The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

At this point, Keller imagines that the reader might be willing to admit that a relationship with God is necessary but may still be wondering why this necessarily means that Christianity is the only choice, rather than another religion.

Keller responds by drawing a distinction between the nature of religion, considered broadly, and the actual content of the Christian gospel: “All other major faiths have founders who are teachers that show the way to salvation. Only Jesus claimed to actually be the way of salvation himself” (180). Using references to Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Keller argues that human beings are prone to self-centeredness even in our attempts to be good and that what we really need to do is acknowledge our inability to save ourselves: “If you are avoiding sin and living morally so that God will have to bless and save you, then ironically, you may be looking to Jesus as a teacher, model, and helper but you are avoiding him as Savior” (183).

Keller emphasizes the differences between Pharisaic religion (a reference to the Pharisees of the Bible, who were identified by their strenuous efforts to keep God’s laws) and the Christian gospel of grace. In Pharisaic religion, we may try to be morally good out of a sense of fear or obligation, but the Christian gospel encourages us to put our trust completely in what Jesus has done on our behalf, not in our own efforts. Keller writes, “There is, then, a great gulf between the understanding that God accepts us because of our efforts and the understanding that God accepts us because of what Jesus has done” (186). 

The Christian message is centered on the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, in which Christians see an atoning sacrifice by which sins are forgiven. This brings up a difficulty for many modern skeptics, however, who wonder why God can’t simply forgive sins without having someone’s death be required: “Why can’t God just accept everyone or at least those who are sorry for their wrongdoings?” (194).

Keller defends the necessity of the cross in the Christian gospel by offering two main reasons: first, because real forgiveness necessarily includes sacrificial suffering, and second, because authentic love requires personal exchange. Keller appeals to ordinary human experience to illustrate these points, noting that forgiveness is always experienced as a form of suffering, never as a light and simple thing: “Forgiveness means bearing the cost instead of making the wrongdoer do it […] absorbing the debt of sin into yourself” (199). Keller also reminds his audience that, according to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, so it is not a case of God forcing someone innocent to suffer for our sins—rather, it is a case of God himself taking on the suffering of our sinfulness.

For the second reason, Keller again appeals to human experience. He notes that every relationship of love includes significant sacrifice, and this is especially so when it is a relationship between someone stronger and someone weaker, as with a parent and a child: “If you become personally involved with them, in some way, their weaknesses flow toward you and your strengths flow toward them” (202). The same thing happened on the cross, as God’s strength met humanity’s needfulness. The story of the cross is the story of the ultimate sacrifice, by which the God of the universe enters into relationship with us by taking our needs upon himself. In doing so, he established a model of living whereby the values of the world were transformed, and humility, love, and service are exalted instead of power, ambition, and worldly success.