The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

One of the most common objections Keller relates from his years of ministry is the belief that Christianity is too restrictive and exclusive. Many people appear to believe that communities should be completely inclusive rather than restricting membership on matters of individual beliefs and practices. Keller argues that this objection may sound nice but is impossible in practice, as all communities are defined by their boundaries, or else they would cease to be communities at all: “Every human community holds in common some beliefs that necessarily create boundaries, including some people and excluding others from its circle” (39).

Another common objection that Keller relates is the belief that Christianity is culturally rigid, narrowly reflecting a Western/Euro-American heritage. This objection, however, is simply untrue. It may reflect a popular perception, Keller writes, but it reflects neither the facts of Christianity’s historical experience nor its present cultural realities. Major wings of Christianity have been rooted in Middle Eastern, Asian, and African contexts from the religion’s earliest days and remain present and flourishing today. The demographic center of Christianity currently is not Europe or North America, but Latin America, Africa, and east Asia. Christianity has proven itself culturally adaptable to all of these various contexts, far more so than most other religions: “Contrary to popular opinion, then, Christianity is not a Western religion that destroys local cultures. Rather, Christianity has more culturally diverse forms than other faiths” (46).

Even on a personal level, Keller presents Christianity as a liberating influence rather than a restrictive one. It asks its believers to adapt their habits and practices in accordance with its belief structure, but this is no different than one would expect. If Christianity is, at its heart, a relationship with God, then Keller suggests that it will affect our behavior as any relationship does, calling for adjustments and sacrifices in order to experience the greater liberation of love.

In this chapter, Keller acknowledges that many of our feelings for or against Christianity are predicated on our previous experience of it. If our experience is of vain, judgmental Christians who are unconcerned with the suffering of others, we will likely require more and stronger proof than someone who has experienced Christians who are loving, gentle, and motivated by the causes of justice and peace in the world. This diversity of outcomes among the sort of Christians one might encounter, however, does not constitute a valid argument against Christianity.

On the question of whether Christianity causes religious violence, Keller admits the historical fact that such occurrences have happened but says that in Christianity’s case, such things go against the clear and explicit teachings of the religion’s founder and thus ought to be regarded less as an attribute of Christianity than an attribute of human sinfulness more generally. All societies tend to transcendentalize their highest values, and this includes a temptation to impose those values on other people—a pattern that is as true of secular societies as it is of Christianity. Within recent history, it has been atheist societies that have been guilty of far more ideological violence than Christian societies, so the conclusion appears to be that ideologically motivated violence is attributable to human nature, not to any one religion.

Keller also points out that Christianity has a unique tradition of self-critique that is rooted in its own sacred texts. When someone is taking Christian values or doctrines as a pretext for un-Christian actions, other Christians have recourse to the canon of biblical scriptures to correct that behavior in a clear and compelling way. Within the Bible itself, this self-critique of the community is seen in both the Israelite prophets in the Old Testament and in Jesus’s ministry in the New Testament. A balanced view of Christianity, then, would acknowledge not only the places where Christians have used Christian rhetoric as a pretext for injustice but also the far broader tradition in which Christians have used their values and their capacity for self-critique to stand against great social evils, from slavery to genocide.