The Rev. Tim Keller deserves credit for tackling the most common complaints about Christianity in his new book, "The Reason for God." Unfortunately, I found the book to be very unsatisfying on both a spiritual and intellectual level. Other readers may disagree, of course, but here's why I give it only two stars:

-- The answers to huge questions seem very shallow to me. Yes Keller is clearly a passionate believer, but his "Readers Digest" approach to vast issues of good vs. evil, life vs. death, belief vs. doubt, just don't rise to the challenge. They work well as superficial "talking points" but not as a strong foundation for faith.

For example, can anyone really explain the Christian position on "exclusivity" in 500 words? Can we really get a meaningful answer to "hell vs. salvation" in an essay that's shorter (in page-length) than "Pat the Bunny"? Can we even have faith based on reason?

As a believer myself, I don't think so. Someone who's serious about answering these questions should be willing to spend a whole lot more time digging into the issues -- and debating both sides for greater clarity. I wouldn't object so much to Keller's book if the title had been more honest -- such as "Quick Answers to Common Questions About Christianity." By calling it "The Reason for God," he sets expectations pretty high...yet doesn't really deliver.

-- Another trap Keller falls into is the tendency to sugar-coat the negatives. It's undeniably true that Christianity and most world religions have MUCH to atone for in their respective histories (massive violence, intolerance, torture, greed, fanaticism, etc.). At the same time, they have much to be proud about, from St. Francis to the local soup kitchen, from the sacrifices of Job to the wisdom of Solomon, from the beauty of Arabic architecture to the invention of algorithms in Muslim universities. It's not helpful to minimize these huge examples of light and darkness. We must live with the history of our tradition -- like it or not. (See James Carroll's new movie, "Constantine's Sword," for a moving take on this important topic.)

-- Most importantly, Keller forgets the example of Jesus' own teaching style, particularly in the first half of his book.

Christ was careful to avoid "reducing" spirituality and God to a superficial argument that the clever Pharisees could pick apart. He knew that much of what passes for "logic" is simply mean-spirited sophistry aimed at humiliation. That's why Christ often answered questions with more profound questions. His use of parables transcended the inherent limitations of language ("that's just semantics / that's just how YOU define it") to reach a higher plateau of understanding that still inspires a billion people today.

I went out to Keller's church website to download about 10 of his recent sermons -- just to see if I was missing something in the book. He's an excellent preacher and seems like an excellent pastor. But his sermons seem to fall into the same mistake: raise an enormous question, then rush through a quick answer that doesn't really satisfy. For example, on the question of whether scripture should be "authoritative," Keller concludes that is "just has to be." He doesn't explain (in the book or podcast) what "authoritative" means or what role interpretation plays in Biblical study for the average person.

BOTTOM LINE: If Christ were on a stage tonight debating Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, I think he'd steer clear of these traps and leave us much more satisfied than Keller's new book. Ultimately, we don't need superficial answers to debating points. We need love, faith and humility -- even love for those who disagree with us.

Excellent answers to the questions we prefer not to admit we have, or have had, over the years.

The arguments in this book are Aquinas twice-removed, filtered through C.S.Lewis and perhaps Delbanco (fine scholar of the Puritans), who are quoted significantly. Keller rather sloppily argues the regularity of natural 'law' as proof of the Christian God's existence, presumably by evidence of design. Perhaps he should read Dawkins on anthropic principles before claiming human-knowable universality for such law! Things are probably very different in a black hole. He appeals to his readership with such dubious ad hominems as "Everyone wants to think that they are in the mainstream." He emphasizes the numerical increase of Presbyterians in Ghana as evidence of Christianity's growth, without giving anything like equal emphasis to its decline in those wealthier (and thus more literate and philosophically sophisticated) societies where it was strongest a century or two ago. He tries to convince us that the rejection of religious doctrine implies a "specific view" of God, as specific as that of a Christian sect. Sorry, Tim Keller, but you're only rehashing the old hash, preaching to the choir. None the less, the chapter on sin makes such a good case for the opposition of pride versus hope, and in the course of that takes a devastating swipe at the silly pop-psych notion of 'self-respect', that think the book is worth a couple of stars.