help only comes through personal connection. Emotionally wounded people are helped by stronger friends—but only as that friend stands alongside and carries some of the burden. One friend gives up strength so that another may gain strength. This is more dynamically viewed over the long haul of parenting. The only way children can move from complete dependence to self-sufficient independent people is through their parents giving up their own independence over years. The less the parents give up themselves the less well rounded and emotionally healthy the children will be. True love involves a personal exchange. God Himself did that in, on, and through the cross. A Great Reversal The cross is also a great reversal. Keller writes, “When Jesus suffered for us, he was honoring justice. But when Jesus suffered with us he was identifying with the oppressed of the world, not the oppressors.” This identification reverses the values of the world and lifts up the twin virtues of love and justice. God is both ‘just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 3:26). The reason the cross is so important is that it shows the costly sacrifice necessary for forgiveness and it shows the justification of godliness. But it works because it is personal. Tim Keller has taught me to tell stories that give momentum to the idea that sacrificial love can benefit others. He has also taught me that those stories by themselves will never really change my heart or my actions. What changes me is the astonishing reality that Jesus brings us into the story. We are not just hearers, we are recipients of the most costly gift ever given. He gave Himself for us. That is the true story of the cross.

Keller on Tolkien and Fairytales

I recently listened to one of Tim Keller's sermons which he closed with an illustration about fairytales and something better by far, the truth of the gospel. He came across an essay by Tolkien on Fairytales which described the almost universal delight in great fairytales. Tolkiens comments go something like this... Fairytales move us in a way that realistic fiction does not (and can not). Because fairy tales speak to us of several deep human longings that we are almost afraid to admit and that we can never discard. We long to survey the depths of time and space. We long to get outside of time altogether and escape death. We long to hold communion with other living things, like angels. We long to find a love which perfectly heals and from which we can never depart. And we long to triumph over evil finally and totally. When you are in the middle of a great fairy tale, the fairy tale lets you live even briefly with the dream that love without parting, escape from death, triumph over evil are real and realizable. That’s why the stories stir us so deeply. And why we will go on reading and writing them no matter what the critics may say. But the gospel is better. For the truth of Jesus is this... the gospel’s message is that, through Jesus Christ, every single one of these things that the fairy tales talk about is true and will come to pass. We will hang out with angels. We will have loves from which we are never parted. We will see an absolute triumph over evil. There is a beauty who will kiss you in all your beastliness and transform you. There is a prince who will save us, forever. The reality leaves me breathless, and astonished!

Chapter 11, Religion and the Gospel

We are looking at the second half of Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God. And in the second half, Keller moves from answering objections to pointing to clues, reasons to believe in Jesus Christ. One of the main clues in coming to God is an understanding of the differences between religion and Christianity. Tim Keller uses and entire chapter to differentiate the two. One of the key verses is John 14:6, where Jesus claims to be the way, not a way. Other religions claim to show the way, Jesus claimed to be the way. In its most simple form, it comes down to this: religion is salvation through moral effort and Christianity is salvation through grace. Most of us “get” religion. It is the idea that you must do enough good to either approach God or enter into heaven. Many think of it as a moral balance scale—do enough good to outweigh the bad. That appeals to us, for it allows the individual to be his or her own savior. Do enough and bingo, you win God’s approval. The problem of course is how much is enough, and can anyone really do it. I read the story, “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”, this summer, partly as a result of hearing Keller talk about it in a different context. But he brings up the story this chapter as well. Dr. Jekyll realizes that he has both good and bad aspects. He tries to figure out a way to separate the two, so that Jekyll can do the good he wants to do. Mr. Hyde is one result, a horrible, evil, violent man. Hyde doesn’t mind being bad, but Jekyll gets scared of ‘him’ when he commits a murder. So he vows to never take the dividing potion again and to do good to others (to make up for his bad). He pulls it off for several months. While sitting in a park, reflecting on the good he was doing, patting himself on the back as it were, he changes back to Mr. Hyde (without taking any potion). Right when he was congratulating himself for doing good, evil overwhelms him. Christianity understands this. Everybody knows that those who do wickedness deserve wrath. What most of us forget is that when we try to live such good lives that we don’t need Jesus, there is a badness within that is far worse than any other. It is the evil of the Pharisees, who prided themselves in doing right and pleasing God. But Jesus continually pointed out their failure and showed them for what they really are, impotent to save themselves. Anyone who thinks she is good enough or can work well enough is in trouble. People like this quickly become judgmental of others (who do not do enough good) or arrogant (they might not do the ‘right kind’ of good) and are like ‘whitewashed tombs’. Christianity says ‘that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me.” The result is ‘deep humility and deep confidence.’ Because of Jesus, I don’t have to protect or promote myself to God and others. I am just a sinner saved by grace. Really! And because of Jesus, I have nothing to prove so I don’t have to fear what others think of me. If God loves me I really am okay. The other way to talk about the difference between religion and Christianity is to consider the difference in motivation within the heart. The person trying to impress God does his good deeds and expects blessing. The Christian has received blessing and then does good out of joyful gratitude.

Identity and Idolatry

Since I am heading back into the school year with children returning to class on Monday, August 18, I thought I would post the content of a telling footnote from Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God. This footnote focuses on the weaknesses and problems a person can develop if they seek to build their identity on something or someone other than the Lord God. In reality such an attempt is sheer idolatry, since it replaces God with something else. One of the ways you can use this extended footnote is to not only see how some of the ramifications are working their way out in your life, but also by asking yourself if you would really be happy if the main identity item was missing or malformed in your life. Are you satisfied with Jesus? Is Jesus enough? Look at this footnote and check yourself out... From Chapter 10, "The Problem of Sin" "Various ‘god-substitutes’ and the particular kinds of brokenness and damage that each one can bring into a life. "If you center you life and identity on your spouse or partner, you will be emotionally dependent, jealous, and controlling. The other person’s problems will be overwhelming to you. "If you center your life and identity on your family and children, you will try to live your life through your children until they resent you or have no self of their own. At worst, you may abuse them when they displease you. "If you center your life and identity on your work and career, you will be a driven workaholic and a boring, shallow person. At worst you will lose family and friends and, if your career goes poorly, develop deep depression. "If you center your life and identity on money and possessions, you’ll be eaten up by worry or jealousy about money. You’ll be willing to do unethical things to maintain your lifestyle, which will eventually blow up your life. " If you center your life and identity on pleasure, gratification, and comfort, you will find yourself getting addicted to something. You will become chained to the ‘escape strategies’ by which you avoid the hardness of life. " If you center your life and identity on relationships and approval, you will be constantly overly hurt by criticism and thus always losing friends. You will fear confronting others and therefore be a useless friend. "If you center your life and identity on a ‘noble cause,’ you will divide the world into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and demonize your opponents. Ironically, you will be controlled by your enemies. Without them, you have no purpose. "If you center your life and identity on religion and morality, you will, if you are living up to your moral standards, be proud, self-righteous, and cruel. If you don’t live up to your standards, your guilt will be utterly devastating."

Songs from the Old West

On Summit Day we celebrated climbing to the top of the mountain. Week One all 29 of us made it up to the top of Uncompaghre. Week Two, 24 of 27 made it to the top of Mt. Handies. It was so much fun that we had to celebrate...and what better way than a song. There really are two variations to this song, one for Uncompaghre and the other for Old Man Handies....(to the tune of "Oh Susanah") Oh I come from Kansas City With my gear all in a pack I come to climb me up a hill I surely will come back Uncompaghre, you ain’t too tall for me Well I come out west some hills to climb And pretty sights to see. I drove so long I went to sleep And when I woke again I looked outside and said it’s flat Where do those hills begin. Uncompaghre, you ain’t too tall for me Well I come out west some hills to climb And pretty sights to see The hike we went on the first day Bout did me in you know My knees were sore, my back it ached And then there were my toes Uncompaghre, you ain’t too tall for me Well I come out west some hills to climb And pretty sights to see. As we went up the air got thin It was so hard to breathe We took a break and we sat down I thought to take my ease. Then someone said it’s not too far I think I see the top I said I’ll wait here for the car I need an ice cold pop Cause GORP and candy and snacks are getting old and if I go much farther on I’m sure that I’ll get cold. They drug me on I made it up I glad I got up here The views are great, the friends are good The Lord has calmed my fears Old Uncompaghre, you ain’t too tall for me Well I come out west some hills to climb And pretty sights to see One more task, I’ll bet your tired Of more than just this song The ride back home it can’t be far I sure it won’t take long Old Uncompaghre, you ain’t too tall for me Well I come out west some hills to climb And pretty sights to see Way to go guys! Uncompaghre was distinctive, ...but Handies had incredible wildflowers! More photos on my photobucket page. Click on the link in the right hand column.

Getting Ready for 7th Grade

As a teacher, that is. I have presets of some of Darth's best lines and a synthesizer that changes my voice, "What do you mean that you didn't do your homework?" Let the fun, I mean learning, begin.

Back Home Again--family email

Well I got home last night and have had an entire day back and am still tired. I don’t know why. Over the past 12 days I rode or drove on two 810 mile trips (14-15 hours). The highlight on the way out was lunch and supper at Subway (in two different towns)! In between the bookend drive days, I climbed more than 17000 vertical feet and hiked almost 50 miles. Some of it had a really heavy pack on my back—I would need to pack less and lighter to do it again. I summitted two new mountains to bring my 14ers total to 7 (out of 54). I failed on the way up to Challenger Point—not a physical bonk, but an emotional one. The main mountain the first trip was Uncompaghre. Here is a photo from first light after sunrise when we had just got on the trail. It’s over 4 miles away and 3000 vertical feet up.

Here is a better picture showing what an amazing peak it really is. We hiked through the meadow, around to the left, up to a ridge and then back to the edge of the cliff bands on the left side of the picture. There we had to scramble about 200 vertical feet up through a little gully and then 300 more vertical feet to the top.

Here is a picture of Levi and me at the top! (or close to is, because he must be standing uphill from me!) It was a great trip and I hope to get an entire photo album on photobucket soon. There were 29 guys in the first trip and all of them made it to the top of Uncompaghre. The second trip had 27 guys and all but 3 summitted. There was a case of altitude sickness that stopped one man about 500 feet short of the summit and so two others took him down a ways and stayed with him.

I have again realized how great a privilege it is to climb some of these mountains. The experience is exhilarating, we had lots of fun, and we focused on the reality that God is enough for us. I got to teach and focused on Jesus being the help for the deepest part of our hearts, as being the one who can help us keep our bearings when life gets difficult, and as the great Friend who helps us keep company with others on our path through life.

grace

Time gets away and getting away

It is amazing how easy time can get away from a person. Good intentions nonwithstanding. My review/summary of Tim Keller's book, The Reason For God, is on hold for a couple of more weeks.

I'm off to Colorado for 12 days of teaching two groups of mountain climbers. I don't teach them mountain climbing--Pastor Paul Parsons does that. I just get to talk about leaning on Jesus. (Who gets the best deal?)

Maybe in a few weeks you'll see a picture of me standing on this mountain:

The Problem of Sin--another clue pointing to... God

In the second half of his book, Tim Keller talks about ‘clues’ for God. His first clue was that the practice of morality pushes towards a belief in God. How else can anyone differentiate between right and wrong. Without God, anyone who claims something is either right or wrong can legitimately be answered by the old Yale professor, “Sez Who?” Keller’s second clue is the reality that “there is something fundamentally wrong with the world.” The problem is sin. Human sin that damages the self, the society and has cosmic consequences. Sin is usually thought of as doing bad things. But the Bible gives the indication that sin is more than that, “it’s not just doing bad things, but the making of good things into ultimate things.” Here Keller delves into the reality that people either construct some way to establish their own identities or they find their identity in God alone. Building on the first command, “You shall not have any other gods,” he shows how everybody tries to ‘find himself.” Family, work, power, prestige, pleasure, service, etc. Good things can become very bad when they are put in the center of one’s life. Then God is displaced, and insecurity thrives. All you have to do is to talk to people, or to read about them, and you will discover that what you were sure would ‘make them happy’ doesn’t. Identity apart from God is unsecure and it is similar to addiction—it controls, the person is in denial about it, we are crushed and despondant when we don’t have it… And when you put personal sinners together, society is deeply impacted. Consider the despair the optimists of the early 20th century ran into as a result of two world wars. Jonathan Edwards puts it this way: human society is deeply fragmented when anything but God is our highest love. If we live for the good of our family, we will tend to care less about other families. If it is the good of our nation, we will care less about other nations. Etc. Etc. Etc. Edwards concludes that “only if God is our ultimate good and life center, will we find our heart drawn not only to people of all families, races, and classes, but to the whole world in general.” Personal and societal consequences are but reflections of the cosmic consequences of sin. The whole world (and universe) have been damaged. Shalom has been broken. And we long for all to be put right again. We long for a Savior. Fail at marriage, in the workplace, in your thoughts and ideals and what will help. Follow after Jesus first and foremost, and when we fall, He will pick us up, one day in an entirely restored creation! (Thanks to Lee and Steve for prompting me to get back at this blog!)

Coming...well not real Soon!

I know that I am not finished with Keller's book, Reason For God. But I am already looking forward to the October release of a second book by him, called, The Prodigal God. It is written for Christians. And you can read an interview about it here. Now, back to Reason For God! (in a day or two...) grace

The Knowledge of God...You Already Know!

Morality is the issue! People live as if there is a right and a wrong. Everybody knows something is wrong. Usually it is found in the arena of human rights. (Hitler was evil. Cultures that oppress women are barbaric. Napalming babies is wrong. Name your own…!) The real question is why do we live that way and say those things? Keller cites author after author explaining the challenge that philosophers and thinkers have in trying to explain morality. Those he cite agree—without God, there really isn’t any basis for saying one thing is right and something else is wrong. Yet they do it too. We all do. People all make moral judgments, and in the eloquent words of an old Yale law professor, “Sez who?” Many of those who look at the world around us attempt to explain it by saying it’s all about the survival of the fittest. Another way to say it is to say “all of nature is based on violence.” And if that is the case, how would it be wrong for one group to trample another group. The Crucial Question “If a premise (‘There is no God’) leads us to a conclusion you know isn’t true (‘Napalming babies is culturally relative [neither good nor bad]’) then why not change the premise? There are only two answers. Either you refuse to think out all the implications of one of your foundational thoughts, or you recognize that you do know more than you thought…you do know there is a God. I know this summary is brief and to the point, but if you want to go through all the steps, you’ll have to read chapter nine of Keller’s book, The Reason for God.

The Clues For God

(Chapter 8 in Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God) The person who says there is a need for an absolute, airtight, irrefutable proof for God sets himself up for failure because of his absolute assumption—a great weakness of over rationalization. But if you are willing to examine clues, reasonable explanations, then the move of faith gains stability within the mind. Keller offers several clues to the questioning mind. The Mysterious Bang. Most scientists talk about a Big Bang beginning to the universe. They cite evidence of outward expansion from a single point. Working backwards, they arrive at a single point about 15 billion years ago when something happened to begin what we know now. An obvious question is, what happened prior to the Big Bang? What caused it? Was it a who? Or Who? Could it have been God? The Cosmic Welcome Mat I call this the “life has happened” argument. It is based on the reality we experience. Life in a multitude of forms. The challenge is that there are so many physical constants that must be just so, for life to happen—things like gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. Some have said that there are at least 15 such constants and any variation in one of them by as much as 1 in a 1,000,000 would unbalance the whole. Alvin Plantinga offers another way of looking at it. Suppose you and three friends were playing poker. You deal, and as you deal you get four aces. Eyebrows are raised, laughter erupts. And then you deal again, and again get four aces. Maybe you do this twenty times in a row. Your friends now think you are a cheater. You claim, “There might be an infinite number of universes and maybe we just so happen to be in the one where every time I deal, I get four aces.” Now such a statement cannot be proved either way. Your friends however, if you lived in the old west, would have their six shooters out! The Regularity of Nature This one’s easy for most of us. Stuff happens on a regular basis, like the sun coming up. The regularity of scientific events is what enables people to learn by observation. Pretty soon we learn, that in the same circumstances, water always boils at 212 degrees. Philosophers however, push beyond such common sense, and say that just because it has happened in the past, it doesn’t mean it will happen in the future. That’s pure assumption on a philosophical basis. Of course they still count on boiling water to brew their tea! The Clue of Beauty Just about everyone, at some time or another, is struck by beauty. It could be music, or nature, or literature, or art, but there is some kind of innate desire or longing that only something beautiful touches. Of course that touch is imperfect in itself, there is the longing for that ‘more thing’ which the experience of beauty hints at. And it is this hint of beauty that gives another clue to God being out there. Is it proof? Some say yes, others say no. Let’s continue to call it a clue. The Clue-Killer... Those who are opposed to seeing God in anything and who demand some kind of airtight proof are often influenced and often influence others by a promotion of evolutionary science. They say everything is really just a result of random interactions of chemicals and atoms and electrons. ...killed When they say this they suppose that talk and thought of religion and God are knocked asunder. What they usually forget is that the same premise that would push away talk of God (“It’s just an evolutionary result that enabled some people to survive better, it doesn’t correspond to any reality, it’s just chemicals and such…”, what they usually forget is that that same premise cuts the feet out from under their own idea. For ultimately, it too, is only the result of some random chemical, biological, physical interaction. (And if that is the case, then so too, any musing about anything. Meaning and knowledge have no substance, only appearance.) The reality though is that no one can live that way. Everyone believes some things, discusses some things, even if it would be only biomechanical evolution. A result of these clues (and there are many, many others) is “provocative and potent.” There will be those who say, “So at best you are only offering probabilities. No one can really know if there’s a God or not.” Keller says “Not exactly.” But that is the next chapter!

Half-Way Point

Intermission Keller pauses at the midpoint of his book to muse on what he is seeking to accomplish. He has spent seven chapters handling the most common objections he hears against Christianity. He recognizes that dismantling opposition is not the same as building positive commitment, so he is preparing the reader for seven chapters that point toward reasons for the adoption of Christianity. But before those good reasons he addresses two pertinent questions. The first comes from the common observation that there are many flavors of Christianity. Which one is he talking about? The second deals with a philosophical thorn—rationalism or relativism? Historic Christianity Recognizing both major and minor differences, Keller focuses on that which all Christians tend to agree—the great creeds of the first thousand years. “All Christians believe all this—but no Christians believe just this.” This sentence places the book at the place nonChristians can deal with the most central issues. It also places it in the point that almost every Christian wishes he would say more (like why “my position” is right!). Reasonable Faith Many modern opponents of religion (let alone Christianity) argue for a strong rationalism, or the verification principle. By that they mean that no proposition should be accepted or believed unless the argument is so strong that no normal person could have any reason for not believing it. Some Christians see their faith as that clear and so claim that people who reject/don’t accept Christ ‘simply close their minds to the truth out of fear or stubbornness.’ Keller reminds us that the majority of scholars think such strong rationalism is impossible to defend. He notes that most people agree that every view of the truth contains a subjective viewpoint. It’s impossible not to have one. Keller offers a view that says, examine the arguments for belief, evaluate the claims, and recognize that what you settle on will be what seems most reasonable to you. (Note: Keller does not enter into the spiritual dynamics of why a person believes or not. This is not his arena for that discussion. Rather, he talks as people regularly talk about ideas. What sounds best? Why? Etc.)

What did you do Memorial Day?

A quick report for the far north! PastorServe has been helping a church in the suburbs north of Anchorage to serve their pastor. Men from our team have been visiting and preaching for Pastor Rud. My turn came over the Memorial Day weekend. This is the picture I sent to some friends and family showing our Memorial Day picnic!

Can the Bible be taken literally?

Note: I'm back after a quick/long period of celebration of our youngest son's high school graduation, the close of school-a very busy time for me, and a preaching trip to Alaska. Whew! Now, back to Keller's book, The Reason for God, which is still #30 on the New York Times Best Seller list.) You Can’t Take the Bible Literally A common criticism of Christianity is that the “Christian faith requires belief in the Bible….but today you can’t take it literally.” The usual context of this complaint is either in the realm of science (see previous chapter & post), or history—unreliable or culture—repressive. But is it so? Keller recognizes the popularity of DaVinci Code arguments but gathers good reasons to counter those claims. His first is that the timing of the New Testament documents is too early for the gospels to be legends. The first documents were written at most 40-60 years after Jesus’ death. That would mean that when they were written there were still plenty of people around who would have been eyewitnesses! Not only people who became followers of Jesus, but those who were doubters, deniers and antagonists. “For a highly altered, fictionalized account of an event to take hold in the public imagination it is necessary that the eyewitnesses (and their children and grandchildren) all be long dead.” The reliability of the history can be seen when the apostle Paul said to King Agrippa, “These things were not done in a corner.” (Acts 26.26) The point is that they took place and no one doubted or argued that point. They were recognized as authoritative and eyewitness accounts early. In addition to the gospels being written too early to be manipulations into legends, Keller also points out that the content is far too counterproductive. For instance if the gospels were written to buoy up the early church, you would expect Jesus to ‘make comments’ on some of the debates affecting the early church. He never addresses the question of believers being circumscribed—which was an issue in the late 40’s AD in Galatia. In a similar manner, the apostles are not painted in the most enduring picture. They are seen as “petty and jealous, almost impossibly slowwitted and in the end as cowards who either actively or passively failed their master.” This content doesn’t support any idea that the gospels were ginned up in some way to support Christianity and the early church. Finally, Keller notes that the literary form is way too detailed to be legend. Those who have studied legends and myths of that era note how devoid of detail they are. Yet the gospel accounts include things like the number of fish caught or a teacher doodling in the sand. There is a growing body of scholars who argue for the authenticity of the gospel accounts as being fromm the days of Jesus. What about the cultural questions? The two most common questions at this time seem to be the question of whether the Bible supports slavery and whether it promotes the subjugation of women. Both of these questions are important and are actually helpful in teaching us how to approach the Bible. First of all, everyone must be careful not to take their own ideas of a subject back to the text and impose it upon what is under consideration. For instance, most people today hear the word “slavery” and conclude what is being talked about is the African slave trade. But during Roman times, there wasn’t considerable difference between a slave and a freeperson. They looked alike, were not segregated from one another, made the same wages and in the case of slaves, usually could acquire enough capital to free themselves. Slavery was not normally lifelong. Completely different was the African slave trade, where people were ‘owned’ forever, dehumanized, obtained by kidnapping and trafficked for profit. The Bible condemns this kind of activity! Consider 1 Timothy 1:9-11 and Deuteronomy 24:7. Different. And the practice of such by Christians should not be condoned. But neither should a reader interpose his own understanding on such a sensitive issue back upon the text. The reality is that most of us hold unexamined cultural beliefs and practices. We usually are shocked at what our grandparents may have accepted and practiced. We rarely consider how our grandchildren will consider what we accept and practice. A good example of this would be to consider how modern British people differ from the Anglo-Saxons of a 1000 years ago. Both read of Jesus, coming with angels to judge the whole world according to righteousness (Mk 14.62). Both read of Peter, who denied his master and was later restored Mk 14:67 & 16:7) Moderns seem to shudder at judgment and delight in forgiveness. The ancestors understand judgment and are appalled at disloyalty and betrayal. How could it ever be forgiven? Cultural sensitive questions about Bible meaning are best held loosely. And also with a view as to how they match with the center of Biblical teaching—for instance the person and work of Jesus.

Is Science Opposed to Christianity?

Keller points out the very modern claim that “you cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold to religious beliefs.” (Although this particular claim is very modern—Dawkins, 1986 and 2006, my mom heard just about the same thing in 1929 when she went to Coe College—“Anyone who is intelligent doesn’t believe the Bible.”) Of course the question is: is that right? The most common objection is against the reality of miracles. The answer has several levels. First, science admits that it is not equipped to test for miracles as it only deals with natural causes and effects. The next step is a long reach to claim that that proves there can’t be any miracles. What kind of logic is that? Just because I not know Portuguese doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist. The idea behind it all is the assumption that since there aren’t miracles, there can’t be a God who does miracles. So is Science opposed to Christianity? There are many on both sides of the discussion who say yes. It is commonly expressed like this: Evolution and Science don’t mix. Keller points out that there are however, many scientists who are Christians and who hold and teach some version of evolution as a process but do not accept evolution as an “All-encompassing Theory.” There are four different approaches to the problem: conflict, dialogue, integration, and interdependence. Each has its supporters and strengths and weaknesses. The point is that there are many ways to approach the question, with two major emphases. First, science itself is “unable to account for everything (many things?) about human existence to every thinkers’ satisfaction.” And the second is that the “majority of scientists consider themselves moderately or deeply religious.” There isn’t an uncrossable divide between science and Christianity. To those who have a hard time believing miracles, Keller points out that when Jesus rose from the dead, even some of his followers had a difficult time with it. After all dead people don’t just rise again from the dead. Miracles are hard to believe because they are counter to the natural order and our experience. And their purpose seems to move beyond capturing our minds to capturing our hearts. “Jesus’ miracles are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts that the world we want is coming.”

Keeping in Step with the Spirit--Remix

I always learn more by teaching, talking or writing than I do by mere reading or thinking. Putting it down on paper is the best of all--because I can look at the thoughts, mull them over, change them, reword them or delete them. Talking works pretty good too--except for the sad reality that I quickly forget what I said! During a recent Sunday School class we were working on Galatians 5:16-26. This section has the famous verses about the fruit of the Spirit. And it also reminds us of the challenge every Christian faces internally-a spiritual civil war between the the fallen sinful nature and the renewed Spiritual nature. Two points clicked for me this morning. First, There is a strong parallel construction between verses 16 and 18. Both verses contrast the fallen nature and the renewed Spiritual nature. In verse 16 the text says, "live by the Spirit." This is very similar to verse 18, "you are led by the Spirit." The contrasting action in verse 16 says, "and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." The contrast in verse 18 says, "you are not under law." There is something similar or parallel between gratifying the sinful nature and being under the law. It seems that in the rest of Galations, being under law means trying to earn God's favor (or salvation) by doing things He likes or approves of. In other words it means trying to get God to react to what we do. Or more precisely, trying to control God by what we do. In the most religious terms of the context it would be something like--I am following the Mosaic laws so that God is under obligation to bless and accept me. It is a religious way of being your own savior and lord. So how could that be similar to gratifying the desires of the sinful nature? Certainly not in the sense of trying to gain God's approval, because truly pagan people don't seem to care anything for God. The similarity lies in the fact that this gratification is self oriented. When I gratify those desires I am doing what I want, or what I think will best serve me or make me happy. The way it is similar is that at the center of my heart, I am acting as my own god (or savior or lord). I wonder if this is part of what Bill Bright was thinking about when he gave us that famous illustration of the throne in one's heart. Who is on it? Me or Jesus? Whether it is the desires of the sinful nature or living under the law, the focus is the same--I want what I want and I want it now! I want to be in charge. I will run my own life, thank you. I'll be my own lord! Second, This realization then helped me to understand what it is to keep in step with the Spirit. If I understand the work of the Spirit as being to glorify Jesus (John 14-16), then keeping in step with the Spirit means seeing the person and work of Jesus more and more. In essence it is keeping the gospel before you all the time. When Jack Miller (who taught preachers at Westminster Seminary) talked about doing this he said we have to learn to "preach the gospel to ourselves all the time." And isn't this the way the Spirit transforms us? Look at 2 Corinthians 3:18. "And we, who with unveiled faces reflect (or contemplate) the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness..." What is it that changes us--the glory of Jesus. The entire package of his glory--his divine nature, his human nature, his death for the benefit of his people, his astonishing and amazing love and grace. With these two insights in mind, I realized why one of my friends told me his life was radically changed when he began to begin his day by reviewing Scriptures that expressed the work of Jesus to give new life. It can change your life!

Men of Colonial Mountain Climbers--Conditioning

Guys, If you were at the first orientation meeting you heard about the need for conditioning. Most of you already know this and most of you are already doing some things to get ready for the climbs. After Pastor Paul mentioned his conditioning goal, I felt weak. And slow. And old. So I rechecked some correspondance and websites and found a fairly reliable VO2 test that anyone can use. It was developed by Dr Ken Cooper (the Aerobics guy from way back). You can find a link to it here. VO2 has something to do with measuring the volume of oxygen your lungs and body can handle. It is a pretty effective measure of cardio conditioning. If you reach a certain point, then it is likely that you'll do okay in the mountains, at altitude (apart from altitude sickness). The test is simple. Run as far as you can in 12 minutes. Measure it. Compare the charts. The link I gave is measured in meters so I had to convert mileage to meters. For old guys like me it is something like 1.25 miles in 12 minutes. I believe you younger men probably need to go farther! The other factor that you should train for is long walks or hikes. I think the trip up Umcompaghre is more than 12 minutes. grace

How God Changes People--The Cay

During the past few weeks my 6th grade language arts class has been reading The Cay. It is a wonderful story and I highly recommend it. The setting is the Caribbean, during World War 2. Phillip is an eleven year old boy, whose mom is frightened after German U-boats attack the oil center of Curacao, off the coast of Venezuela. She wants to take him back to Virginia, for safety. They get on a boat bound for Miami, but it is sunk by a torpedo and Phillip ends up on a raft with Timothy, an old black West Indian man. Phillip’s mom was prejudiced and it comes out in Phillip as he interacts with Timothy. Oh yeah, Phillip was injured as he fell from the ship. He hit his head and on the second day on the raft went blind. Timothy and Phillip are stuck with each other. Phillip is an emerging racist. Timothy keeps focused on the work they have to do—what work? “Just keep alive, young bahss.” Eventually they come to a cay, a small low island, with a few palms and no people who will help them. As Timothy sets up camp, they make plans for rescue. Timothy makes a signal fire that they can light if they hear or see an airplane. After a few days on the island they gather sea-grape vines so that Timothy can make a rope for Phillip to get down to the fire if he hears a plane when Timothy isn’t there Then Timothy tells Phillip that he (Phillip) will have to begin to share in the work. Now Phillip is an eleven year old. He is blind. He doesn’t know if his mom got in a life boat or not. Life is not easy. And he thinks—“I can’t work, I’m blind”. Timothy announces that Phillip will be weaving the sleeping mats from palm branches. Phillip complains. Blind kids can’t work. Timothy assures Phillip that it is not hard, just over and under. In fact one of the best mat makers in the islands is blind. Finally, Timothy places some palm fronds in Phillip’s lap. “Here young bahss, it’s easy. Just over and under…” Phillip tries but it doesn’t work so well. He gives up. Timothy tries to help him by reaching his hands in and directly Phillip. “Just over and under…” At this point, Phillip loses it. Listen as Phillip tells it. I tried again, but it didn’t work. I stood up and threw the palm fibers at him, and screamed, “You stupid ugly black man! I won’t do it! You’re stupid, you can’t even spell…” Timothy’s heavy hand struck my face sharply. Stunned, I touched my face where he’d hit me. Then I turned away from where I thought he was. My cheek stung, but I wouldn’t let him see me with tears in my eyes. I heard him saying very gently, “B’getting’ back to wark, my own self.” I sat down again. He began to sing that ‘fungee and fish’ song in a low voice, and I could picture him sitting on the sand in front of the hut; that tangled gray hair, the ugly black face with the thick lips, those great horny hands, winding the strands of vine. The rope, I thought. It wasn’t for him. It was for me. After a while, I said, “Timothy…” He did not answer, but walked over to me, pressing more palm fronds into my hands. He murmured, “’Tis veree easy, ovah an’ under…” Then he went back to singing about fungee and fish. Something happened to me that day on the cay. I’m not quite sure what it is even now, but I had begun to change. I said to Timothy, “I want to be your friend.” He said softly, “Young bahss, you ‘ave always been my friend.” I said, “Can you call me Phillip instead of young boss? “Philleep,” he said warmly. I asked my sixth graders what happened. They said he got smacked! I asked them what they thought about it. Most thought Timothy was justified. One said, “Why didn’t he do it sooner?” I asked them what changed in Phillip. They said, he started to quit being racist. I asked why did he change. And few could answer. Some thought it was because he got some sense knocked into him. One said that he was probably afraid that he’d get beat if he kept it up. I pointed out the reality of change. He is no longer ‘young bahss’ but now Philleep. In the Bible a name change is significant. It means God is at work. But what happened here? A couple wrote down, ‘it’s something about the rope.’ And then I told them my story. Here’s what I told them. Phillip was taken aback when Timothy slapped him. At first he merely licked his wounds. And maybe nursed his grudge. But Timothy just kept on working. And all of a sudden Phillip realized what Timothy was working on. The rope. And it wasn’t for Timothy it was for Phillip. What Timothy was really doing was loving Phillip. And it was love that touched Phillip’s heart. No wonder he didn’t understand it then and maybe wouldn’t for a long time. Love is powerful. Love changes people. It doesn't call attention to itself so sometimes it is hard to see. Regardless of what my young student said, beatings do not change a person on the inside. It takes love to do that. And we who know the God who delights in our name, who has a name for us written on a white stone in heaven, who changes us from the inside out, wonder at the love that changes us. If you have stories that remind you of the love of God that changes us, please share them. I'd love to hear them.

A visceral objection - How can a God of love send people to hell?

For many modern Americans, this seems in impossible contradiction. The root of the objection goes something like this: To think God will send someone to hell means that person is unequal in dignity and worth. A normal consequence will be to then treat them as less than equal, eventually stretching to exclusion and even violence. Keller points out that while this objection to Christianity is raised frequently, it comes more from feelings than thought. And so this chapter is less sharply focused than the others so far, but his answers are still very helpful. He thinks the background for this question lies in the rise of science. Not that science is intrinsically notorious. But that as people gained scientific ideas, skills and technology, we all began to enjoy many benefits in this present world. C.S. Lewis says that magic became much more popular about the same time, as a rival to science, with the same goals, but less success and acceptance. What were the goals?--to manage and manipulate our present world for our benefit. And as science ascended there were those who consciously cast God and the metaphysical into the background and others who subciously accepted the fact that what's important is the here and now. The result--a world that was no longer God-centered, but man-centered. This puts God in the Dock--another book by Lewis, that answers some of these same kind of objections. But note: God is answerable to man, not vice versa. Keller than deals with three common misunderstanding about God and His wrath. First he says that all people are angry sometimes. And its a good thing that they are. Imagine being a parent who doesn't get angry if his daughter is mistreated. There is such a thing as good anger. Consider this quote from Anne Dillard, “God’s wrath is not a cranky explosion, but his settled opposition to the cancer…which is eating out the insides of the human race he loves with his whole being.” Second he cites the work of Miroslav Volf, a Croatian familiar with the wars, crises and prejudices of the Balkans. Volf says that to speak of a God of love who does not bring justice to the oppressed is to silence the good in people and will actually fuel the road of blood vengeance. If God will not cure all wrongs, it is up to me to make right the wrongs I and my family (or people) have suffered. Third, he points out that the road to hell is a process and that no one arrives there without practice and preparation for it. Many people think that as God sends someone to hell, they realize their plight and cry out only to hear God laugh, "too late." The biblical picture is of continuity of life style. The rich man in Luke 16 seems 'blind to what has happened. He still thinks Lazarus should be his servant and treats him as his water boy." If you want to get nasty about it listen to Lewis, "Hell is the greatest monument to human freedom." At the end of the chapter Keller takes up the issue of equality. His point is that no one can make any final judgments about anyone else's spiritual fate or state. History abounds with outspoken critics who convert and outspoken defenders who turn apostate. [As a personal note, it is at this point that we need to reflect on the image of God in people. That is the basis for respect and dignity and equality.] The fact that so many people want to think of God as a God of love is really remarkable. No other religion has such a personal and intimate God. The thought must arise from the Bible, which also reveals that He will judge, too.

Christianity is the cause of so much social injustice-- Chapter four

Some people complain about and argue against Christianity because of disappointment. It may be personal. Sometimes it is institutional. “The Church causes lots of problems in society and culture.” Keller points out that there are three major reasons for this complaint. One is deeply personal—Christians have lots of character flaws. The second concerns religions support and endorsement of many wars and violence. The third is the chilling reality of fanaticism. Character flaws A common expectation is that to be a Christian means having one’s moral life together. Yet there is a lot of moral failure or deficiency within the church. Leaders fail. By and large social-personal problems are found at about the same rate within the church as without. And there seem to be lots of nonreligious people who seemingly practice pretty good lives. A biblical solution for this arises from an appreciation of two foundational Christian truths—common grace and special grace. Common grace teaches that God spreads His good gifts across the face of the earth. And so it is not unexpected to find people who not only don’t know Him, but may even be among those who are antagonistic towards God, who live out goodness in many ways. Its part of being human in this world. The Christian doctrine of the Fall doesn’t teach that people are as bad as they can be, just that they are unable to please or seek after God. Special grace emphasizes the reality of fallenness. No person is good enough to please God and even our best efforts are tainted with death when done to promote or protect ourselves before Him. Special grace teaches that God gives life and love to those who are not good before God. Christian maturity then, which is character formation and practice, is a gradual process that follows conversion. So it shouldn’t be surprising to find Christians who don’t have it all together. It’s not an excuse for bad behavior, but it explains why people see it in Christians and why we should look for it in ourselves. Violence Some people argue that Christianity (and religion in general) is responsible for wars and violence because “it ‘transendentalizes’ ordinary cultural differences do that parties feel they are in a cosmic battle between good and evil.” Example after example are often cited: Northern Ireland, the Middle East, the Balkans, etc. What is overlooked in this list is the reality that over the past several hundred years there have been several cultures/nations that have sought to remove religion from themselves. France at the time of their Revolution is one. Soviet Russia is another, Cambodia another. And in each of these three examples, the level of violence rose dramatically…and it was state supported violence! Fanaticism The most pressing complaint is that of fanaticism. People who ‘really get into their religion’ get deemed fanatic, a term which is intended to arouse fear and suspicion. The common analysis of this phenomena is that a person or group of people assume that they are right with God because of who they are and what they do. And then they not only judge those who differ, but seek to change others to be like they are—and in some cases abuse power to this end. The Christian answer to this issue is to look deeper into Christianity rather than try to hold to a middle of the road variety. And when Keller means deeper, he means moving beyond being “fanatically zealous and courageous: to becoming dramatically “humble, sensitive, loving, empathetic, forgiving and understanding,” in other words to becoming more Christlike. And how is this accomplished? Only as the Christian grows in appreciation for the work of Jesus on his behalf. Point Those who move deeper into Christianity discover that the Bible offers the source for critique of life. Much of the work of the prophets was to point God-followers to more consistent life practices. A major theme was the work to correct social injustice. Keller says that “true faith is marked by profound concern for the poor and marginalized.” And that has been the practice for many Christians. While the horrific African slave trade was too often accepted by Christians, Christians were also opposed to it as it began and were the ones to work tirelessly to overturn it. Wilberforce and Woolman gave themselves to this work because they were seeking to live as Christians. Likewise the Civil Rights movement was more a religious and spiritual movement than a purely political one. When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from the Birmingham jail to the church in the south, he appealed to them to act in line with the truth of God and to oppose injustice. Christianity may give cause for argument against it in the case of personal deficiency and social injustice, but the remedy isn’t to give Christianity up, but to become more Christian, more like Christ. In His power and by His grace and for His glory.

Christianity is a Straightjacket! – ...Not!

Chapter three, The Reason for God One of the most pressing objections to Christianity concerns both the validity and application of absolute truth. Many people today assume that any “belief in absolute truth is the enemy of freedom.” Keller hears this objection voiced in three ways. First some object that absolute truth endangers civic freedom by barring some from a community. Others say it appears culturally narrow by failing to recognize that various cultures have different perspectives on reality. And still others claim that it enslaves (infantilizes) members by determining what they must believe/practice in every particular. Keller pushes back. Everyone acts as though they believe in truth even if they claim they don’t. Truth is unavoidable. When some claim truth is merely an exercise in power and control, they are making a truth claim themselves. (The real question is which one is right!) “If you say all truth claims are power plays, then so is your statement. If you say that all truth claims about religion and God are just psychological projections to deal with your guilt and insecurity, then so is your statement.” Community can’t be completely inclusive Every group limits itself in some ways. Consider an example from the book. Suppose that there are two people, one is on the board of the local Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Support Community. The other on the board of the Alliance Against Same-Sex Marriages. Imagine the first having a religious experience and saying, “I now believe homosexuality is a sin.” About the same time the second learns that his son is gay. He begins to say, “he should have a right to marry his partner.” What happens? At some point, each community will have to exclude the person from the board—“you are now different than our stated goals and beliefs.” It would be expected. Yet of the groups, one has the reputation of being inclusive, the other has the reputation of being narrow and exclusive. But both act the same. Every group (or community) is based on common beliefs that act as boundaries, including some and excluding others. Neither community is being ‘narrow’—they are just being communities. So how do you judge communities? Not by their inclusiveness, but by how they treat those outside their community. Do they treat others with love and respect? To serve them and meet their needs? Christians should be criticized who are condemning and ungracious to unbelievers but not for maintaining standards for membership in accord with their beliefs. Christians should hold beliefs in charity and humility. Conversation should be in respect. Christianity isn’t culturally rigid It may be the perception that Christianity tries to mold cultures to become alike, but it just isn’t the case. Think about the rise and spread of Christianity. It began in Jewish Jerusalem. Then it became centered in the Mediterranean, then Northern Europe, then North America. Today the most vigorous churches are in the southern and eastern hemispheres. And in every place, Christianity has been practiced with different cultural expression. African scholar, Lamin Sanneh says that Christianity has helped Africans to become renewed Africans, not re-made Europeans. (There is another argument that says that modern secularism is less respective of differing cultures than Christianity.) Christianity adapts to surrounding culture without compromising main tenets. Beliefs should be held in charity and humility. Conversation should be in respect. Freedom isn’t Simple We’re back to the basic issue—does freedom exist without constraints? Keller says, imagine playing the piano well. It takes hours and years of practice. Time you don’t spend doing other things, time you aren’t ‘free’. Yet the result is musical ‘freedom’ that is a joy to both player and audience. Or imagine a boy falling in love with a girl. He thinks about what he can do to make her happy. He gives up other things so he can spend time with the girl. True intimacy is one of the most beautiful forms of freedom, yet it means giving other things up. To some it might appear that ‘she is leading him around by the nose.’ Not to him. For him it is wonderful. Man and woman both give to learn to serve the other. How is it with God and man? The normal thought is that man has to do the changing to fit Him. He’s God, I’m not. But Christianity is not ‘normal’. It is based on Jesus who changed to serve us. He set aside glory to become like us (the incarnation) and he gave up his life to save us (the atonement). For the Christian, once you realize how Jesus changed for you and gave himself for you, you aren’t afraid of giving up your freedom and therefore finding your freedom in Him. Then we will learn how to love others as well.

The ‘Biggest’ Problem—“How could a good God allow suffering?”

One of the most powerful objections to God is the reality of suffering. It is usually stated something like this: Suffering shows that either God is not powerful enough to end evil and suffering or He is not good enough to care about ending evil and suffering. This objection is weighty to most and appears hard to handle, but Keller points out a central flaw in this thinking and then goes beyond it to emphasize how Christianity offers hope to those in the midst of suffering (and may not be immediately interested in the philosophy!) The basic flaw When a person says that evil and suffering seem pointless what that person is really saying is that evil and suffering seem pointless to me. Keller writes it this way, “if evil appears pointless to me, then it is pointless.” The problem is one of perspective and insight. “Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean that there can’t be one.” There are many illustrations of this. The story of Joseph in the Bible is one. All sorts of bad things happened to him. And in the end we see that if all those bad years wouldn’t have happened, Joseph wouldn’t have been prepared to do all the good he did in the end. Move beyond the Bible and many people today have similar stories. Looking back there are many admissions that the greatest strength for life was often developed during the deepest times of suffering. There are reasons people don’t see from within a period of suffering. The skeptics who complain against God because of this problem don't have a suitable answer. They want what is right and just. But what is good? How does anyone determine what is evil? Without God they have no basis for deciding what is right and good and just or evil and unjust. It’s mere opinion. And yet saying that suffering may have a reason we don’t understand but that God does, doesn’t always help a person who is suffering. They want to know why? They want to know that the suffering isn’t in vain. Resources and hope to handle suffering The reality of Christ becoming man and suffering death on the cross and being raised again on the third day helps us. The death of Jesus was far worse than we can ever imagine for his death was not merely physical, but spiritual as well. The cry on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” is the culmination of suffering that is far worse than anything you or I will experience. One woman told Keller that his philosophical answers didn't get God off the hook. The message of Christianity is that Jesus got on the hook, in our place. An innocent man suffering the worst possible. But why? The cross doesn't show us all the reasons, but is shows us one that cannont be true. Suffering isn’t because he doesn’t love us. The message of Christianity is that God loves people so much that Jesus died for us. Even if we don’t understand how or why God is doing something, we can understand that it isn’t that He doesn’t love us. (Too many double negatives—He does love us!!!!) Nor is suffering in vain. The resurrection gives hope to suffering. For when Jesus rose again, he gave signal to a future renewal. Not a paradise where the present sufferings are made up for. But a new earth and a new heaven. Keller puts it this way, “The future is not just a consolation for the life you never had but a restoration of the life you always wanted." For anyone who suffers, the Christian answer is, "Look at Jesus. I probably don't understand or empathize nearly enough. How could I? But Jesus does. He knows suffering. Look to Him for hope and for help."

Chapter One Remix--the Privatization of Relgion

I thought I might put up a bit more detailed analysis of Keller’s reaction to the third approach many people today take towards religion—the attempt at privatization. There are others who have pointed this tendency out (Zacharias and Guinness for example) but Keller helps in seeking to understand the thinking behind this common approach and then exposes it’s own weakness. Why do they try to make religion private? Keller begins with examples of people who say that in the public arena, discussion of moral positions should be allowed only from a secular, nonreligious grounding. He also notes that the answer for those who complain that such a position is discriminatory against religion is that such a policy is merely pragmatic—it keeps the divisive nature of religious debate out of public policy. An answer Keller offers a Stephen L Carter quote that shows that “it is impossible to leave religious views behind when we do any kind of moral reasoning at all.” He begins by asking, “What is religion?” It isn’t just belief in God (check out Zen Buddhism which is religious but doesn’t believe in God). And it isn’t just belief in the supernatural (because that doesn’t fit the Hindus). So what is religion? Here’s a working definition: “It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing.” That means that any ordered way of thinking that has opinions about anything that is moral (that ought to be done) is really religious. Keller calls it “implicit religion”. He also calls it a “worldview” or the result of a “master narrative, [which is] an account about the meaning of life along with recommendation for how to live based on that account of things.” Moral thinking is framed by religion, whether it be specific and easily recognizable, or implicit. Whether it is grand philosophy or just ‘what works’, Keller maintains that “any picture of happy human life…is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life” Those who think religion should be privatized argue that religion based beliefs are conversation stoppers, but the reality is, that just about any foundational idea of what life is about or how a person should live is basically impossible to explain and defend to those who don’t share them. “Survival of the fittest” It is here that Keller inserts an imaginary dialogue between two women about “safety nets for the poor.” Ms A and Ms B go back and forth, and can not connect, because they share different views about life and by applying those views to the discussion they pretty much can’t agree on anything. "Safety net for the poor?" "Why not let the survival of the fittest take care of things, if they make it they make it, don’t interfere." If you read the entire conversation you can see how frustrating it is, even in a non-religious setting, because foundational beliefs really affect what anyone and everyone thinks about what is right or wrong in any and every setting. The proponents of ‘privatization’ say that religion is too controversial. Others point out that “secular grounds for moral positions are just as controversial as religious grounds and that a very strong case can be made that all moral positions are at least implicitly religious.” Keller’s point—the best arguments for keeping religion out of the public arena come from a view that says religion is controversial. But in reality, any moral position is controversial (and probably religious as well). So it is impossible to privatize religion. Questions: Is Keller right in his understanding of implicit religion? Is it possible to discuss/argue moral issues free from the controversy usually laid at the feet of religion—“your ideas are based on beliefs I don’t necessarily share”--?

Exclusivity, But No Superiority

Chapter One of The Reason for God, by Tim Keller The claim any religion makes of being exclusively true flies in the face of many people today. As Keller introduces the problem by telling his own experience as part of a panel which included a Jewish rabbi and a Muslim imam. Their conversation was polite and respectful. “Each speaker affirmed that there were several significant, irreconcilable differences between the major faiths. A case in point was the person of Jesus. We all agreed on the statement, ‘If Christians are right about Jesus being God, then Muslims and Jews fail in a serious way to love God as God really is, but if Jews and Muslims are right that Jesus is not God but rather a teacher or a prophet, then Christians fail to love God as God really is.’” The panelists were satisfied with the statement, the audience wasn’t. Many argued “it was intolerant to say one faith has a better grasp of the truth than others.” After acknowledging that differing religions claiming to be even ‘more right’ than others is a cause of interpersonal divisiveness, Keller uses the rest of the chapter to discuss the most common attempts to handle the divisiveness of religion. Some want to outlaw religion, others want to condemn religion and still others want to privatize religion. Keller provides examples of each attempt, analyzes them and then offers an answer from either a historical, a cultural or a philosophical viewpoint. For those who want to outlaw religion he reminds us that in the 20th century the worst examples of violence and intolerance were practiced by those who thought religion was violent and intolerant. He also points out the growth of all major religions worldwide, a phenomena unlikely to change. Religion is not going away. Those who want a ‘universal’ religion (all religions are basically the same) make their own absolute religious faith statements when they begin to describe the basics that fit all other religions. Those who think each religion sees only a part of the whole seem to speak from the position that they see more than any who practice a religion. Those who say it’s arrogant to insist your religion is right and others are wrong show the same arrogance in their own claim. And those who insist that beliefs are mostly culturally determined must think that their beliefs about other beliefs aren’t! (Or are they being inconsistent?) Keller likewise discusses those who seek to keep religion private and use only secular thinking in the public square. Keller pushes back with the reality that even those who are ‘secular’ have their own implicit religion, that is their own “set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that humans should spend their time doing.” Whoever claims to be ‘secular’ exercises his own ‘faith’ in his own approach to life. The conversation he portrays between Ms. A and Ms. B show how unsettling it can be. While the examples and arguments are very helpful in understanding how some people think and how we might interact with them, I am astonished at Keller’s last section, “Christianity can save the world”. He had already said that religion can be divisive. He pointed out how it happens. I feel I’m right. That means you aren’t. Pretty soon I feel superior to you, and either become arrogant or haughty. We all see that happen way too much. So how can Christianity help? “Christianity has within itself remarkable power to explain and expunge the divisive tendencies within the human heart.” What is he talking about? First, that all people are created in the image of God. So Keller says, “Christians [should] expect non-believers to be better than any of their mistaken beliefs could make them.” And then, because sin has touched all people, “Christians expect believers to be worse in practice than their orthodox beliefs should make them. His conclusion—“So there will be plenty of ground for respectful cooperation.” Right here I offer apologies for not stating either the image of God or the fallenness of man so aptly. Since love believes the best of others, and my experience reveals my own failures, I should look to the good others do, and be wary of my own evil. And on top of that, Christianity is all about grace—Christ doing for us what we could never do for ourselves. Therefore I have no grounds for superiority. Do I belong to God? It is only because of His grace, mercy and love (nothing, absolutely nothing in me to earn or deserve it!) Why me and not someone else—God alone knows. What He tells me is that it isn’t because I am better or worse than others, it has to do with His love, will and purposes. So how should I live? Joyful that God has made known the truth to me. Humble that He loves me in spite of myself, eager to see the good in others, and hopeful that as they see good in me (and here my reason why) they too will find life in Jesus. What do you think? Of Keller’s arguments? Or my response?

A call to honesty and humilty (A Reason for God-Introduction)

The introduction of Keller’s book is a reflection of his personal background of working with doubt to clarify his own faith and his interpersonal work to help others examine their own lives and beliefs. A key idea is that the more honest a person is about faith the more clarity there will be about his own faith and the more humility there will be concerning the faith of others. Keller’s hook to capture one’s attention is that “the enemies are both right.” By that he means that the world is “getting both more religious and less religious at the same time.” As he cites statistics and studies to make his point he moves offers several suggestions. On one hand he suggests that both camps recognize their own strong positions in culture and resist any over the top hype that really is defensiveness. Instead he urges everyone to examine their own doubts and faith. For the believer such examination can be helpful preparation for the times when life seems exceedingly more difficult or unfair than expected or for when one comes into contact with a skeptic who is smart. And by examining the doubts and faith of skeptics, the believer opens the door for conversations that include answers that are more plausible to the skeptic. Keller challenges the skeptic to “look for a type of faith hidden in their own reasoning.” He does just this in the first half of the book as he seeks to answer the most common objections he hears to Christianity. This is one of the most helpful aspects of this book and makes it a resource that will serve many Christians. He listens to the objections and through many conversations has come to understand what ‘faiths’ lie behind those objections. Very helpful stuff indeed! I found Keller’s analysis of his personal journey of faith helpful. He identified three “barriers” he has had to work through and in. The first was the intellectual one—is it true? Why? How do I know? The second barrier he calls the interior or personal barrier. I think he means not merely the experiential aspect of sensing and knowing God’s presence, but the actual workings out of a real faith in a real person. He says it would take a different book to flesh this out. I suspect he is thinking of the always present work Jesus does through His grace and mercy. His point—it can’t be merely intellectual. The third barrier is the one that led him to ministry. It is the social barrier. He found himself wondering why the moral relativists were so insistent on social justice and why many (most?) orthodox Christians appeared so blasé about deep social and societal wrongs. Helping to create such a community has been part of the impetus for his work in New York City. This book is part of the fruit of that work. Keller wants to answer questions in ways nonreligious people can hear the answers. He wants to help believers to understand faith more clearly and hold it more humbly. What do you think? (By the way, if you want to listen to the sermons that relate to the first seven chapters you can go here to download them.)

A Reason for God

Next week I'll begin blogging my responses to the new book by Tim Keller, The Reason for God. I am excited about doing this for several reasons. First of all, I have given this book to my five sons with the desire to share our thoughts together around a common topic. Sometimes when we are all together there is so much going on that we don't get the opportunity to talk about one thing all together. I am hoping this blog will provide that opportunity. (If you are not one of my five sons, I want to invite you to join in as well. You can get the book at Borders, or online. Amazon has it pretty cheap. My plan is to do a chapter a week. I have already read the book once, am familiar with most of its topics, and have feasted on the teaching of Tim Keller on and off again for 15 years. I will try to reply to posts on the blog, but it won't necessarily be real quick.) The other reason I want to do this book is because of the perspective of ministry Keller talks about and does. He lives in New York City, which is an entirely different world than I know about. And his intent from the first day he went to NYC was to work to build a church that would reach the people who live there. He has been successful. More than 5000 people attend four different services at Redeemer Presbyterian Church and Redeemer has assisted in the planting of hundreds of other churches, most of which are in the city. Keller has always tried to be clear about the message of Jesus without using language which keeps sceptics away. He interacts with their ideas and questions in a winsome and helpful manner. A prayer of mine is that I could learn from him and help others move towards faith in Jesus. On a biographical note, Keller is my age. I have more hair than he does and more children. When he was moving to NYC to plant the church, the women's ministry of our church in Waterloo, Illinios helped fund the project. That was money well given!!!!! Next week, I'll begin the book--so read the introduction if you are able! (If you want a to read a review of the book you can try here.) grace always

Why?

I am starting this blog for a few reasons. First, I want a forum to discuss a book with my sons. That book is by Tim Keller, The Reason for God. Its a great resource, newly published, that will help people who wonder about God. I've been looking forward to it for a long time. Tim Keller is a pastor in New York City and I read and listen to just about anything I can that comes from him. He helps me see Jesus and live in His grace. Second, I need to do what I am calling remix. I find myself thinking about lessons I have taught and questions that came afterward and coming up with new ways to understand and express what seems important to others, to me, and hopefully to God. So sometimes I'll do a remix entry out of a Sunday School class or sermon--just a few more thoughts, or answers to questions. Third, I can use this blog as a way to get some information to some people in a way that is non intrusive for them. They can get it if and when they want. For example, as I prepare lessons for a men's mountain climbing trip this summer I can float ideas, get feedback, and hopefully learn to do a better job. There could be other uses, but they will appear when they do. Any questions?

Thunderstruck

Astonished is not strong enough. It comes from a Latin word that means "out of thunder". I remember thunderstorms that shook our house and threatened to bring huge limbs crashing upon our roof. I slept upstairs, but sometimes I didn't sleep. On occasion the thunder cracked at the same time the room flashed. I pondered the first floor. Once I was fishing in Wyoming when a storm came over us and we could hear the thunder echo off the not so distant mountains. Crack boom. Never so close to make us really afraid, though we should have been. Thunderstruck is not as bad as hit by lightning. We don't know how close we were or weren't. Those times when the intensity of the storm opens the eyes and ears at the same time are intense. But they are not as shocking as grace. Grace is overwhelming. I don't deserve it. But the Lord God gives grace. And I am astonished.