Tim Keller Speaks at Google
Tonight I’m going to hear Tim Keller speak at Stanford. A few hours ago I heard Tim speak at Google.
This last minute speaking engagement was firmed up over the weekend through, I think, Penguin–the publishers of Keller’s new book. Thanks to a friend/church member/Google employee, I had a front row seat in a medium-sized room that eventually filled up with, best guess, 150-200 Google employees.
Tim spoke for about 35 minutes on “The Reasoning Behind Belief in God,” the topic of his new book. Below is an outline and a few quotes and notes from Tim’s 3-point message, the bulk of which centered on his 3rd point.
1. Why the reasons for God are important.
2. How the reasons for God work.
- Intellectual Reasons
- Personal Reasons
- Social Reasons
“You can’t reduce belief or non-belief to just one of these three reasons.”
In other words: monotheists, atheists, and religious skeptics each hold their respective faith positions due to a mixture of intellectual, personal, and social reasons.
3. What the reasons for God are.
“Reasoning that ends in belief in God moves up a ladder, a three rung ladder.” These three rungs generally operate in this order:
- Rung #1: You come to see that belief in God takes just as much faith as non-belief.
“To live as though there is no God is an act of faith.”
“If you’re living as though there is no God, that’s a risk.”
- Rung #2: You come to see that it takes more faith to disbelieve in God, than to believe.
“Belief in God makes more sense of life than non-belief.”
The two examples that Keller gave here, and spent a good bit of time working with:
1) The Fine-Tuning of the Universe (ie., the complexity of the universe)
2) Human Rights.
- Rung #3: You come to see that it takes personal commitment to get certainty.
“The second rung only takes you to a place of probability, not certainty…At a certain point you’ve got to move from probability to certainty.”
“Weak faith in a strong object is infinitely better than strong faith in a weak object.”
(You need to hear Keller’s Branch & Cliff-side illustration on this).
“Every other religion says God is removed. Only Christianity says God wrote himself into the play.”
(Behind this point you need to hear Keller’s illustration, taken from C.S. Lewis, of Shakespeare writing himself into Hamlet, and his illustration of Dorothy Sayers writing herself into her Lord Peter Whimsey novels).
“Christianity doesn’t so much give you a watertight argument, but a watertight Person.”
After his message, Keller took about 25 minutes of Q&A. He handled the secular, Bay Area, Google-engineer questions masterfully–with humility, concern, and intellectual rigor. I’d like to learn how to engage the Bay Area the way Keller engaged the people at Google. Two of the questioners expressed astonishment over the fact that this was the largest turn out they’ve ever seen for a Google Author Talk event.
Today’s event was filmed. Rumor has it that it will be uploaded to YouTube in the near future.
For me, the great surprise of the event came when, a few minutes before Tim began his message, while he was standing off to the side of the room, he spotted me, nodded at me, walked up to me, and said “Hi Justin, how ya doing…how’d you get in here…how’s Buzzard Blog doing?” I didn’t think Tim would recognize me from our relatively brief conversation at last year’s Gospel Coalition conference or from his occasional visits to/comments on this blog, but he did. What a guy.
After his message, and after Google passed out free copies of his book to many of the attendees, I spoke with Tim some more. I took a picture with TIm to prove that I’m almost as tall as him. He’s got me by an inch.
And, yes, a smile was in the process of forming…
Thanks for the outline. My husband is currently with you at the Stanford event, and I’m hoping he comes home with a similar analysis because I so wish I could have been there tonight. Point #3, rung #1 is what I really wish more nonbelievers would realize.
Thanks for that excellent recap! Keller is one of my heroes. I wouldn’t love the gospel nearly so well if not for his ministry. He’s one of my heroes, despite the recent efforts of some of my Reformed Christian brothers to drum Keller out of the PCA and/or the “new reformation” (whatever that is) on the basis of some recent comments.
JBuzz,
You rock! I knew you would pull something like this off with Keller coming to town. How cool is that. I’m jealous. :) love ya bro!
c
JBuzz,
Great report. Chuck Land alerted me to your post. I need to have TK come down to the NASA area in Houston where I live.
Again, great work!
- Yancey Arrington
A couple of observations:
1) It looks as if Tim Keller is very conscious of the fact that he is taller than you. If you your graph the arc in Tim’s back I think it would prove to be very small, thereby showing that he is extending his upper torso and hoping to gain an inch on you.
2) Are you sure Tim Keller is smiling? He has this look that appears to say, “oh damn, another picture”.
3) It looks as if there is a V forming between you, ala Dan Brown’s DaVinci interpretation. Or rather it looks like the } sign on its side. Could this be some kind of gnostic code? I don’t know, I’m just saying, you know. It looks like it and all.
Oh, how great! I just saw your link off of my feed from the Desiring God blog, and I’m very happy about it… I’m going to add you as well, and DO PLEASE let us know if/when the video is posted; it would be very worthwhile judging by your notes.
Thank you!
Justin, maybe Tim K is trying to stand up as straight as possible, but I have to say you are sporting a hair cut that matches his spine! I would say if Tim had your haircut then he would have you by 2 inches! Maybe you can photoshop you hair onto Tim and we can re-evaluate the picture! I was amazed you made it into Stanford by the way. A ton of folks did not! I didn’t even know he would be at Google. Very cool.
What a surprise to see Tim and his new book, and a delight to see the broad distribution. I heard Tim way back in ’94 in Manhatten, and am amazed at his gift for explaining the good news in so powerful and yet accessible way. Thanks
First, the recap of his talk was great. I am suprised but pleased to see that he talked at a Google event and that Google gave away his book for free.
Dana Ferri made the comment that some Reformed folks are trying to drum Keller out of the PCA based on some recent comments. Did you mean recent comments from the Reformed folks or from Keller? If it was Keller, what did he say that was a problem? Why would some want to push him out of the PCA? I have listened to Timothy Keller’s sermons for a while now and have not heard anything that would be problematic.
I am interested to read what anyone can come up with on this.
Dan
I found your blog today while surfing digg. Tim Keller’s talk at Google seems interesting. I can’t wait to see it on youtube. Keep up the great blogging!
Dear Justin:
Thanks so much. I greatly appreciate Tim’s evangelism/apologetic; at the same time (please note my assiduous avoidance of “but”) I’m greatly frustrated by the erroneous, vast majority position among professing Christians today of an antiBiblical agnosticism on creation that contradicts the OT Sacred Text and even the Mark 10:6 declaration of Jesus Himself, usually foolishly preferring the proven frauds of the evolution bastards “intelligent design” (Discovery Institute) or sometimes “progressive creation” (Reasons to Believe) to the only true, scientific and Biblical young-earth creation (YEC) position, exhaustively confirmed both scientifically and especially Biblically at http://www.answersinGenesis.org, for those few with ears to hear (Matt 11:15), most sadly blind to the fact that when one rejects God’s Word as ultimate authority, and thereby God Himself, for whatever reason, it cannot stand and the Holy Ghost will often (though not always in His condescending graciousness) insure our failure until we humble ourselves and confess Him as Lord over us in His Perfect Word, Lord even of our evangelism’s methods and tools. As Jesus showed with his post Resurrection appearance to his disciples when He was on the shore and they were in the boat, we can fish all night and catch nothing until Jesus orders the fish into the net for the catch; He is Lord of the fish and souls.
Another minor but significant point: most fail to see the Biblical analogies in evangelism, blindly anachronistically reading modern fishing pole & line methods back into Jesus’s day when they more commonly used nets, if you will an enclosing of the prospect by wrapping our life around him as God does us, not the modernist indifference of a cold hard metal hook with deceitful bait that can injure the fish with the means, less so the case for the net method of Jesus’s day (by the way, one of my pet peeves: the correct possessive of most words ending in s is ‘s, not just ‘). I’m always appalled at how quick we are to jump to the conclusion that we know so much better than He does re our evangelism methods. God help us. God bless you,
Russ Davis,
I read your entry and wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that the simple, plainly understood teaching of the Bible is that God created all that is in the span of 6 literal, contiguous (no gaps) days and that increasingly science backs up a young earth understanding.
What I don’t understand is how this applies to Timothy Keller. Are you saying that he does not hold to strict, biblical creationism?
Is this the issue that Dana Ferri referenced as to why some want to push Keller out of the PCA?
I am a member of a PCA church and understand the the General Assembly has unfortuately not taken a firm stand on this issue, but allows elders to believe in a variety of theories other than the true biblical account.
Dan
Russ and Dan,
As best as I know, Keller believes that Genesis 1 is metaphorical meant to be taken as a song, while Genesis 2 is the literal account. That still, however, allows for a variety of view, ranging from young-earth 6 day creationism to theistic evolution and everything in between.
Before anyone jumps too far ahead on the whole question of Tim’s theology of creation–or any other matter–remember that you’re only reading a few paragraphs of someone elses summary of Tim’s talk. I attended Redeemer (Tim’s church) for 9 years and can say that he has the highest possible view of the inerrant authority of scripture as God’s word. The recent book affirms that.
However, the book is primarily addressed towards people who DON’T have that high view of scripture, and the book (and Tim’s recent talks) spend a lot of time looking at philosophies that those people hold, and helping them realize the insufficiency of non-biblical worldviews. Basically: look at what the world’s philosophies say about themselves and see if they hold up; then look at what Christianity claims about itself (in the Bible) and see if that holds up. I can see how it might be jarring for someone unaccustomed to it to hear a pastor spend half (or more ) of their talk discussing the philosophies of [insert random secular philosophers here] but that is for the purpose of helping people self-examine.
I attended a recent talk at the University of Chicago on the current speaking tour, and a number of people asked questions about things like 6-day creationism, whether it’s possible to lose one’s salvation, etc. If I can paraphrase Tim’s answer (which I agree with) he stated that those are “intramural debates” amongst Christians, and not the main points… the main question is whether Jesus was who he said he was, and whether he raised from the dead. You need to get to that point first, and if you do, then you can start worrying about scriptural interpretations. Once you get to that point you should (you have to, really) come down somewhere on the finer points of scriptural interpretation but that only makes sense if you’ve first come to accept the authority of Jesus in your life.
So I’m going to have to look to see why someone would say that they want to kick Tim out of the PCA… maybe some fringe group who doesn’t like something, perhaps, but Tim’s theology is spot on with traditional orthodoxy as far as I’ve ever heard. All the PCA folks I’ve interacted with hold him in the highest possible regard.
Fellas, I don’t know where all this talk about Tim and creationism came from. My post doesn’t make any mention of this topic.
And I have no idea what Stephen’s comment (not Danna’s) is making reference to.
Good point, Justin, my brain started mixing up what I’d read in the post vs. the comments by the time I got to writing my own comment! You offered a good summary; the talk a the University of Chicago was a little different (focused more on people who are likely to be actively studying philosophy in grad school vs. people in the professional world) but had much of the same substance.
By the way, your note about how many people showed up at Google (“Two of the questioners expressed astonishment over the fact that this was the largest turn out they’ve ever seen for a Google Author Talk event.”) was echoed at the University of Chicago. My guess is about 300 people showed up to a lightly publicized event… listening to a pastor’s lecture on Friday night!
I still can’t figure out how it is that Tim is so well known… he barely writes anything! The last book was 20-years ago, and it is more of a manual (On the Jericho Road) than a narrative book. I guess Manhattan is such a transient place that there are a lot of former Redeemerites out there?
By the way, a quick Google search does find people who are not Keller fans. Based on a quick read of their fusses, however, I would hardly see this as justifying a comment that there is any kind of substance to “recent efforts of some of my Reformed Christian brothers to drum Keller out of the PCA”.
Still not on youtube?? What the heck?
Justin – thanks for sharing your elation of hearing Tim Keller TWICE in the same day! So jealous how you got the scoop and insider info on his unannounced talk at Google. Do you have an insider cnx there?
Would you happen to have any insider info on Keller coming to Southern Cal some time this year? (that’s where I am – in Aliso Viejo, to be exact)
Jared, ya, no YouTube yet.
DJ, yes, I’ve got some Google connections. No insider info on a So Cal Keller visit.
I’ve been tracking these comments waiting for someone to post a YouTube link or at least mp3. I’m going to give up now, but please Justin, if something gets posted make a new post about it and I’ll be sure to see.
The Keller Tour
I didn’t make it to Philadelphia as I had hoped this week: my sister-in-law’s baby hasn’t arrived yet. Here’s a report of a Tim Keller event I’d hoped to attend. In case you missed it, Keller also spoke at Google…
Here’s Keller’s talk at Cal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9fmKSwuoDE
Go Bears!
It’s good to see two Christians from two
different schools standing together.
What do you make of this:
Suppose two people were shipwrecked on a
deserted island with nothing to read, then
one of them finds a note in a bottle. It looks like this:
Chapter I
In the begining God created
the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without
form, and void; and darkness
was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be
light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that
it was good: and God divided
the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day,
and the darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning
were the first day.
One says to the other ” Brother, Look at this. There’s a message inside it.”
“I hope it’s not from someone else who’s
shipwrecked. What does it say?”
They read the note and studied it awhile.
“I think it’s a part of a book about God.
It says at the top of the page, ‘Chapter 1′”. They wished there was more, but that
was all they had.
“I wonder about this light.”
“What it could be?”
“Yes.”
“Could it be sunlight?”
“I suppose, though nothing’s been said about
the sun.”
“Could God have made sunlight before he made
the sun?”
“I think God can do anything.”
“I’ve seen light and darkness, and morning
and evening, and day and night, day after
day.”
“A pattern?”
“Yes, a pattern.”
“What else do you see?”
“I see another type of pattern. It’s about
how things are multiplied on the face of the earth.”
“I see what you mean.”
“Does God speak in patterns?”
“I suppose he could.”
“You and I were born of water and blood.”
“I wonder if this light was born of the water.”
“Do you mean God might have a Son?”
“That’s what I was thinking.”
“But if so, Was he just born then?”
“I don’t know. Looking at a pattern….I just don’t know. This could be like a blueprint or something. It might have differnt levels, each one slightly differnt.”
“I see what you mean.”
“So do you think this light may have been in
God from before the beginning?”
“That’s what I am thinking.”
“But suppose it’s speaking of the future.”
“Yes it could be speaking of a future time.”
“Maybe it’s about the past also.”
“A foreshadow?”
“With this pattern, God is going to build
isn’t he?”
One of the questions I have is this:
Is it necessary that one believe Jesus is
God to partake of holy communion?
Can’t anyone partake who seeks Jesus for the remission of sins?
Thanks for sharing this. I look forward to the upload on YouTube. BTW, does anyone have any idea WHY Penguin published a book by TIMOTHY Keller? Isn’t Tim Keller the brand??
Ray,
Short answer: Yes, yes it is necessary to believe Jesus is God to enjoy communion. If Jesus were not God, you wouldn’t be able to seek him for remission of sins because then he’d just be a mere, imperfect man who couldn’t live a perfect life and die a God’s-wrath-absorbing death in the place of sinners.
I don’t believe Jesus is God, but I still
partake of holy communion for the remission of sins, because he is the Son of God, the
Christ, the Alpha and Omega, Lord of Glory
who was with God from everlasting. In him
dwells all the fullness of God. Jesus is the Lord Almighty, through whom God created
everything.
So you who say I can’t partake of holy communion by or because of what I believe,
my answer to those at times should be, “I just did. I partook it with you who are also
my brother and a part of me, as I am a member of Christ’s body. We do this together
by faith in Jesus.”
Justin,
Please understand that when I say “I do not
believe Jesus is God.”, that I am not confessing that Jesus is a sinful man, a mere human like all those who have fallen
short of the glory of God.
Would I be fair to someone who says, “I do not believe that John the Baptist is Elijah.”, if I said, “Well now, if you don’t believe John the Baptist is Elijah, then you
are saying John wasn’t a prophet of God, and
since you do not believe John was a prophet of God, then you are not believing the truth, but rather you are choosing to believe that John was just a preacher who was not under the anointing, and was just using people to gain selfish attention or something.”? I don’t think I would be walking in communion with God should I be doing that.
I believe Jesus is as God is, in so many ways that to count them all would take eternity.
John the Baptist was like Elijah in many ways, and there are many ways in which Jesus
is like God. Both John and Elijah were powerful prophets through whom
God worked in wonderful ways that either turned people to God, or brought judgment of God upon them. I think both of them brought judgment upon people if they did not
receive their message or believe they were sent by God. I believe God held people accountable to what they heard from these great men.
I believe that whatever God is, Jesus is
all that also.
I said I do not believe Jesus is God because
I see a distinction between them. I don’t believe that to be a cause to tell people
they can not come to Jesus for the remission
of sins.
Is there a sense in which Jesus is God and
a sense in which he is not, because of the
distinction people see between them? I believe so, therefore I’ve said so.
Though some congregants don’t see everything
as the pastor does, I don’t think that is reason enough to keep the doors of the church closed to them.
Our call in Christ is not to make people just as we are, but to help them become as
Christ is.
I don’t expect everyone to always agree with me. I believe I owe it to God to
do my best to live in peace with them according to the rule of Christ Jesus.
I expect there will be a lot of times when
I am wrong. When I am right, I should expect to be despised and rejected of men.
That is a part of my sonship in Christ.
I do believe Jesus is God in many ways.
Heh, Keller’s talk at Berkeley packed the 750 person auditorium… and they had to turn away probably almost as many trying to get in. Who knew that Keller was such a superstar? :)
Haven’t heard anything about people trying to drive him from the PCA. I appreciate him, even coming from the allegedly more rigorous OPC. No one is perfect or has perfect theology, and Keller is well within the bounds of the PCA’s confession.
Ray, I do want to make a comment on what you said. The Scriptural testimony of Jesus (which is what he have to abide by if we don’t want to simply recast him as our own imaginary friend) seems quite strongly to point to Jesus’s unequivocal Godhood. For example, he takes on the divine name (John 8:58 “I AM”; Phil 2:10-11 cf. Isa 45:23), divine attributes (John 1:1; Heb 13:8); divine work (John 1:3; Heb 1:3; Mark 2:1-12), and divine worship (Luke 24:51-52; Rev 5:12, 14; cf. Isa 48:11). Anyone else claiming any of these things, would be, in the words of C. S. Lewis, liar or lunatic. Christians since from ancient days have understood Jesus to be 100% God and 100% human in his incarnation, not partial in either, nor mixing them up. If he were not God, he could not pay the full penalty for our sins nor conquer over death. If he were not man, he could not pay the debt that mankind owes, nor could he fulfill the law on our behalf, nor would our flesh be in heaven guaranteeing that as he is, so we shall be also.
It’s a mystery, and I recommend conversing with the wisdom of those who came before us, such as St. Athanasius, St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and even John Calvin (who was very conversant in the church fathers and Medieval and Byzantine churchmen). For the best short summary of the mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation, I would point to the Athansian Creed.
It took centuries of conversation concerning the whole counsel of Biblical testimony to reach the careful formulations that we have now. It seems somewhat arrogant to me to ignore that conversation and make up our own half-baked formulations without any reference but to ourselves. After all, don’t remember who said it first, but if I could fully comprehend Jesus Christ, I could not worship him, for he would be no greater than myself.
When the Spirit of God looked upon the face
of the waters in the beginning, I think God
saw his glory. It must have looked like Jesus.
About John 8:58,
Previously (before Jesus was born of a virgin) Abraham was (Abraham existed and
walked upon this earth searching for an
everlasting city). Jesus said,”I Am.”
Jesus presently lives and moves and has his
being. Though other men seem to be somewhat,
Jesus is.
When Jesus said, “I Am.” as recorded in John
8:58, he was telling the good news about himself, that though Abraham was in the days
of his flesh before the time that Jesus came
into this world (in the flesh), he (Abraham)
looked forward to the day of Christ, which
at that time was at hand. They could have
grasped the day Abraham looked for, by faith
in Jesus, but for the fact that they could
not hear his speech.
In so saying “I am.”, Jesus did not deny
his existence with God from everlasting.
Shouldn’t they have asked themselves,”How is
it that Abraham saw his day?” and “What is it about this man that Abraham looked to?”
Abraham looked for the land of promise. He
looked for his seed that was promised by God, a people without number, for multitude,
so many they could not be numbered by him as
he looked at the stars of heaven.
Q. Was Jesus saying, “Before Abraham was, I was “I AM”, and still am he.”?
I don’t believe Jesus claimed plainly to have existed before Abraham , though he did
exist from eternity. That was something they
“heard” or pretended to hear.
They took up stones to cast at him because
Jesus is the light, and men loved darkness
rather than light.
In the past, ahead of in time, space and order, Abraham was, yet Jesus is.
(This I say
in reference to Jesus’ coming in the flesh
and the time he walked with the twelve, before his work was finished at the cross.)
I still believe Jesus was before Abraham
and that Jesus still exists today.)
Ray, I confess that I’m really not sure what you’re getting at, especially since you focussed all your meditations on one verse mentioned, but didn’t seem to take into account anything else I observed. Forgive me if I misunderstood, and you really did consider it all. It’s just I can’t tell from your response.
About the thing about Jesus claiming to have existed before Abraham… he seemed to be doing far more than just that. He was claiming the divine name, YHWH for himself. Saying “I AM” (“eigo eimi”) is bad Greek grammar, just as it is bad English grammar. The clearest warrant for such a thing would be a direct reference to the LXX rendering of the Hebrew YHWH. Jesus wasn’t just claiming pre-existence (though I really don’t see how you can avoid that aspect of it). He was claiming to be God. And the people understood him on that point perfectly well when they picked up stones to throw at him. True, that they loved the darkness that they failed to see the light. But before we claim any superiority to them, can we really blame them for thinking of Jesus as either Liar or Lunatic when they failed to see him as Lord?
Jesus isn’t just God in many ways. Jesus is God. And Jesus is Man. Distinction from the Father, yet unity with the Father is profound mystery. Oh, and slight spelling mistake in my post above: it’s the Athanasian Creed which gives a pretty decent summary.
It seems to me that Jesus was claiming that
Abraham existed before him.
Did the translators get it wrong? Why doesn’t it say, “Before Abraham was, I was I AM?”
If Jesus did say, “Before Abraham was, I was
I AM.”, it wouldn’t have to necessarily be
a claim to be God, but rather it can be a claim that he was a full partaker of his divine nature.
What’s written in my KJV is bad grammer. I can understand why he was saying that before Abraham was, and that now he (Jesus) is. That fits the context of the gospel concerning himself which he wanted them to believe.
The apostle Paul talks about Abraham quite a bit in Romans, and ties that in with the
good news of Christ.
But, if it’s simply a matter of bad translation in my KJV, I can understand that
Jesus would be saying that he fully partook
of the nature of God from the beginning and
kept to that nature, being fully, as God is.
Google talk @ Youtube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ
Now my question to a lot of folks has been
this:
Q. If Jesus is God, why did he use bad grammar in John 8:58 (KJV)?
I wonder if heaven is filled with bad grammar. I suspect it to be filled with good
grammar and good everything else too.
Ray,
Was that a joke?
I found it funny, but wasn’t sure if you meant it to be.
I couldn’t leave the last comment on this good post unresolved…
The ‘bad grammar’ you refer to is actually Jesus being very cleaver with grammar.
Jesus could have said
“I existed before Abraham”
but instead Jesus said
“before Abraham was, I am”
The Pharisees knew what Jesus was getting at, which is why they tried to stone him.
Jesus was identifying himself as the God of Israel – See Exodus 3 (KJV) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:13-14;&version=9;
I suppose it will be said by many (conceringing John 8:58 KJV)that Jesus
did not use bad grammar, rather he was
being clever with the language.
I suppose too, it will be said that Jesus
doesn’t use bad grammar at all and that what
he really was saying was that Abraham came
first before him, but now it was his time
to exist on this earth in the flesh.
Grammar ultimately is just a human convention. There is no moral rightness or wrongness of it. There are places in Scripture where “bad grammar” is used, and it used to bug me until it was pointed out that grammar is just a human convention.
Some other things to think about: modern English has different grammar rules than Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. Just because a “literal translation” is bad English grammar does not mean it is wrong. Plus, since God is infinite and we are finite, it is conceivable that God might need to communicate some aspect of Himself by what we would call “bad grammar.” It is my understanding that the Gospel of John – one rich theological book – is written in a less-than-approved-English-grammar style. God is God – not English style manuals. He is over them as he is all other laws, conventions, and habits we have.
