Questions for discussion and reflection
1. When someone mentions “fanatics” what groups come to your mind? What characteristics do they have in common? What is admirable (if anything) about fanaticism and what is troubling (if anything)?
2. Keller writes: “So we should expect that many Christians’ lives would not compare well to those of the nonreligious (just as the health of people in the hospital is comparatively worse than people visiting museums)” (p. 54). Do you find that argument helpful or is Keller saying, in effect, “Christians have a larger proportion of broken people, so don’t expect too much from us?”
3. Keller agrees that religion tends to “transcendentalize” cultural differences to “a cosmic battle between good and evil” (p. 55). He also asserts that if religion didn’t do this, something else (race, patriotism, etc.) would fill the breach. Do you agree? Do you believe that this kind of argument lets Christianity “off the hook,” so to speak for its part in transcentalizing differences?
4. Keller asserts that “the typical criticisms by secular people about the oppressiveness and injustices of the Christian church actually come from Christianity’s own resources for critique of itself” (p. 61). Is this feature unique to the church or can you think of other secular examples? Do you find this observation helpful in defending the faith?
5. Keller introduces Sommerville’s experiment (pp. 60-61) as a way of contrasting moral action based on self interest vs. ‘other’ interest. Do those contrasting moral principles also apply to the abolition movement and/or the Civil Rights movement (discussed on pp. 63-4)?
6. Bonhoeffer wrote “It is not a religious act that makes the Christian, but participation in the sufferings of God in the secular life…. Allowing oneself to be caught up into the way of Jesus Christ…” (p. 66). How do you respond to this?