ShelfLife

This week’s discussion on Chapter 4 was written by Veronica Netzer.

______________________________________________________________________________

In chapter 4, Keller addresses the behavior of Christians using three main issues:

1. Character Flaws – he recognized that people would be put off by the idea of Christianity based on the Christians they’ve met or things they’ve heard about Christians. Why would someone be a Christian if they can be a good person apart from the Christina faith?
2. War and violence – how/why could someone be apart of a religion that supports/promotes violence? Many people are quick to bring up something such as the Crusades to defend their reason for not being a Christian. 
3. Fanaticism – why would someone want to be associated with such self-righteous people?

I related most closely with the first issue. I was raised in a church where people called themselves Christians, but they were only identified as such on Sunday.  Because of this, I was witness to what many would call hypocrisy. I never believed Christians should be perfect, but as a teenager especially I realized there were a lot of people in the church who indifferent to caring for widows and orphans, loving their neighbor, or doing anything else that would inconvenience them.  Instead these people focused on causing strife in the church, gossiping about the latest happenings in the church office, and turning their back when someone came into Sunday service not dressed in their finest attire.

Recently I’ve had conversations with someone who I know loves the Lord that looked like this:

Friend:    Would your church hire someone who is homosexual?

Me:         If they knew that person recognized homosexuality as a sin, and was seeking to find freedom from it?

Friend:    But what if they sinned again?

Me:         Well, we are all struggling with something, right?

Keller said the church is “filled with immature and broken people who still have a long way to go emotionally, morally, and spiritually…The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.”

One Sunday, Todd read a letter from someone who was disappointed with some of the attire they saw young women wearing on Easter Sunday.  They felt like the attire was inappropriate not just for Sunday, but for any day.  In response, Todd talked about a church being full of people all across the board in regards to their maturity.  He concluded that the church needs to have immature people; otherwise the mature are not doing their job!  

Having such a large church full of people who “still have a long way to go emotionally, morally, and spiritually”, I believe Keller’s following statement applies to Watermark so well:

“It is often the case that people whose lives have been harder and who are ‘lower on the character scale’ are more likely to recognize their need for God and turn to Christianity. So we should expect that many Christians’ lives would not compare well to those of the nonreligious (just as the health of the people in the hospital is comparatively worse than people visiting museums).”

Discussion Questions

• Was there one particular issue that you have found yourself resonating with?
• Can you remember a time when you judged someone who called themselves a Christian but didn’t act like one?
• If you call yourself a Christian, can you recall a time when you did something that may have turned someone off to the church?

This week’s discussion on Chapter Three was written by Andrew and Carlton Johnson.  This is ShelfLife’s first ever collaboration between brothers.  Thanks for starting the conversation this week guys!

____________________________________________________________

In the beginning of chapter three, Keller quotes a woman named Charlene who stated, “I want to live for…my own sake.” To her, she thought Christianity would stifle her creativity and growth.  I believe her opinion is at the heart of those who say that Christianity is a “straight jacket”.  However as I continued to read I found that Keller makes what I believe to be an excellent argument for how this view is misleading and ultimately is itself constraining.  If we constantly chose our way, we will ultimately end up destroying ourselves. 

Two recent conversations aided in my better understanding of Keller’s perspective in this regard:

First Conversation – A Chinese graduate student at SMU lived a successful life in China up until he turned 33 when his wife got an opportunity to come work in America. While having dinner recently, he told me about a friend of his here in the States that owns a business and therefore can choose his work schedule and run his business as he sees fit.  This man’s experiences vary greatly from those of my friend’s countrymen who live with many restrictions and regulations which don’t allow them to always choose what they want to do.  I quickly concluded that he equates freedom, as many Westerners do, with being able to do whatever you want whenever you want.

Second Conversation – A former heroin addict grew up in Chicago.  His dad was as a gang leader and his mom was a prostitute. He lived many years of his life running drug rings, using cocaine, heroin, and alcohol. His world came crashing down one day when he finally became exhausted from his lifestyle. He thought he was living a life of freedom, however, after years of recovery, he now sees that he was enslaved to his own desires.

Keller comments that love is the ultimate freedom. “To experience the joy and freedom of love, you must give up your personal autonomy” and “involve mutual, unselfish service, a mutual loss of independence.” Based on this proclamation, the remainder of my conversation with my friend from China now makes more sense to me.  While he envies some of the perceived “freedom” his friend here in the States enjoys, he deeply values the freedom realized by his countrymen due to their giving up some autonomy out of love for country and each other.

In this same way, my friend from Chicago found freedom in turning his life over to Jesus Christ.  He now defines freedom as “living your life believing our Creator has embraced us in grace and has taken away our chains of sin and can now utilize our God-given gifts and abilities to the fullest in such a way that brings us complete joy and fulfillment.”  1 John 3:16 speaks to the best example of true love and freedom through the forfeiture of self-autonomy, “this is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.”

Discussion Questions 

• How would you have defined freedom before you read this chapter?
• In following Charlene’s statement how do you accept the iRobot view and believe that “true freedom is freedom to create your own meaning and purpose”?
• Can you truly define freedom without taking into consideration your community / society?
• Do you believe that if you always made selfish decisions you would be fulfilled in life?
• Have you been in a relationship that you are placing restrictions on your desires for the betterment of another, which ultimately then increases your joy?

Discussion Questions Related to Other Sections of Chapter Three

• When evaluating your community, would you conclude you are inclusive or exclusive?
• How would you relate your community to Christianity?
• Keller uses the New Jerusalem to “prove” that Christianity is an inclusive worldwide religion, do the future promises provide you comfort in Christianity today?
• Personal Application – Can you relate to Keller’s work comparison? If you were to reevaluate your career decisions, would you conclude you are actually restricting your full potential?

The following is Herb Thomas’ discussion of Chapter 2:

Hello, thank you for participating in Shelflife.  It is fun to read and discuss this book as a group.  

Our Book is Tim Keller’s The Reason for God – Belief in an Age of Skepticism;

Tim Keller’s rankings of the seven biggest objections to the Christian faith:  The following are my comments after reading Chapter 2

# 2:  How Could a Good God Allow Suffering? 

This is a problem that many non-Christians and Christians struggle with.  It goes to the “Nature of God” [hear Graham Cooke describe it on YouTube]. 

This question causes people to reject God as being [1] un-loving or un-caring and thus cannot be trusted or [2] non-existent.  Tim Keller discussed both reactions to this question. 

[1] God is un-loving or un-caring and thus cannot be trusted.

I think the more compelling and widespread objection to God allowing Evil and Suffering to continue is by persons who have been severely and deeply hurt or humiliated by another human being, especially if they were of an innocent age to protect themselves: Their questions to God are:  I could not protect myself and I was abused against my will.  Where were you, God?  If you loved me, why did you not stop this evil from happening to me?  How can I trust that you love me when you failed to protect me when I needed you the most?  A loving God would not have allowed this abuse to happen to me and definitely would not have allowed it to continue to happen to me.  You may love other people but you sure do not love me.  What’s worse is I’m not even sure that you care what happens to me. There is no way I am going to trust in you and I am so angry with you I refuse to believe in you. 

There are many people who question the “nature of God” as not being good, maybe even bad or possibly just doesn’t care.  God proved it to them by not showing up when needed the most.  How can God be counted on or trusted in the future? 

The reaction against God by non-Christian victims is rejection.  The reaction against God by Christian victims is distrust and fear (God is the “only game in town” so I dare not offend him because he made take something cherished away from me, like my child).  It is emotional and intense.  They could be very intelligent and use their intellect/scientific methods in their jobs but summarily reject God purely on emotional response to their pain.  They   are willing to be “intellectually dishonest” when it comes to God and refuse to examine the proofs of his claims.   

Remember that God’s offense is that he “allows” Evil and Suffering.  The fact is he is not to blame – he did not cause Evil – Satan caused Evil.  How? God gave Man the ability to choice to allow Man the freedom to prove through his choices that Man loved God – rather than being a puppet like Pinocchio.  Satan talked Man into a Sinful Choice that introduced Sin into the world and “survival of the fittest” – the “strong devour the weak”  Thereafter, the weak and innocent continually suffered pain.  God loved Man so much that God had a Rescue Plan.  He could have terminated the race of Man but the Rescue Plan was to redeem or cleanse them.  The pure blood of Jesus, God’s Son, was shed to absorb all the Evil and Suffering and cleanse us from our sin and heal us from our pain.  but Man had to make the correct choice this time and accept redemption through Jesus’ sacrifice. The Rescue Plan proves that God loves us because he will reverse the pain caused by Evil.  Why?  It is his nature to Love his children.  The Rescue Plan proves that God can be trusted because he is there to rescue you from the ultimate Pain and Suffering – eternal Hell – separation from all love, beauty, purity, goodness, kindness, joy, comfort, and light for eternity.  

Tim Keller says “ditto” because he said that God is not ambivalent against Evil and Suffering but is aggressively pursuing a Rescue Mission of by sending Jesus Christ to pay for all the Evil and Sins of this earth so that some day evil and suffering will end without having to terminate the human race to do it.  God had his Son experience pain and suffering, just like you, and pay the penalty all sin for all times by dying on the Cross.  Through his Resurrection, there will not be just a repair of your sufferings but a restoration will occur in you – “every horrible thing that ever happened will not only be undone and repaired but will in some way make the eventual glory and joy greater” – all things will be made NEW.  “Resurrection …promises that we will get the life we most longed for, but it will be an infinitely more glorious world than if there had never been the need for bravery, endurance, sacrifice, or salvation”.

The ministries, like Someone Cares (abortion), Shelter From the Storm (sexual abuse) Celebrate Recovery (destructive habits) Reengage (destructive habits in marriage) try to demonstrate that God’s true nature is to love you, that he has always loved you and been with you even in your pain, that he has brought everything good into your life, that he  can heal your wounds and hurts, that he can restore broken relationships through the power of his love, that he can be trusted, that he can be counted on to be with you, that he will ultimately restore you. 

[2] God is non-existent.

Philosopher J.L. Mackie made the case against God: “If  a good and powerful God exists, he would not allow pointless evil, but because there is much unjust able, pointless evil in the world, the traditional good and powerful God could not exist.” God does not exist because God [by definition] could not allow Evil and Suffering to exist [because he would prevent them from existing] based upon their definition that God is just and loving.  The basis for non-existence of God is Logic.  The existence of Evil disproves the existence of God.  God could not exist because God allows terrible suffering therefore either God is all-powerful but not good enough to end Evil and Suffering or God is All-good but not powerful enough to end Evil and Suffering – implying that if God existed he would be compelled by his nature to end Evil and Suffering and since Evil and Suffering exists then God does not.  Tim Keller demonstrates that this logic is faulty and “bankrupt”.  It is based upon a false assumption that if there was a good reason that God allows suffering then their minds would be able to think of it. It is illogical that not believing in the existence of God will make Evil and Suffering go away.  But true logic says that just because you cannot see a good reason why God might allow suffering does not mean that there cannot be one.  He also said that the experiences of people show good reasons for at least some of the tragedy and pain with Joseph’s life as an example.

So, here are some questions to help keep this discussion going:

1. Do you have any opinions about these subjects? 

2. If so, please submit a response and let us hear from you. 

3. If you do not wish to comment, please let us know you are reading the book and participating in the forum by answering the Roll Call – submit a response and insert the work “Here”  just as your teachers used to do. It encourages us.  Thanks. 

~Herb Thomas

If the first seven chapters of this book are Tim Keller’s ranking of the seven biggest objections to the Christian faith, then I personally believe he got number one spot on.  For years, the one doctrine of the Christian faith that has caused me the most heartburn when talking with skeptics is the doctrine of exclusivity.

I think the reason I’ve struggled with this doctrine is because, to me, it seems arrogant, smug, mean, unfair, inconsiderate, narrow, and outdated.  It’s no wonder Christians are often given the worst label today’s culture can assign: close minded.

What I have failed to realize over the years (and what Tim Keller’s teaching and this book has helped me to see) is that every religion and every worldview makes exclusive truth claims.  Since Christianity is not the only religion/worldview that makes an exclusive truth claim, the issue is not why we have exclusive truth claims, but rather how are Christ’s exclusive truth claims different from others?  I find that subtle difference very freeing.

I loved Keller’s question at the end of the first chapter, “Which set of unavoidably exclusive beliefs will lead us to humble, peace-loving behavior?”  What a great question.  Said another way: which set of exclusive beliefs lead to the most inclusive lifestyle?

The model we’ve been given by our founder is of someone who made himself nothing, became a servant and gave his life as a ransom for the world.  The instructions we’ve been given are to consider others better than ourselves, to pray for our enemies, to eagerly remember the poor, to look after widows and orphans, and to give generously, just to name a few.  For hearts transformed by the Gospel, the outflow of our love for one another and for the world is far from exclusive.  As Keller said, we have access to “the strongest possible resource for practicing sacrificial service, generosity, and peace-making.”

Therefore, one significant take-away for me from the first chapter is that attitude, body language, communication style, tone and a genuine interest in people might be the most important factors to embodying the way Christ’s exclusive truth claims are different.  Based upon the New Testament record of Jesus’ life and his teachings, I cannot imagine him ever talking to a large group of followers poking and fun at the “pop culture wisdom” of his day while the crowd claps and yells in smug excitement that screams, “we are right and they are wrong!” 

Jesus reserved his harshest comments for the arrogant, religious exclusivists of his day: the Pharisees.  Though the Pharisees believed they had the exclusiveTruth, they did not seek to live an inclusive lifestyle of grace and charity, but rather an exclusive lifestyle of power and control.  Jesus humbly served people, he asked questions, he listened and he taught with a perfect mix of grace and truth.  This is our model for engaging a skeptical world.

So, here are some questions to help keep this discussion going:

1. What were some of the highlights of the introduction and chapter one to you?
2.  If Keller was ranking the top seven biggest objections to the Christian faith, do you agree that exclusivity is the number one objection?  Why or why not?
3. Why do you believe we are so easily tempted to form an exclusive community rather than an inclusive community?
4. I’ve heard it said that “telling people the truth is never an option, however, the method and timing of telling someone the truth is always optional.”  Do you believe the Church needs to do a better job at “telling the truth” or “method and timing”?
5. Were you surprised to read that Keller agrees religion can be one of the major threats to world peace?
6. Do you believe this chapter better has equipped you to engage with people about the doctrine of exclusivity?  If so, how?  If not, what issues do you believe were left unaddressed by Keller?