Is The Reason for God this Generation’s Mere Christianity?
I recently finished reading Timothy Keller’s The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. Although it was not what I expected, I thought the book was fantastic.
I was reminded of how influential Mere Christianity and More Than a Carpenter were early in my own life as a believer. I wonder if Keller’s book could become the Mere Christianity of this (and future) generation. I think Keller does a good job presenting Christ at a time when relativism and postmodern thought are so pervasive. I could be wrong, but I don’t think More Than a Carpenter would be as influential if it were published today (at least not in the United States).
What do you think? Have you read the book? Do different cultures and periods in history require different approaches to apologetics?
Comments
6 Responses to “Is The Reason for God this Generation’s Mere Christianity?”
Leave a Reply
I have refrained from reading the book due to general hysteria for it among those in my Venn Diagram.
I did watch Keller’s @Google talk. Maybe he comes off different in print than in person - I found him off-putting, though occasionally insightful.
As far as Reason being the apologetic opus of the current generation of Christian thought, I would have to say the answer is probably “Yes”. I can’t get people to stop quoting him to me.
C’mon, Josh. Just because it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Maybe “The Shack” is more your style
I’ve just started it and am rather enjoying it. I think comparisons to Mere Christianity (which played a big role in my own conversion) are probably valid. While Keller is a great writer, I much prefer him as a speaker for some reason, much like Ravi Zacharias.
@Josh I can see that. He comes across different on video than with audio only. Maybe Keller, like Nixon, was made for radio.
I find Keller to be extremely helpful in that he doesn’t fit your typical stereotype of a right-wing-conservative-fundamentalist christian yet at the same time isn’t a bleeding heart liberal.
He is a paradox.
He is passionate about social issues and the good of the city and bringing about cultural renewal, yet he doesn’t sacrifice historically orthodox beliefs like most do when championing social transformation.
As for his book, I think what I enjoyed most about it was his tone. So often apologists can speak down to or caricature or just be plain mean in their approach to those they disagree with. Keller is respectful, charitable, and honest in dialoging with skeptics.
He is not arrogant. This is refreshing in this day when the militant atheists and paranoid christians are going at it with veins popping out of their neck.
Great idea for a blog Erik.
I rather enjoyed The Reason For God and while I noticed it was very similar to Mere Christianity, I thought that the way Keller approached apologetics was more similar to Francis Schaeffer.
Both Lewis and Schaeffer foresaw postmodernism and both wrote about the fundamental philosophies that underlie the postmodern view and Keller is picking up from there and speaking directly to the postmodern. Keller also seems to be able to engage people like Schaeffer did by being able to talk about how ideas line up with life.
I think that apologetics naturally changes and morphs to be able to communicate to different cultures and times but the ideas themselves remain unchanged. Just like the instrument used to preach the gospel changes while the gospel remains unchanged. As people’s thought processes change along with culture, the way that we communicate with them must also change.
But on the flip side of that there are certain things that are universal that do not change with culture. Lewis had a knack for communicating those things in easy to understand ways. I’ve not read More Than a Carpenter so I can’t comment on it. The first half of Keller’s book seem to deal more with those universal type things as he addressed the arguments against Christianity. Those arguments are nearly universal and have been addressed over and over again by the church throughout the years.
The second half of The Reason for God seemed to be more culturally relevant as Keller gave reasons to believe in God that are relevant for a postmodern living in New York.
So in the once sense the approach to apologetics is the same regardless of culture or time period, but in another sense apologetics will always change to be applicable to each generation and culture.
@jake: again, I haven’t read the book, but it is interesting he comes off that way in the book - it isn’t how he came off in the @Google Talk (available on YouTube) to me. I found him too combative for my taste (and I do like things a bit combative), but he was going up against combative questioners and didn’t have the benefit of reflection and editing.
Not to imply that this would invalidate his contribution, but I will say that the book as it came to me in discussion seemed to cover many topics that, at least for me, have been long dealt with. Maybe that cuts to the heart of the post: Keller is addressing the “new generation” that hasn’t tackled these issues yet and for whom Lewis, et al aren’t particularly relatable.
@danny: lots of good points. I do think that the “feet on the street” apologetics changes more significantly than “ivory tower” apologetics does over time. That is to say, yes, you can probably find Josh MacDowell in “christian bookstores” now, but I doubt he is selling as well as he did back in the Jesus Movement days. Sure, we all wrestle with similar issues when thinking about God wherever we are in our path-we are all human-but the kind of thinking and writing that gets labeled as “apologetics” tends to be reductive when dealing with the culture and attitudes of individuals.
To some extent, this is part of what Keller talks about, but any time you try to rephrase beliefs to categorize them, as all apologists necessarily do (logical objections, cultural objects, etc), you’re running full bore down a slippery slope towards a fight with a straw man.