He reminds me a lot of CS Lewis without the fiction novels.
He recently wrote on his blog defending the inconsistencies of the bible. He made a basic premiss
So where does this leave us? There are only two possibilities. If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense and is perfectly consistent with its premise. The other possibility is that you reject Christianity’s basic thesis—you don’t believe Jesus was the resurrected Son of God—and then the Bible is no sure guide for you about much of anything. But the one thing you can’t really say in fairness is that Christians are being inconsistent with their beliefs to accept the moral statements in the Old Testament while not practicing other ones.
Its a really loaded statement. Reminiscent of the famous CS Lewis Trilemma. I know that for many Christians a statement like this gives them some security. But not for me; I see that there is a lot of grey out there. For example the above quote starts to crumble when you like at the word 'Believe' what exactly does Keller understand by the word 'Believe"? A belief that means that it is literal or maybe a belief that what what happened contained 'The Truth' but was mythical? There are other words and lines which I also see as grey.
I see this type of apologic as I wrote previously helpful; truthfully mainly for Christians who need a black and white answer. But unfortunately most of the world full of non-christians would see in gray