We begin this course with reading Chapter 5 of The Reason for God followed by viewing several video clips of Tim Keller addressing some of the issues raised in his book. Keller speaks to the common lament that a loving God cannot also be a God of judgment. He couches his argument within the context of Western individualismdemonstrating how our disdain for the idea of judgment is often derived from deep beliefs in personal rights. The dominant culture argues that the individual is the ultimate judge of right and wrong and that no one is in a position to condemn that position or the individual's actions. Inevitably, notions of divine judgment are foreign and even offensive in this cultural milieu. Consequently, Keller suggest cosideration of our cultural location when offended by a theology of hell. Keller also urges the reader to not be so quick to employ Western cultural values as the final arbiter in judging Christianity's validity.
After having completed the readings for this session and reviewed the accompanying video you may choose - on a purely optional basis - to answer the study questions and submit them at etwimber@hotmail.com or to contact Dr. Wimberley by phone or email to request a time for dialogue about what you have learned. You may do so by phone or dialogue via Skype or Facetime. Dr. Wimberley's phone number is 239.405.4164. We may convene group meetings of the class using the Zoom application on our computers. You can enroll in this course by emailing etwimber@hotmail.com or by texting Dr. Wimberley at 239.405.4164.
16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.
17 The Lord is just in all his ways, and kind in all his doings. 18 The Lord is near to all who call upon him, to all who call upon him in truth. 19 He fulfills the desire of all who fear him, he also hears their cry, and saves them. 20 The Lord preserves all who love him; but all the wicked he will destroy.
19 “There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz′arus, full of sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz′arus in his bosom. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz′arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz′arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’
-
People who raise the objection that God couldn’t send anyone to hell, Keller says, often believe that “any Christian who thinks there are people bound for hell must perceive such people as unequal in dignity and worth” [p. 69]. How would you respond to this assertion? If you argue that Christians don’t look down on non-Christians, why then do Christian parents believe non-Christians are not good enough to marry their children?
-
Do you find the doctrine of divine judgment or God’s “wrath” offensive or troubling? [p. 69]. If not, can you see why some people might?
-
Sociologist Robert Bellah finds that 80% of Americans are convinced that “an individual should arrive at his or her own religious beliefs independent of any church or synagogue… that the most fundamental belief in American culture is that moral truth is relative to individual consciousness” [p. 70]. Does this surprise you? Do you believe many Christians share this conviction? If you believe it is not shared, why does so much church shopping occur when evangelicals find themselves (or their children) unhappy with their church?
-
What role should sincerity play in our view of God? [p. 70]. For Christians: what saves us—our faith or Christ? What difference does it make? How do we know which of the two we are actually trusting?
-
Keller appeals to C. S. Lewis to show that magic and science grow from the same impulse, and that modernity, of which we are inescapably a part, was “born in ‘dreams of power’” [pp. 70-71]. What is the significance of these ideas? Is this usually how people tend to think of science and modernity?
-
Robert Bellah “concludes that the most fundamental belief in American culture is that moral truth is relative to individual consciousness” [p. 70]. Does this resonate with your sense of your neighbors and co-workers? Does this resonate with your sense of your fellow Christians? To what extent is it true of you?
-
“Instead of trying to shape our desires to fit reality,” Keller says, “we now seek to control and shape reality to fit our desires” [p. 71]. What evidence would you list to support this statement? Where do you fit? What difference does it make?
-
Keller contrasts the notion of a “loving God” with a “judging God” [p. 72]. Which do you have the most trouble accepting? What does this say about you? How do you reconcile the two? To what extent do non-Christians find your reconciliation of the two compelling?
-
The objection this chapter addresses, Keller shows, is linked to the unspoken assumptions of Western culture [p. 72]. Does this resonate with your experience of talking to people who raise this objection?
-
If Christianity is “not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God,” Keller says, “we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point” [p. 72]. Are you convinced this is true? Why then do many American middle-class evangelical Christians seem both indistinguishable from their non-Christian conservative neighbors and so profoundly comfortable with both Christianity and their middle-class consumerist lifestyle?
-
In response to the objection that a God of love cannot be a God of anger, Keller says “all loving persons are sometimes filled with wrath, not just despite of but because of their love.” “Anger isn’t the opposite of love,” Keller quotes Becky Pippert saying, “Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference” [p. 73]. Do you agree? Why? Do you find this true in your personal experience? If you find that little or nothing in the world angers you, what does this say about you? Do you find it a good response to the objection we are considering? Why or why not?
-
Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf says, “If God were not angry at injustice and deception and did not make a final end to violence—that God would not be worthy of worship… The only means of prohibiting all recourse to violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it comes from God… My thesis that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many… in the West… [But] it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human non-violence [results from the belief in] God’s refusal to judge. In a sun-scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die… [with] other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind” [p. 74]. What is your response? Why?
-
“The human impulse to make perpetrators of violence pay for their crimes is almost an overwhelming one,” Keller says. “It cannot be overcome with platitudes like ‘Now don’t you see that violence won’t solve anything?’” [p. 74-75]. How do you think the platitude will sound to the thousands of victims in, say, Darfur? How did you respond viscerally to the illustration Keller goes on to describe?
-
“Czeslaw Milosz, the Nobel Prize-winning Polish poet, wrote the remarkable essay ‘The Discreet Charms of Nihilism.’ In it he remembers how Marx had called religion ‘the opiate of the people’ because the promise of an afterlife (Marx said) led the poor and the working class to put up with unjust social conditions. But, Milosz continued: ‘And now we are witnessing a transformation. A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death—the huge solace of thinking that our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders are not going to be judged… [but] all religions recognize that our deeds are imperishable” [p. 75]. What is your response? Why?
-
In response to the objection that a good God could not possibly allow hell, Keller responds: “Modern people inevitably think that hell works like this: God gives us time, but if we haven’t made the right choices by the end of our lives, he casts our souls into hell for all eternity. As the poor souls fall through space, they cry out for mercy, but God says ‘Too late! You had your chance! Now you will suffer!’ This caricature misunderstands the very nature of evil. The Biblical picture is that sin separates us from the presence of God, which is the source of all joy and indeed of all love, wisdom, or good things of any sort. Since we were originally created for God’s immediate presence, only before his face will we thrive, flourish, and achieve our highest potential. If we were to lose his presence totally, that would be hell—the loss of our capability for giving or receiving love or joy. A common image of hell in the Bible is that of fire. Fire disintegrates. Even in this life we can see the kind of soul disintegration that self-centeredness creates. We know how selfishness and self-absorption leads to piercing bitterness, nauseating envy, paralyzing anxiety, paranoid thoughts, and the mental denials and distortions that accompany them. Now ask the question: ‘What if when we die we don’t end, but spiritually our life extends on into eternity?’ Hell then, is the trajectory of a soul, living a self-absorbed, self-centered life, going on and on forever” [p. 76-77]. If you are a non-Christian, how would you respond to this definition of hell? If you are a Christian, is this how you have understood the biblical concept of hell? Is this how you define hell to your non-Christian friends? If you haven’t heard this before, what does this suggest about the church’s ability to speak biblical truth into our post-Christian world?
-
How does Keller’s understanding of the biblical story of Lazarus and the rich man compare with how you’ve normally thought of it or heard it explained? [p. 77-78].
-
Keller says, “hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity” [p. 78]. How does this cause you to see hell? How does this cause you to see other people?
-
Hell, Keller says, is “the greatest monument to human freedom” [p. 79]. Is this a compelling argument? What reasons would you give if a Christian challenged this statement as untrue? What reasons would you give if a non-Christian challenged it as untrue or implausible? If it is true, why don’t we hear hell explained this way?
-
“Today’s outspoken believer,” Keller says, “may be tomorrow’s apostate, and today’s outspoken unbeliever may be tomorrow’s convert. We must not make settled, final decisions about anyone’s spiritual state or fate” [p. 80]. Do you agree? Why or why not? Many Christians might find this statement to be unsettling. Should they? How would you respond to their concern?
-
Have you ever heard the charge that believing in hell makes you “narrow” [p. 80-81]? How did you respond? Were you happy with your response? Are you happy with Keller’s response? Why or why not?
-
Keller says that people should reflect more on the source of their idea that God is love [p. 82]. “I must conclude that the source of the idea,” he says, “is the Bible itself.” How is this significant?
