This is the first section in Chapter 4, we’re making progress. Here, Keller defends Christianity against the complaint that its practitioners are not especially good. It’s leaders have widely publicized moral failings and the typical congregation suffers from at least as much internal conflict as other volunteer organizations. His first defense is that Christianity never said Christians would be perfect, or even good. He explains how there is no level of moral “goodness” required to be a Christian and that increasing ones moral character is not strictly required, since all good things come from God already, and anything a mortal might try to do to please God would be insufficient, He provides forgiveness and a loving relationship out of grace.
Keller quotes the phrase that church, “is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.” He draws on this analogy to suggest that perhaps people with troubled characters would be drawn to the church, like the sick to a hospital. He also suggests that if one of these “sick” people had been Christian for a while and greatly improved since converting she might still not be as morally stable as someone fortunate enough to have been raised in a environment that nurtured moral health, and so to the casual observer, the Christian might appear to be of worse character than the irreligious lucky person.
Unlike some of Keller’s arguments, this section seems pretty internally consistent. I don’t think it paints Christianity very flatteringly, however.
He provides some reasons why Christianity might look bad, it attracting “sick” people, but he doesn’t provide any evidence that it isn’t actually bad. His scenario of the Christian significantly improving but still being inferior to a non-Christian is plausible, but he doesn’t actually provide any reason why it should happen, or evidence that it does. Not only would individual Christians have to improve, which I’m sure some do, he’d have to show that they improve more than they would without Christianity and that the total effect on all Christians is positive, that is, that there aren’t just as many people suffering ill effects because of Christianity, as those getting benefits, which I am far from sure about. His argument depends on faith and wishful thinking.
Even if you give him that argument, though, Christianity still doesn’t seem very attractive. The hospital metaphor breaks down pretty quickly. First, Christianity claims we are all sinners, and therefor all sick and should all be in the hospital all the time. With real hospitals, if you are in the state of being like everyone else, you are considered healthy. Healthy people only go to hospitals to help or visit the sick. The church has never healed anyone, and little wonder, since by their own admission it’s not important. Our moral acts cannot win us the favor of God, in fact, any good thing we do comes from God already, so improving the moral character of people is at best a secondary mission to the Christian church. The primary objective is to keep people in the hospital, not to help them. This is not how real hospitals operate, despite what conspiracy theorists might think, and if they did everyone would agree it would be reprehensible.
At best Keller’s argument paints Christianity as a place to get help if you’re desperate. The doctors are sick themselves and don’t have mandate or special motivation to help you, and even if you get lucky and they do help you, they’ll try to keep you there forever to hang out with people sicker than you. It seems clear that an organization specifically dedicated to helping support those in need would be better suited to the task than the Christian church, and even without one available it is unclear that Christianity would be of benefit.