In this section Keller tries to make the case that he began in section on Fanaticism, that the solution to the problems within Christianity is more Christianity. That is, more of true Christianity, in Keller’s mind. He starts with several examples of Jesus and other biblical figures being critical of religious people. He sites the sermon on the mount, and several other passages. He claims this is evidence that Christianity has a self governing ethos and capability.
Keller goes on to reference C. Sommerville who claims that even secular criticisms of the wrongs of Christianity are based in Christianity. This is because, they argue, the moral underpinnings of the criticisms are themselves Christian. To demonstrate this they use the thought experiment comparing a pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon’s concept of honor to the moral code of a Christian. The pre-Christian’s culture is “shame-based” whereas the Christian culture is “based on charity”. An example given to show the difference is that a pre-Christian would not mug an old lady because then he would be despicable, and nobody would respect him, and he would not respect himself. The Christian would not mug and old lady because he can imagine the impact such an action would have on the victims and cares for the well being of those people.
In conclusion, Keller discusses the situation of historical Christianity, when most of the worst oppressing was happening. He talks of the difficulty in converting the culture from a power based one to a Christian one of charity. He implies that a hybrid semi-Christian culture existed and that the non-Christian parts of the culture were the parts responsible for the oppression. His remedy to the problems with Christianity, is more Christianity.
So, lets start at the beginning. The notion that there are many anti-religious passages in the bible are hardly surprising, given that Jesus, or (in actuality) the Bible’s authors, were creating a new religion. One common reason to do so is because one disagrees with the current popular choices. A new religion would certainly want to distinguish itself from the perceived problems with more prevalent faiths of the day. So many of the passages referenced by Keller, I suspect, are more speaking of the other religions, than their own.
However, even if this those statements were mostly aimed at other religions, one would still want to try to apply the same standards to oneself, in order to not be hypocritical. The ability to criticize religious people is not evidence of the ability to self govern. In fact, Keller himself admits that Christianity has had many problems in the past, and today, but instead of taking this as evidence of a lack of ability to police itself, he blames what he considers un-Christian aspects of the church.
Keller provides examples of Christians reforming the world for the better in the name of Christianity, even against the wishes of other Christians, Martin Luther King junior being his best well known. Nobody argues that a Christian cannot do good. Keller’s examples would prove them wrong if they did. What Keller’s examples fail to show is that Christians act better, or more good more often, than do non-Christians. I’m not convinced he’s shown that.
Keller defines anything bad in the church as un-Christian, and anything good as Christian. By this definition the solution to any problem can be worded, “more Christianity” because it is the same as saying “more good”. It is semantic gymnastics to use the word Christian to mean only part of Christianity, and is ultimately meaningless.
Moving on to this notion that secular criticisms of Christianity come from Christianity. First, why is this in this book? If that’s true, wouldn’t that give them more weight in the eyes of Christians? In no way is an argument made invalid by using the subject of the argument. Again, in many cases, shouldn’t this make the argument more compelling. It’s like using your opponents own words against him in a debate.
Even though it seems it would actually help me not to, I will argue against this notion anyway, cause I’m equal opportunity like that. Take the thought experiment presented. They say the pre-Christian would not harm the weak because it would be “despicable”, but how does this pre-Christian know that? It’s because he can imagine the impact such actions would have on the victims, and he cares about those people… exactly like a Christian. Keller, and Sommerville , simply ascribe a negative motivation on top of the morality when it’s done by the other, and a don’t when it’s done by the Christian.
Keller’s arguments that I summerize in my third paragraph are essentially the same as those in the first. Christianity is made up two parts, the Christian part, and the bad part. When simplified his argument in the section is, “Christianity is not perfect, but it would be better if it had more Christianity”. That sentence makes no sense, except that we know that each use of the word Christianity has distinct meanings. What the sentence really means is either, “Christianity is not perfect, but it would be better if it had more good stuff,” or, “The church and it’s members are not perfect, but it would be better if it had more Christianity.” As you can see, neither is a very impressive assertion, and neither does anything to argue in favor of Christianity, or against the notion that Christianity has done much bad in the world.
Side Note:
There seems to be a constant conflict within Keller, and many Christians, on this subject. He must argue that Christianity is not immoral, but he himself claim that moral acts do not sway the Christian God. He claims the problem with Christian fanatics is a feeling of moral superiority, but at the same time must argue for Christian moral superiority, since his defense is that the problem with fanatics is that they’re not Christian enough. It’s a problem of having cake and eating it, too. Christians, to Keller, are superior to the others, but part of that superiority, indeed, the source, is being more humble than the others. In order to believe in such superiority you must lose it. It is an untenable position.