Next chapter in Tim Keller's book: Chapter 13 titled "The Reality of the Resurrection""

Sometimes people approach me and say "I really struggle with this aspect of Christian teaching. I like this part of Christian teaching. I like this part of Christian belief, but I don't think I can accept that part." I usually respond: "If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all he said; if he didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he has said?"

Most people think that when it comes to Jesus' resurrection, the burden of proof is on believers to give evidence that it happened. That is not completely the case. The resurrection also puts a burden of proof on its non-believers. It is not enough to simply believe Jesus did not rise from the dead. You must then come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of the church. You have to provide some other plausible account for how things began.

Many people today argue that the resurrection was a hoax. It is argued that the two main features of the gospel accounts - the empty tomb and the eyewitnesses - were fabrications. That can't be true.

The first accounts of the empty tomb and the eyewitnesses are not found in the gospels, but in the letters of Paul, which every historian agrees were written just 15 to 20 years after the death of Jesus. Jesus did not only appear to individuals and small groups, but also to five hundred people at once, most of whom were still alive at the time of Paul's writings and could be consulted.

Moreover, the accounts of the resurrection in the Bible were too problematic to be fabrications. Each gospel states that the first eyewitnesses were women. Women's low social status at that time meant that their testimony was not admissible evidence in court. There was no possible advantage to the church to recount that all the first witnesses were women. Additionally, the very idea of an individual resurrection at the time would have been impossible to imagine for both Greeks and Jews.

(...)

After the death of Jesus the entire Christian community suddenly adopted a set of beliefs that were brand-new and until that point had been unthinkable. It is not enough for the sceptic to simply dismiss the Christian teaching about the resurrection of Jesus by saying, "It just couldn't have happened." He or she must face and answer all these historical questions:

1. Why did Christianity emerge so rapidly, with such power?
2. No other band of messianic followers in that era concluded their leader was raised from the dead - why did this group do so?
3. No group of Jews ever worshipped a human being as God. What led them to do it?
4. Jews did not believe in divine men or individual resurrections. What changed their world-view virtually overnight?
5. How do you account for the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection who lived on for decades and publicly maintained their testimony, eventually giving their lives for their belief?

I sympathise with the person who says, "So what if I can't think of an alternate explanation? The resurrection just couldn't happen." Let's not forget, however, that first-century people felt exactly the same way. They had just as much trouble with the claims of the resurrection as you, yet the evidence - both of eyewitnesses accounts and the changed lives of Christ's followers - was overwhelming.

Each year at Easter I get to preach on the resurrection. In my sermon I always say to my sceptical, secular friends that, even if they can't believe in the resurrection, they should want it to be true. Most of them care deeply about justice for the poor, alleviating hunger and disease, and caring for the environment. Yet many of them believe that the material world was caused by accident and that the world and everything in it will eventually simply burn up in the death of the sun. They find it discouraging that so few people care about justice without realising that their own world-view undermines any motivation to make the world a better place.

Why sacrifice for the needs of others if in the end nothing we do will make any difference? If the resurrection of Jesus happened, however, that means there's infinite hope and reason to pour ourselves out for the needs of the world.

Based on: Tim Keller (2008), The Reason for God, p.201-212

Next in Tim Keller's book: Chapter 12 - The (True) Story of the Cross

The primary symbol of Christianity has always been the cross. The death of Jesus for our sins is at the heart of the gospel, the good news. Increasingly, however, what the Christian church has considered good news is considered by the rest of our culture to be bad news.

Why then don't we just leave the cross out? Why not focus on the life of Jesus and his teachings rather than on his death? Why did Jesus have to die?

Reason 1: Real Forgiveness is Costly Suffering. A good example is the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He did not ignore or excuse sin. He resisted it head on, even though it cost him everything. His forgiveness was also costly because he refused to hate.

It is crucial at this point to remember that the Christian faith has always understood that Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, the God of the Bible is not like the primitive deities who demanded our blood for their wrath to be appeased. Rather, this is a God who becomes human and offers his own lifeblood in order to honour moral justice and merciful love so that some day he can destroy all evil without destroying us.

Reason 2: Real Love is a Personal Exchange. If you take away the cross, you don't have a God of love. In the real world of relationships it is impossible to love people with a problem or a need without in some sense sharing or even changing places with them. All real-life changing love involves some form of this exchange.

The gospel is not just a moving fictional story about someone else. It is a true story about us. We are actually in it.

When I realised I was actually inside Jesus' story (and he inside mine) it changed me. The fear and pride that captured my heart was finally dislodged. The fact that Jesus had to die for me humbled me out of my pride. The fact that Jesus was glad to die for me assured me out of my fear.

Based on: Tim Keller (2008), The Reason for God, p.186-200

Next chapter in Tim Keller's book: Chapter 11 titled "Religion and the Gospel"

Christianity teaches that the main human problem is sin. What then is the solution? Even if you accept the Christian diagnosis of the problem, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason why one must look only to Christianity for the solution. You may say "Fine, I understand that if you build your identity on anything but God, it leads to breakdown. Why must the solution be Jesus and Christianity? Why can't some other religion do as well, or just my own personal faith in God?"

The answer to that is that there is a profound and fundamental difference between the way that other religions tell us to seek salvation and the way described in the gospel of Jesus. All other major faiths have founders who are teachers who show the way to salvation. Only Jesus claimed to actually be the way of salvation himself.

This difference is so great that, even though Christianity can certainly be called a "religion" in the broader sense, for the purposes of discussion, we will use the term "religion" in this chapter to refer to "salvation through moral effort" and "gospel" to refer to "salvation through grace".

Basically there are two ways to be your own Saviour and Lord. The first is by saying, "I am going to live my life the way I want". The second is by avoiding sin and living morally so that God will have to bless and save you. The second way trusts in your own goodness rather than in Jesus for your standing with God.

Self-salvation through good works may produce a great deal of moral behaviour in your life, but inside you are filled with self-righteousness, cruelty and bigotry, and you are miserable. You are always comparing yourself to other people, and you are never sure you are being good enough.

Churches that are filled with self-righteous, exclusive, insecure, angry, moralistic people are extremely unattractive. Their public pronouncements are often highly judgemental. Millions of people raised in or near these kinds of churches reject Christianity at an early age or in college largely because of their experience. Such church people and their unattractive lives leave many people confused about the real nature of Christianity.

There are two main differences:

(1) Motivation. In religion, we try to obey the divine standards out of fear. We believe that if we don't obey we are going to lose God's blessing in this world and the next. In the gospel, the motivation is one of gratitude for the blessing we have already received because of Christ.

(2) Identity and self-regard. In a religious framework, if you feel you are living up to your chosen religious standards, then you feel superior and disdainful toward those who are not following in the true path.

When my own personal grasp of the gospel was very weak, my self-view swung wildly between two poles. When I was performing up to my standards - in academic work, professional achievement or relationships - I felt confident but not humble. I was likely to be proud and unsympathetic to failing people. When I was not living up to standards, I felt humble but not confident, a failure.

I discovered, however, that the gospel contained the resources to build a unique identity. In Christ, I could know I was accepted by grace not only despite my flaws but because I was willing to admit them. The Christian gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued and that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. This means that I cannot despise those who do not believe as I do.

The gospel makes it possible to have such a radically different live. Christians, however, often tail to make use of the resources of the gospel to live the lives they are capable of in Christ. It is critical for anyone reading this book to recognise this fundamental difference between the gospel and religion. Christianity's basic message differs at root with the assumptions of traditional religion.

The founders of every other major religion essentially came as teachers, not as saviours. They came to say "Do this and you will find the divine". But Jesus came essentially as a saviour rather than a teacher (though he was one as well). Jesus says "I am the divine come to you, to do what you could not do for yourselves". The Christian message is that we are saved not by our record, but by Christ's record. So Christianity is not religion or irreligion. It is something else altogether.

Based on: Tim Keller (2008), The Reason for God, p.174-185