Questions for discussion and reflection:
1. Are there particular biblical texts or passages that you find problematic?
2. Keller proposes three considerations for people who struggle with some of the Bible’s teachings:
(1) To consider that the problematic passage might not teach what it appears to be teaching
(2) To consider that their problem might be based on an unexamined belief in the superiority of their historical moment over all others
(3) To consider the Bible’s teachings in their proper order.
Do you find these considerations to be helpful when looking at your problematic texts? Are there any other ways of approaching the biblical text that you have found to be helpful? In your experience, are there harmful ways of approaching the biblical text?
3. Why do you think the books of the Bible are set in particular times and places? Is there any profit in having a historical and cultural context to the biblical message? Is there any disadvantage?
4. Keller writes: “To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that upset you. Does that belief make sense?” (p. 112). Do you agree that we should expect God to take stands and enforce rules that run counter to our sense of how things should be done? Why or why not?
5. Not all Bibles are the same. For example, the Roman Catholic Bible includes the Apocryphal books while most Protestant Bibles do not. A Gideon Bible does not include the Old Testament except for Psalms and Proverbs. And then there are the multiple translations which imply certain interpretations. How do you make sense of these differences? Do these differences matter to you? Do you think they matter to the skeptic?
6. Keller writes: “So an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it” (p. 114). What do you think Keller means by “authoritative”? Do you agree or disagree with Keller’s claim? If you agree, are there any exceptions to this claim?