Thanks to Bill Schweitzer for transcribing this talk by Tim Keller that was given recently to at Renew South Florida. Thanks to Jon Payne for sending it along. Lots of good, interesting, and thoughtful stuff here but can you find the missing piece?
OK, the subject is, creating gospel eco systems, what is that? A physical eco system, is, we know, a biological eco system, is where you have a set of forces that sustain each other, interact with each other, stimulate each other. So organism A eats organism B, and it’s a good thing for organism C, because if organism B’s numbers weren’t tamped down, organism C wouldn’t exist because organism B eats C. And, organism A eats C, which means, if there wasn’t enough organism C there wouldn’t be any organisms A, but because they are all eating each other, because they are all, you might say, in a sense sustaining each other, you’ve got an ecosystem. So an ecosystem is a dynamic balanced set of forces and energies that grow each other. Now the question I want to talk to you about today, is how do you start a gospel movement in your city, or how can you see a gospel movement develop in your city? I’m not talking about how you and your church and your network can become a movement, only, that would be a different talk, and maybe if you want to ask me, I could at least give you, if you want this, I have a little list of things that I would say, here are these five, six, seven things are necessary if your own church is to become a moment, so it grows, and it develops, and it just keeps on growing and expanding. I’m actually thinking beyond that.
A gospel movement is this: a gospel movement happens in a city when across churches, across multiple denominations and networks, and beyond any one key leader or any one command center, or any one denomination, you actually have the body of Christ in the city geometrically growing, not just reconfiguring. The vast majority of what we consider, you know, “good things happening in that city,” is a reconfiguration of the body of Christ, not an actual growth of the body of Christ against the overall population. When the body of Christ is growing from 1% to 5% to 10% of the population, because its growing faster than the population, its actually growing. Usually what happens in most cities, when something that happens is reconfiguration. A new church grows, or a new network of churches grow, and what they do is, largely, pull Christians out of less effective ministries into their ministry. And that can be a very good thing, if they are utilizing them better, training them better. So very often what happens, you get a really dynamic, big church growing, and they start churches, and they start churches, and they say “great things are happening,” what’s really happening, mainly, is 90% of the growth of that network is the reconfiguration, its just pulling Christians from other places, now deploying them better, and certainly people are becoming Christians. But overall, the body is not growing, its reconfiguring. That’s not a movement.
A gospel movement is across multiple denominations and networks, beyond any one command center, any one key leader, any one key church or network, the body of Christ is spontaneously growing, its growing against the population, and its becoming bigger and bigger part of the city. The city of God is growing inside the city of man, and becoming more and more, you know, becoming larger and larger in the city of man. More effective and so on.
What does it take for that to happen? What does it take to have a gospel movement, in the city? And I think the answer is: the, an eco-system has to be put into place. An eco-system is a set of forces, a set of energies that interact with each other, and therefore create this growth that is beyond, its beyond any one program, its beyond any one leader, its beyond any one church.
So what’s that ecosystem, what is it? Now if I was, diagramming it, I would diagram it as a core, and around the core a second layer, and around the two inner layers, a third layer. And I want to describe that to you, right now, bang, bang, bang, quickly, but then I want to come back and talk about the core. So I’ll start with the core, so A, B, around the A core, and C, and I’ll list all the elements. If they are all in place, I think, they sustain each other, they stimulate each other, they just build each other up, and it goes; it self-propagates. The body of Christ grows, you have a moment instead of just a reconfiguration.
What’s the core? At the core is A, this: an effective, contextualized way of communicating and embodying the gospel for center city residents. If you have an effective, if you have a contextualized, effective, contextualized way of communicating the gospel and embodying the gospel for center city residents, you’re actually going to win large numbers of them, its just going to happen. If you get that right, its gonna happen. And if you don’t get that right, then you, really just kind of re-circulate the saints around. So first of all, you got to have to have that core. Now we’ll get back to that, because obviously, you say, “ whoa, whoa, what’s that?”
But B, around that core, there have to be at least, or I’m going to say, a whole series of church planting movements. At least 5 or 6, I would say—depends on the size of the city—of different denominations and traditions, that are using the core, you know the contextualized ministry model, they are using the core but are using it within their tradition. You know, whether its Anglican, Episcopal, whether its Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal, so on. They’re using the core inside their tradition, and there’s at least 5 or 6, and they’re Church Planting Movements. What’s a Church Planting Movement? A Church Planting Movement: if a half to 2/3rds of all the churches in a group are planting a daughter church within 5 or 6 years, and then when those daughter churches, if, you know, half or 2/3rds of them plant a daughter church within 5 or 6 years, that’s a moment, its just, its growing. And, if those networks have some common vision of love, you know for reaching the city, and a certain generosity toward each other, you’ve got the second layer of the gospel movement. It can’t just be one network, it can’t just be Presbyterians or Baptists or whatever. There’s go to be, that core has to be embodied in a number of different traditions, and those traditions have got to be all, a good number of them, doing church planting. So that they’re, just expanding, expanding. That’s the second.
Now around them, you have to understand that, for all this, for the kind of spontaneity that actually grows the body of Christ from 1% to 3% to 5% to 10%, takes a lot. And even though the church plating is the core, and the local church is the core, there is another, third layer I put out here of other systems or networks, that are, somehow rooted in the churches, in some ways founded on the churches, at the same time going out beyond the churches, and in another way, stimulating the churches. And that’s these seven things. Here they are:
1. One is, kingdom-centered, united prayer. Prayer across the churches and city. I mean, there’s no way for the churches of the city to unite, and Christians to unite across churches to pray for the city, unless you go outside the local church, right? So you have to have prayer movements, or a prayer movement, or you have to have some kind of united, Kingdom-centered vision for the city movement. This is not easy. And frankly, in most situations, one church or one pastor gets a vision, and starts to say, “lets all come together over here and pray for the city” and its perceived as being that church’s, a way to enhance that church’s tribe. So, “that church is sponsoring, so we don’t do that.” And so you fail to get the movement, the movement dynamic, because you don’t have this united prayer across the churches. So first of all, there has to be a kind of this vision-casting, kingdom-centered prayer movement of some kind.
2. Secondly, you have to have lots and lots and lots of specialty evangelistic ministries. There’s just way too many people groups that very often have to be reached by specialists. I mean its very hard to reach Muslims, sometimes you just have to have someone who just gives their whole lives to reaching out to Muslims, and very often there is no one local church that can do it. Now when I say specialist ministries I’m thinking about all kinds of people, but I want to give pride of place to campus ministries, or, and also youth ministries. Because unless a city has got just masses of younger people coming to faith, from the campuses and from the youth groups, you know, from youth coming in, and very often that takes specialists too. You know, the very big churches, very often, can have their own campus ministries, can have their own youth ministries. But by in large, for a whole city to reach, you know, to be, for the body of Christ to be growing, you really need to have great ministries on the campuses and great youth ministries and so forth. That’s number two. Number three. Now, in other words, without strong churches those ministries don’t work, but without those ministries, the churches can’t do everything. So you see what I mean by saying there is an interaction, this third layer? So number one on there on that third layer is the prayer movement, number two is the specialist evangelism, especially campus and youth.
3. Number three, Justice & Mercy initiatives. On the one hand, I do believe that the local church certainly has to be very, very committed to justice and service in its neighborhood. I didn’t mention this on, someone asked me about this so I think ought to mention it, didn’t mention this two days ago, but, for example when we started to, Redeemer’s getting a building, not building a building, renovating a building on the west side, so we began, just beginning, we went to visit the city councilman over there, and the manger that works under her, we went to the local community board, and the community board is usually the business owners, and we just show up at these meetings, saying, “we want to be good neighbors, what are the issues? What are the problems? What can we do to make this area a better place to live?” And I remember, our community board, the business owners in upper west side, community board seven I guess it was, they practically fell off their chair. They came after, after the meeting, they came up to us and said, “you have to understand, churches and synagogues stay away from us. They’re afraid that we’re going to do something to them, that we are going to stop them from doing something.” And maybe, in other words, they just try to run, they never come and ask questions like that. The civic leaders are just amazed when the church comes and says, “what can we do?”
However, having said that, I’m a believer in Kuyper’s “sphere sovereignty,” Abraham Kuyper, who did say, that in the end, if you want to stop sex trafficking, or if you really want to, really, really make a big difference to poor inner city schools, you are going to need, not the church under the elders or the officers doing that, but you’re going to need Christians banding together into voluntary associations, 501c-3s, you know, community development corporations that go after that, that are not just run by the pastors and the elders, but lay people come together and they bring their expertise and they say, as Christians, “we’re going to, we’re going to lift the test scores of all the students in this school district over the next 5 years.” And there needs to be, if the Word of God’s going to multiply in a city, if the city is going to be, if the gospel’s going to really to convert a lot of people in the city, generally speaking, I think, the city has to look at the churches and say, “I don’t believe maybe what they believe, but I don’t know what we would do without them here, they are putting so much value into the neighborhoods, they are doing so much for us, its amazing.” And the only way that happens is not just churches, but actually, a kind of, a whole raft of what I call justice and mercy initiatives. In fact, in the 1830s, when evangelicalism was at the height of its cultural power in the history of America, there was what was called the Benevolent Empire, and the Benevolent Empire was this enormous, enormous army of benevolent organizations and charities and boards that were started by evangelical Christians across the country to just deal with absolutely everything. Slavery of course is the most, you know, famous one, but child labor, and, all kinds of things. They’re just after everything, I mean helping the blind, orphanages, hospitals, you name it, and that was very, very important, and that’s what has to happen in the city.
So OK, the prayer movement, specialist evangelism, especially campus and youth, third, justice and mercy initiatives everywhere.
4. Fourth, faith and work initiatives. Which is, to say, again, the very big churches might have 200 artists in them, but by and large, if the Christians who are artists in the city are going to, resource each other, help each other, get together, they’re going to have to usually going to get together in various sorts of initiatives, the artists have to get together across the churches, and they have to be in supportive networks and organizations, then all kind of stuff come out, ideas come up. That’s how art happens by the way, it happens at parties, the artists go to parties, and then they get their ideas, and then they, you know, I read an article not too long ago, remember, about the, you know, the artists who say that everything, pretty much everything that happens, happens at parties. So Christian artists have to have parties, very important. You’ll never have a movement, you’ll never win your city to Christ, unless the artists, Christians artists are having lots of parties. Write that down, twitter it, whatever. So you have to have faith and work initiatives.
5. OK, fifth, educational and family support institutions. Cities are not perceived as being easy places for families to raise their children. I think that’s not true, but there certainly disadvantages and difficulties. And you need schools, counseling centers, and the kind of institutions that make families feel like life inside cities is sustainable.
6. Sixth, you need your own leadership development systems. And this is a very, very complicated issue. By in large, an organic leadership development system means, you not only attract potential leaders, but you have ways of identifying leaders, you have ways of, in other words, leadership potential naturally shows up in different ways, you see them, and then there ways of bringing people through stages into leadership maturity. Sometimes these things are more informal that you know. The Church of Scotland for years had a tremendous leadership system that basically evangelicalized the church for about 20, 30 years. The number of evangelical Christians in the Church of Scotland, the number of evangelical churches just grew and grew, the number of evangelical ministers grew and grew, and everyone saying were really having renewal here, but it was mainly because there were two or three churches in university towns where the pastors had tremendous hearts for campus ministry, and as a result, those churches had lots and lots of university students. A significant percentage of the university students got a vision for evangelical ministry from the church, and went immediately off to the local university where they trained for theology, and they stayed at the church. So in other words, there were two or three ministers, without knowing it, essentially produced about, you know, 40 or 50 new ministers per year, when you are the size of church of Scotland, which isn’t very big, that was significant. And when those ministers retired, and their successors just didn’t have the same charisma or interest in working with university students, about 20 years later, they suddenly realized that the entire pipeline of evangelical leaders had dried up, and nobody realized it was a system. They didn’t even realize they had it, until it was actually too late. And they really don’t know how to get it back. It was a very, vey interesting story; its happened over my career, because I remember, I basically had a 40 year career as a pastor, and I remember the first 20 years, the church of Scotland, the evangelical wing, was just growing like this, and then the last 20 years, its just gone down like this. And when they look back, they now realize they had a system, they let it fall apart, didn’t know they had one. It was organic, that’s the reason why, it was movement, you see. It wasn’t just a school that got started, it wasn’t an institution; it was organic and they didn’t realize they had it. And if your city doesn’t have something like that, you’re not going to be a gospel movement.
7. And then, seven, last, the last element in, this last part of the layer, that has to be there interacting with the churches, is overlapping leaders, overlapping leaders who come together, and they’re not kingdom, they’re not just so oriented around their own turf, and developing their own kingdoms, but they really have a heart for the whole city and they get together and talk. And what I mean by overlapping is, you have to have your business leaders, they’re the wealthiest. You have to have your arts leaders, they’re the wildest. You have to have your tech people, they’re the wired-est. You have to have your pastors, they’re the weirdest. So when the wildest and the wealthiest, and the wired-est, and the weirdest are getting together and saying, “what are we going to do about our city?” instead of just always being in their own little turf networks, and concerned only about their tribe increasing, that’s kind of the capstone, the cherry on the Sunday.
And when those elements are in place, it doesn’t matter whether you’ve got a high profile pastor and then he dies, you know, or gets run over by a bus or retires or something like that: on it goes. And we have, what we think, we have identified as two tipping points. The first tipping point is what we call movement tipping point. And that means, you see good growth, and then at a certain point, the tipping point is where enough of the eco-system is in place, that the growth begins to be, that you can’t account for it just by one or two churches or one or two networks, its just starting to happen all over. And when that growth becomes spontaneous, and is not subject any longer just to one command center, you’ve hit the movement tipping point and you’re on your way. And the sign of it is, that the, if you are able to do the study, which is not easy to do, its when the percentage of Christians in a city is growing because the Christians is growing faster than the population.
The second tipping point, however, is a city tipping point. And what Chuck Colsen says, that there’s a, that when more than 10% of the population of a prison get involved in Christian ministries, get converted or get involved Christian ministries, he says that before that 10% place, obviously people’s lives are being changed, but you don’t seen much different in this prison, the prison doesn’t look any different than any other prison. But when you get to a certain spot where, there’s maybe 10%, its not a science, its not wooden, but there’s a spot at which the whole prison begins to change. The relationships between the guards and the prisoners begins to change, the culture of the prison begins to change, and even the look of the prison begins to change. And we also know it’s the same thing with neighborhoods, by the way. Neighborhoods, you know, could be, you know, Italian, Italian American, and its becoming Hispanic slowly, at a certain spot there’s enough Hispanic in it that the neighborhood looks different, and people can see it’s a mixed neighborhood, its no longer just, you know, an Italian American neighborhood. What happens when you get to that point in a major city? As far as I know, even in the cities of the world, even cities in the places of the world where the population is growing 7 to 10 times the population, Christians are growing 7 to 10 times the population rate, like Africa, Latin America, some parts of Asia, even those places, their core central cities are still very secular pluralistic. And we don’t know of any place where the number of Christians in the core of the city, in the very center of the city, where it’s the most complex and most sophisticated, and most, you know, hostile, and the most secular, and the most mobile, we don’t know of any place in the world actually where a movement is growing and getting to the tipping point. But for example if in New York City, we got to 10-12% of the population that were in, you know, vital people in orthodox churches, it would really make a difference. It would change the city, and if you change a place like New York City, or any major city, you start to change the way the world thinks about things.
So, that’s a vision for gospel movement. And I’m just trying to have you to raise you eyes beyond the current horizon where your eyes are fixed. Because right now, in some of your cases, you just want to survive. In other words, you just don’t want, in other words, when you first start a church, your first horizon is, I don’t want five years from now for me and everybody I know to think I’m a failure. That’s your first horizon, OK. And maybe that’s as far as you can go at first, really. Then next horizon is, “Oh, were doing OK, I would like to start another campus, I would like to start a network, I’d like to start other churches,” and so maybe you get a vision for your own church becoming a movement. I want you to never forget there is a higher horizon, and that is a gospel movement in the city.
“Can you find the missing piece?”
I would say there are several missing pieces. But to mention just one 1 – seeking, discerning and following the specific will of the Holy Spirit, who is the only means through whom the true church anywhere can rightly grow. I can’t find where the Spirit is mentioned anywhere in this “plan.”
I also find the underlying idea that building, say, a Pentecostal church is just as valid and pleasing to God as building a church that is faithful to the biblical truths that are best imbibed in a confessional Reformed body, to be horribly misguided.
BTW, under “THEME 3: IN GOD’S GLOBAL MISSION” of the proposed PCA Strategic Plan, we find:
“Means (Specific #1a): Identify & support national & international efforts that develop Gospel ECO-SYSTEMS (e.g. church-mercy-evangelism; church-school-community mission;
church-arts/media-outreach; church-university ministry-discipleship).”
Wonder where that might have come from?
“the specific will of the Holy Spirit”? Something revealed apart from Scripture? No, I should think that what’s missing is even more basic for a “gospel eco-system.”
What I have in mind is a believer or church body seeking the will of God in the same sense that a preacher or seminary professor needs to discerns they have a “calling” to engage in a specific ministry (ala Acts 15:22).
I don’t think that that pursuing this kind of discernment is doing “something revealed apart from Scripture.”
Thanks Phil. The language you used could be (mis)understood to imply a Pentecostal view of continuing revelation.
Isn’t there something even more basic missing here?
Peter and Paul really wasted a lot of time proclaiming Christ crucified & resurrected, forgiveness of sins, etc. Isn’t that called gospel somewhere? They only managed to turn the world upside down…they didn’t create movements that allowed for partying artists (# 4).
Ding, ding, ding! Winner!
No question whether Tim understands and preaches the gospel but it was odd to read an account of “gospel ecosystems” that seemed to assume the most essential element.
History teaches that the gospel can’t be assumed.
“…if you have an {…} effective, contextualized way of communicating the gospel and embodying the gospel for center city residents,”
That looks like he’s talking about communicating the real gospel to me…
I presume he’s teaching teachers: not people who need someone to teach them again the basic principles of the oracles of God. The conference was for two hundred leaders. Might this not be considered solid food for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil?
The gospel is solid food. I teach preachers every day and I have to teach them (and myself) and remind them (and myself) daily of what the gospel is. The “gospel” is the key term in this presentation and it’s not defined. Did everyone there share the same definition of the “gospel”? Perhaps but perhaps not. My point was that if we’re developing gospel “ecosystems” hadn’t we better get the gospel right first?
A wise answer.
The PCA Strategic Plan proposes that we “Identify and support national and international efforts that develop Gospel eco-systems (e.g. church-mercy-evangelism; church-school-community mission; church-arts/media-outreach; church-university ministry-discipleship).” (p.24) It seems that an emphasis on “gospel-ecosystems” – as articulated by Keller (i.e. ecumenical ministry towards the improvement of communities and joint growth of the churches) – almost inevitably means a de-emphasis on doctrinal / confessional fidelity and unity. Is it just me, or does the Gospel eco-system strategy look more like an introduction to theologically reductionistic ecumenism (with strong hints of social gospel) than Reformed Confessionalism?
Where are the Matthew 28:18-20 emphases in Keller’s talk? Shouldn’t the ministry of Word and sacraments be the main thrust of every lecture on church planting – especially when delivered by a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America? Is it really possible, in the long run, to retain our Reformed distinctives (or theological orthodoxy) while embracing this philosophy of ministry? Just askin’.
What’s missing is a clear statement of the Gospel and an emphasis on being clear on the Gospel.
The preaching of the word is the only means of evangelism. There is no other way to create a gospel movement within a city. If the pastors were preaching the word with power across a given city it would bring radical change. There is no other way this can be accomplished. I fear that some of this networking that crosses denominational lines is another form of ecumenicism, which is an enemy of the gospel. Some of the networking being sponsored by Redeemer and Keller is producing Federal Visionists who are denying the gospel.
Missing? The Gospel is missing: the redemption of sinners facing a just & holy God, by faith in God’s crucified, risen, ascended Son. Nowhere does growth of “gospel eco-system” ever touch on the idea that persons are coming to profession of faith in the LORD’s Christ. This is not about the church-gathering work of Christ, this is not seeking the better country, the heavenly city, it is about building a kingdom of and in this world.
This is a theology of glory now, of getting noticed by the surrounding culture, and assuming that that fallen culture will be impressed and, what? Join the eco-system? They aren’t going to be impressed and submit to Christ and his gospel for salvation, since that’s never been enunciated as the core of the eco-system.
Talking about the gospel without talking about the Gospel is tragic.
This seems like Finney’s new measures reincarnated via gospel eco-systems. Man made measures to excite a city. The burned out district seems to still be smoldering.
The three marks of a true church are absent from these excitements. They’ve been replaced with the seven marks of a “gospel eco-system.”
I need a nap after reading that thing. Exhausting.
Obviously the lack of GOSPEL in the discussion of “Gospel Eco-systems” is THE problem, but I would like to raise a related problem …
Grand visions take an enormous amount of energy and passion to implement. I freely admit that Tim Keller is vastly more talented than I am – but I simply lack the ability to pour so much passion into building all the interconnected parts of the so-called “Gospel Eco-systems” to still have sufficient passion left over for proclaiming the cross of Christ in a hostile world. I suspect that efforts at such grand programming are a trap even for those with far more ability than I have.
I have to agree with Stephen that Keller’s love of interdenominationalism (apart from the Reformed Confessions) is producing many FVers around him. Keller’s transformationalism and the FV are tracking parallel to one another. The Redeemer Church Planting Network has planted Assembly of God churches as well as many Pentecostal/charismatic churches. Not a great thing for a PCA TE to be doing …
Here’s a question for which I don’t have an answer.
Are the pentecostal or charismatic churches being planted through Tim Keller’s work congregations which teach sovereign grace? Are their pastors and lay leaders five-point or four-point Calvinists? Are they perhaps people who are followers of Martyn Lloyd-Jones semi-charismatic views?
If so, perhaps Rev. Keller is bringing pentecostals and charismatics partway toward the Reformed faith, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think nearly all of us are glad for the work of Al Mohler in the Southern Baptist Convention and it’s at least conceivable that a sovereign grace movement could become more than a minor factor in the charismatic world.
On the other hand, of all that Rev. Keller is doing is teaching church-growth methods to pentecostals and charismatics without the essentials of the Reformed faith, that’s of very little value. It’s even worse if he’s taking Reformed people and turning them into charismatics.
Ha! Well, that’s one thing I don’t think we have to worry about, being turned into charismatics at Redeemer! That’s just not a danger I see happening there! Thankfully!
However, there is something worse and that is their dip into new age practices and techniques. And I say it’s worse because it ultimately has the effect of leading people into pantheism and universalism. I know that might sound a little hysterical, but some of the people they endorse and promote, Henri Nouwen, Richard Foster and Jan Johnson, all share universalist beliefs as well as some pantheist beliefs.
Brad, exactly what I was thinking: Keller says, “If you get that right [gospel ecosystem], its gonna happen.” But, doesn’t God’s sovereignty ensure that it is never that simple?
Brad and Brendon,
These are two of the issues I raise in my next Aquila Report letter (up Monday, I think), concerning the PCA Strategic Plan’s proposal to make Gospel eco-systems the new mission paradigm for the denomination. I see I am not the only one that notices a problem here.
Bill
I appreciate Keller. But as I was reading the thought continued to occur to me, ‘How does a guy have the energy for this kind of thing?’ I pastor a church of 2,000. My typical week consists of preaching and teaching (plus the study required), discipling several young guys, visiting the sick, praying with staff, shepherding the elders, and trying to be a good husband and dad. I simply do not have time to revolutionize the church or transform the culture of Philadelphia.
I like what Kevin DeYoung has written about “faithful plodding.”
Amen Todd…
… faithful plodding, the meat and potatoes of this era of the church’s sojourn. Less concern with how “we can impact” society and more focus on what God has mercifully done in Christ on the behalf of undeserving sinners – and the proclamation of that good news to both those now found (as it is our nourishment) and to those still yet not found.
Keep plodding… it is the better part!
I’m all for a gospel ecosystem where confessional presbyterian and reformed churches eat up the less faithful churches.
–Scott
Well said Scott. I was wondering, how exactly does one “contextualize” the Gospel? Doesn’t such a desire betray the lack of trust in the sufficiency of that which one (Keller) seeks to contextualize? Furthermore, where is the balance between an intentional contextualization and a culture-driven circus of Muslim art parties? If I am off base, I will embrace rebuke – but in all seriousness, why can’t the Church simply do what we have been commanded and be ministers of the Word and the Sacrament? Just wondering. SDG.
Thanks again, guys, for your spot-on observations.
I’m coming late to this discussion. Most of the oxygen has been sucked out of the room already with your excellent comments. I feel like the entertainer who wanted his own telethon but decided against it, because all the good diseases were already taken.
I’m trying to step back a little from the details of Keller’s talk and catalog my own general observations. In line with what y’all have pointed out above, what makes me so uncomfortable with this talk? Giving due allowance that Keller is not intending to define or describe the Gospel but rather assuming it, why do I still have this empty feeling?
Here are a few of my own subjective, but I hope Biblically accurate, responses:
The talk is so . . . clinical. By which I mean, where is the warm expression of God’s amazing love, the wonder of sovereign grace, the glorying in the simple means that God has ordained to bring sinners to Himself and build His church? I know it’s dangerous to criticize a man for things he doesn’t say in a single message. We’ve all been guilty of saying too much at times. This talk, however, could be the standard corporate CEO’s “inspiring vision” at the annual stockholders’ meeting. (As you may know, the typical reaction to the CEO’s talk is, “We’ve heard all this before, just with different code words.”) As one of our brothers has said, how can a leading PCA pastor talk about the gospel without talking about the Gospel? I know that Tim Keller loves the Puritans and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Can you imagine Owen, Goodwin, or “The Doctor” speaking like this–ever, under any circumstances?
The talk is so . . . mechanical. I’ve read instructions to assemble my grandson’s toys that gave me more of a buzz. (I warned in advance that these are my subjective reactions!) Attach Part A to Part B to Part C in proper order, and success is assured. Follow this recipe. C’mon, you can do it!
The talk is so . . . programmatic. Leaders in the PCA know better than openly to push multiple programs as the key to effectiveness in ministry. There’s enough Reformed and confessional awareness in the PCA not to wave that red cape in front of the bull. But, really now, isn’t that what the talk amounts to? The programs will always have a “spiritual” mission, of course, but isn’t this same old frenetic church busyness, with a cool, trendy, oh-so-today, urban twist?
And, finally, the talk is so . . . soul-wearying. I know this sounds rather harsh; it’s my reaction and probably no one else’s. When compared to Tim Killer, I ain’t nobody and I ain’t done nothin’. But, try as I might, I find myself unable to breathe the exalted atmosphere of “gospel eco-systems.” As I near retirement from a tough “secular” job and look forward to more service in the church, not less, I need God’s ordinary means now more than ever. The Word, the sacraments, and prayer keep me steady in the midst of the world’s madness. In my weakness, I find the strength that only the Gospel gives.
Thanks for enduring the ramblings of this “confessional curmudgeon.” I must be hopelessly out of step, strategically-planning-wise. I can’t turn cartwheels over “Justice and Mercy initiatives” and “faith and work initiatives.” My exegesis of the Great Commission somehow failed to notice those crucial components. What am I missing?
–A PCA Ruling Elder who pleads to the following charges:
Small-town Mississippi boy, unimpressed by the latest “big thing” : Guilty.
Hopelessly committed to the Reformed confessions: Guilty.
“TR” for 40-plus years: Guilty.
Believes that the message of the Gospel through the power of the Spirit is all we need: Guilty.
Standing at the bar of God’s justice, through faith alone in Christ alone: Not guilty.
My apologies to Tim Keller. The typo “Tim Killer” was an honest error. I would edit this if I could.
The gospel is not defined and elaborated upon in this talk simply because Tim’s talking about a different topic. I see no problem with that. Nor is there any sense in which Tim is (say) denigrating preaching and ordinary means by choosing to talk about other things.
It’s certainly appropriate to suggest improvements and offer a counter-vision.
“I simply lack the ability to pour so much passion into building all the interconnected parts of the so-called “Gospel Eco-systems” to still have sufficient passion left over for proclaiming the cross of Christ in a hostile world.”
Inability is a good thing to keep in mind, but Tim did in fact highlight evangelism in particularly hostile yet fertile places. I reckon that Holy Spirit will help us–personally and to some extent corporately–know what to focus on (and when), and he’ll certainly help with passion.
Anyone have any thoughts on his view of CoS? I’ve known for a while that a significant resurgence in the ministry happened there, but never knew why. Is his diagnosis correct? Is Sinclair Ferguson’s old church one of those he has in mind?
I guess my answer to “What’s missing?” would be that all Christians, not just artists, need to be throwing parties.
Okay, the gospel may be missing but Phil D. has a point about the Holy Spirit. This statement by Keller sounds so much like Finney — if you do x, y, and z, then you get revival. I’m sorry, but plenty of churches do x, y, and z, and we don’t get revival. Could it be that the number of the converted has already be determined by our sovereign God?
On a related point, doesn’t the United States have a gospel eco-system? Doesn’t it have all the ingredients that Keller calls for? So why isn’t the U.S. doing better? Maybe it’s a question of scale. Then how about modifying your plan, pastor K., to adjust for places other than New York City? And if the PCA adopts this as part of its strategy, it will prove Frank Sinatra more or less correct — you think you can make it in NYC, you think you can make it anywhere. Having been in eastern North Carolina last weekend and seeing the landscape filled with Free Will Baptist and Pentecostal churches, I’m all for a plan to plant churches in Pitt and Green Counties. Can I get a second? Work with me!
Yeah but Pitt and Green Counties fail the “sexy” test of MNA and their other NAPARC compatriots.
I don’t know. My clan has produced some pretty ladies.
Jason wrote,
“The gospel is not defined and elaborated upon in this talk simply because Tim’s talking about a different topic. I see no problem with that. Nor is there any sense in which Tim is (say) denigrating preaching and ordinary means by choosing to talk about other things.”
Point well taken. I don’t want to nitpick. It’s not good to major on the minors. As Bill O’Reilly might say, “Don’t be a pettifogger!” I trust that no one here questions Tim Keller’s personal commitment to the Gospel or his adherence to the faith as expressed in the Reformed confessions. Listen to his preaching; it’s doctrinal, convicting, and Christ-centered. Read his books; they’re fresh and challenging, full of the Gospel without compromise.
No, the issue with Pastor Keller is not with theology but with methodology. Every year or so I return to a lecture by Albert N. Martin that I first heard over thirty years ago: “Reformed Theology and Methodology.” Pastor Martin was speaking to the issues of Arminian evangelism and the shallow evangelicalism of a generation ago, but the principles still (or especially) apply today. What you confess to believe should influence how you act.
Since Day 1 in the PCA, methodology has always been the elephant in the room. A sizable minority of Teaching and Ruling Elders insist on pointing to it, while The Powers That Be (read “denominational bureaucracy and some big pastoral guns”) wish that we would just keep quiet. I vividly remember the discussion in the 1970’s about cooperation with non-Reformed groups on the foreign mission field. The discussion has continued every year since then: Same channel, new episode.
Am I being overly critical? I hope not. If so, I need to repent. It does seem to me, though, that when discoursing on methods, Keller and others take off the Gospel hat and don the programs-as-solutions hat. This strikes some of us as not just inconsistent but as ministerially schizophrenic.
Remember Jon Payne’s “17 Points” from a few weeks ago, which will be before the PCA General Assembly soon as part of Overture 24?
http://www.pcaac.org/2010GeneralAssembly/2010overtures.htm
Read this Overture 24 back to back with the Strategic Plan narrative. In my opinion, they’re like oil and water. They simply cannot be mixed.
Frank,
Do you really think Keller is “committed to the faith as expressed in the Reformed confessions?” Have you ever heard Keller refer to the Reformed confessions? How often do you think he consults the Reformed confessions to inform his theology, practice, and piety? I don’t get the sense that Keller cares at all about confessionalism. Just look at the people that he has attracted to him (FVers) in his presbytery. Doesn’t anyone else realize how the Redeemer Planting Network plants as many pentecostal Assemblies of God churches than PCA churches?
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy,
I was wondering where you heard that Redeemer plants more (as many?) Assemblies of God churches than PCA churches? Where could I go to verify that?
Thanks!
Brad
Brad,
I probably overstated that too much. Redeemer plants a lot of non-confessionally Reformed churches, including several charismatic and even Assemblies of God churches. Here’s one way to check: http://www.redeemer.com/connect/affiliated_churches.html. And here’s another: http://redeemercitytocity.com/. Go to ‘churches’ and see what different denominational churches they have planted around the world. Many of them are non-denom.
Thanks Jeremy,
I will check out those links. I come from a more evangelical/charasmatic background and my pastor really likes Tim Keller. My pastor even preaches some of his sermons! All that to say, I this it is a good thing that Tim Keller is influencing us.
Peace,
Brad
should say, “I think it is a good thing…”
To me, Tim Keller seems quite lost. I started to think this after I read a positive review of one of his books in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. The review was way too nice. Compared to the reviewer, Keller seemed sort of intellectually lazy. Any good minister of the Gospel would know how to check his theological and biblical facts and would keep them straight. Keller doesn’t do that. There’s something wrong with him. He seems too caught up in trying to dazzle those who are searching for some sort of identity. For him and those whom he influences, it seems that “Christianity” is more of a life-style choice to discuss in rhetorically attractive ways instead of a relationship with the Lord.
Jeremy,
I have read or heard nothing from Tim Keller in his books and sermons that makes me suspect his commitment to the Reformed confessions. I have heard him wholeheartedly affirm this commitment in person.
I have no reason to doubt his personal doctrinal convictions. In fact, as a fellow elder in the PCA, I must assume those convictions until proven otherwise. Although I’m not the biggest fan of our practice of “good faith subscription,” I see its value in this instance as a guide to the way I should think.
Again, it’s Keller’s methodology that I have problems with. It seems to me that his pragmatic and programmatic approach is at odds with the system he has bound himself to by a solemn oath, which we confess IS the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures. No doubt he sees no such conflict.
Some brothers in this discussion have given Keller the benefit of the doubt with respect to his methods. Perhaps is really is largely a matter of reaching more people for the Gospel more effectively. I have not been able to reach that level of confidence, however.
All that being said, I’ll continue to recommend Tim Keller’s preaching and books with a much greater assurance than, say, the writings of C. S. Lewis, with whom he’s been compared.
It hardly needs to be said that each of us, being at the same time a sinner and justified, is untrue to his confession in many ways.
RevTim on homosexuality:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/04/tim-my-parents-gave-most-of-their-lives-to-campus-ministry-they-were-the-first-ivcf-staffers-in-new-england-they-lived-in.html?cid=6a00d83451d09d69e2013480a7691b970c#comment-form
Tim Bayly asks, “Whatchu talkin’ about, Willis?!”
It seems like Tim Keller is talking about evangelism. I am new to Reformed ideas, so may I ask how evangelism is done in your circles?
What I am picking up is that evangelism is only done (or mainly done?) by the preaching of the gospel by an ordained minister. So does that mean that the people’s duty is simply to bring unbeliever’s to hear the sermon? It seems very simple.
It also sounds like people don’t like Tim Keller because he wants to talk about ways that the Church can go out and meet with and influence unbelievers. Others think he is being too programmed and complicated. I was actually thinking that Keller was saying these movements are beyond his control and need to incorporate Christians from many different denominations – a work that only God can do. To me, he seems less controlling of God’s sovereignty than most of the Reformed people I have experienced.
My understanding is that God has not only promised to bless the preaching of the gospel and the doing of the sacraments but many other things as well. So I guess I would say that we don’t have to narrow the church down to just preaching the gospel, doing the sacraments and church discipline. In the Bible, those things seem to be central, but not alone at the center.
Plus, the Bible doesn’t really tell us exactly how we should do a lot of things God commands us to do. I think there should be some freedom in how we live out the Christian life and structure Church. It is ok for one person or denomination to have distinct passions and practices. It doesn’t have to be a threat.
Hi Brad,
The Reformed churches do take a different view of evangelism than most American evangelicals. Here are some posts that might begin to fill in the picture.
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/tag/evangelism/
Our confession is that evangelism, strictly speaking, is the proclamation of the gospel. I like to distinguish that from witness. Ministers evangelize but all of God’s people ought to be ready and able to give witness to the faith (the objective history of redemption) and to one’s faith (personal appropriation of Christ sola fide, sola gratia).
Pragmatism in ministry, evangelism, church growth etc is a serious problem that has plagued American Christianity for a very long time–at least since the mid-19th century. The Reformed churches haven’t been untouched by this. This is one of the issues that folk are raising about Tim’s strategies.
Take a look at Darryl Hart’s Deconstructing Evangelicalism, see also his The Lost Soul…. These are very important books to help one figure out how Reformed Christianity relates to broader American Christianity.
Thanks Dr. Clark,
I continue to be challenged by the Heidelblog. I will check out those links. I must admit, half of the time I am frustrated by the Heidelblog and half of the time I find myself agreeing 100% with the Heidleblog. Thanks for the open forum!!
This is clearly not Tim Keller at his best. He has a much better in his article, “The Gospel and the Poor,” found here: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/33-3/the-gospel-and-the-poor#a4_top
For instance, in THAT article, he wrote:
“So what does it mean to be committed to the primacy of the gospel? It means first that the gospel must be proclaimed. Many today denigrate the importance of this. Instead, they say, the only true apologetic is a loving community; people cannot be reasoned into the kingdom, they can only be loved. “Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.” But while Christian community is indeed a crucial and powerful witness to the truth of the gospel, it cannot replace preaching and proclamation. Nevertheless, the primacy of the gospel also means that it is the basis and mainspring for Christian practice, individually and corporately, inside the church and outside. Gospel ministry is not only proclaiming it to people so that they will embrace and believe it; it is also teaching and shepherding believers with it so that it shapes the entirety of their lives, so that they can “live it out.”
He also relies pretty heavily on DA Carson on I Corinthians to explain how the preaching of the Gospel content is primary — but then the Gospel has implications for how one lives one’s life, particularly in the Church. I know the article will still go to far for many in the Spirituality of the Church camp (which I am myself), but it is a much more balanced approach to these things.
But the above talk I found way too vague and yet oddly authoritative (w/o Scriptural backing) to be very helpful. Tim can do better than this (and usually does).
Chris – and all of you,
I was at that conference and heard Tim give this talk. He was asked not to give a theological or even philosophy of ministry talk, but to explain the mechanics of what Redeemer means by gospel eco-systems. His audience were leaders of church planting movements; pastors, church planting coaches and church planters. It was designed ot be a practical, technical talk for people to use as a catalyst for discussion in our discussion groups about how WE try to plant churches in our cities and regions.
Is this Tim at his best? The question is really irrelevant. Tim was not asked to give a gospel-centered message, but a methodological one. He was asked to describe in descriptive, almost sociological terms, what such an eco-system might look like. If you are conversant with the corpus of Tim’s writings, he has written many of these more descriptive essays before. To critique Tim for not having a gospel centrality in this talk is like critiquing your pastor when he goes to a baseball game and some of his comments are about the skill of the fielders, not the centrality of God’s sovereign control over the baseball.
Scott, you should have contextualized the talk and explained where and why it was given, since about a third of the comments here are clearly being critical in ways that display a lack of context. If you want to critique his methodology for not being Word and Sacrament -centric enough, that is your right. But you laid him open to unwarranted critique by your sloppy lack of due diligence in describing the provenance of the talk. Badly done.
Dan,
1. I was given the transcript and asked to post it because this talk reflects an approach that is being advocated within the PCA.
2. Context is important but I stand by my implied critique: the essential of any so-called gospel “ecosystem” is the gospel itself. Tim should know better. We can NEVER assume the gospel.
Scott,
In reflecting upon your responses, I ask:
1. Do you always simply comply with requests to post things, without any vetting or contextualizing? I doubt it.
2. Your critique was neither implied not warranted. It was direct, in your comments, and taken by seizing upon this talk and requiring of this talk more than it’s author or recipients or conference organizers asked of it. The gospel was articulated clearly at that conference in other talks.
3. I simply note that nowhere in this blog thread so far have you articulated the gospel. You have simply assumed it and discussed contemporary implications. You are as guilty in this blog thread of what you accuse Tim of doing.
Which of course shows the point. Nobody would accuse you of assuming the gospel. But you cannot say everything when you say something. So just because you did not articulate the gospel in this thread, or in many of your posts, does not make you guilty of assuming the gospel. It just makes you human. BTW, to my recollection Tim articulated the gospel clearly in other parts of that conference. I would ask you to give Tim the same respect you give yourself; i.e. the freedom to not say everything when you try to ay something.
If you want to determine, a priori, when Tim Keller should add certain content to certain talks of his, so that it passes your own sense of when he should articulate the gospel, you have become his personal Holy Spirit. If anything Tim said in his talk was wrong or sub-biblical, it is fair game for you to critique. But just because Tim does not say what you want him to say when you want him to say it, is not in my mind anything close to sufficient reason to drag him through your blog gauntlet as you have done.
If you have a problem with gospel eco-systems per se, as an ecclesial/ sociological idea, then have at that. Trying to find an ‘assuming the gospel’ flaw in Tim Keller based on that one talk is nothing short of ridiculous. No offense, but I would expect much more care from a professor of Westminster Seminary.
Dan,
1. I concede your point that I should have articulated the gospel here if I was going to criticize Tim for not doing it. Since the post was Socratic/catechetical perhaps I should have done it after someone got the right answer. Touche.
2. I don’t concede your other points, however. I’ve not invited N T Wright to speak at church (for what reason I don’t care). I haven’t harbored FV/NPP sympathizers on my staff (if I had one!) nor I have funded Pentecostal (or any non-Reformed) church plants.
3. My concern is that Tim COULDN’T articulate “the gospel” (as we confess it) in that setting because there was not a consensus on what the gospel is because it would have been divisive and alienated him from his audience.
4. My concern is about elements of implicit Methodism in the whole project.
5. My concern is about a turn to the social gospel, though I appreciated Tim’s qualifications about the limits of what the visible church can/should do.
6. Tim is a leading voice, perhaps THE leading voice in the PCA. Where goes much of the PCA will go. It’s important that folks are aware of where Tim is and where he’s going. There’s nothing wrong with publishing the text of a public talk. Commenters have added context.
7. Your posts do not ease my concern that are Keller fans/defenders out there who are unwilling to evaluate what Tim is saying and who defend every jot and tittle.
8. I stand by my criticism: the context doesn’t excuse him (or me) from making absolutely explicit what we’re talking about here:
>>AMEN, Scott. All points, particularly these:
3. My concern is that Tim COULDN’T articulate “the gospel” (as we confess it) in that setting because there was not a consensus on what the gospel is because it would have been divisive and alienated him from his audience.
>>HE couldn’t and wouldn’t here. Perhaps as Dan says, elsewhere he did. Hurrah. I point to the Veritas Forum and CTS Chappell chat as evidence that something other than law & gospel seem(s) to govern Keller’s responses (like your #5 below).
4. My concern is about elements of implicit Methodism in the whole project.
>>AHA! Amen!
5. My concern is about a turn to the social gospel, though I appreciated Tim’s qualifications about the limits of what the visible church can/should do.
>>KELLER & Warren are working off the same play book: Marry Rauschenbusch and Graham (or a misreading of Edwards iffin yer highbrow).
6. Tim is a leading voice, perhaps THE leading voice in the PCA. Where goes much of the PCA will go. It’s important that folks are aware of where Tim is and where he’s going. There’s nothing wrong with publishing the text of a public talk. Commenters have added context.
>>AGAIN, sadly, amen.
>>M.M.T.U., PCA.
>>{Daniel 5:25ff}
>>Hugh McCann
Scott,
1. Thanks for admitting that you are guilty of what you accuse him of doing. ‘Touche’, however, would not seem to be the appropriate response. How about repenting of being wrong, as you keep asking your opponents to do?
2. The rest of what you ‘stand by’ as a critique – implicit Methodism, inviting NT Wright to speak, etc – has already been covered in your other posts and is nothing new here. In other words, that does not come from this talk really, but from your past record of suspecting and criticizing just about everything Tim does. So it is disingenuous at best for you to ‘stand by’ a critique you never advanced in this thread. You are merely rehashing to try and salvage some semblance of respectability now that you have admitted your actual critique in this thread is unsustainable, since you yourself were guilty of exactly the same ‘offense.’. Again, am I supposed to respect that solipsistic way of writing? You were wrong on this one, admit it and move on. There are no fig leaves that will hide the nakedness of this one.
3. Your comment that Tim couldn’t articulate the gospel (‘as we confess it’) because is would have been divisive in that context is another example of your speculative, over-reaching accusations based on nothing but what I can only guess is your animus. Were you there when he gave this talk? Do you know the makeup of his audience? Do you know how theologically aligned we were, and what theological positions were present? No. You do not. You speak from ignorance. You impute to Tim some motivations that firstly, you have no way of proving, and secondly, these supposed motivations are based on your best guess as to the makeup of the conference. You heap speculation upon speculation to arrive at criticism.
I remain… surprised that a professor of a fine institution like Westminster seminary would abandon his trained disciplines of careful, balanced, diligent theological enquiry and go make these kind of speculative comments. I realize it is a blog, but sir, you do yourself no credit with this.
I sympathize with your concern that people put Tim on a pedestal. Agreed. That is wrong and I am concerned about that. But your solution, which seems to be to criticize Tim at every turn and at any cost, is equally wrong.
if Tim is a leader with influence, whose words should warrant a heightened scrutiny, then I submit that the same applies to your words, Scott. Choose to criticize more carefully and thoughtfully, for the sake of the body of Christ. Many are reading and listening.
In Christ,
Dan
Dear Dan,
If Dr. Clark were standing before 200 church planters – in Miami or Myranmar – his address (on any subject) would not have left his hearers (or in this case, his readers) without a clear statement of what the gospel is … and by what methods/means it is to be proclaimed by Christ’s Church. This is the point. Many are concerned in the PCA that the proclamation of the gospel through Word and sacrament is being marginalized by an array of new measures, which are not so new. We’ve seen them before, and they have ruined the mainline denominations.
We are not the gospel. Our churches working together are not the gospel. The gospel is the good news that Christ died, bearing the wrath of God for sinners (of whom I am the foremost) and rose again conquering death, sin, hell and Satan. I know that Tim Keller believes this … but, in my experience, many young church planter types are a bit confused on this one.
Just some thoughts.
JDP
Jon,
And your point is?
Let me give you a better analogy that gets precisely to our point here:
If Scott was asked to give a talk on the history of the Heidelberg Catechism d to a group of assembled seminary students , and in that talk he described all of the different things that happened, but in that talk he did not take ten minutes and actually preach Christ crucified, risen and ascended – would that be ‘assuming the gospel?’ Or simply a church history lecture being given under those pretexts ( a church history lecture) where it would be surprising, even weird, to have gospel preaching done?
of course not. But you try and resurrect another reason why Time should have preached the gospel – there might be young church planters there – and by gum, we KNOW how prone THEY are to heresy!! So let me continue the analogy, with your new requirement:
We would then vilify Scott for NOT preaching the gospel in his church history lecture: why? Well, because ‘ there might have been some young church planters in the audience who are prone to assume the gospel?’
Jon, are you serious? Do you realize that you are implying that we vilify people for not catching every POTENTIAL sin and slip-up in their ‘young’ audience? Is this the standard you hold other people to – because this is surely the standard you have just said you are holding Tim Keller to. You think WE have Tim on a pedestal? Apparently you all think he is, or should be, omniscient!!! What are you smoking??????
Honestly guys, get a grip. Your thinking is sloppy, your reasoning is ridiculous, and your lack of basic charity is… well, beneath you.
What’s missing? You mean besides basic skills in rhetoric and public speaking? Well for sure, clarity on what the gospel is and how the Church is supposed to deliver it to an unbelieving generation.
I just read T David Gordon’s book Why Johnny Can’t Preach today and it seems like he has some applicable points for Tim Keller.
TimmyCan’tPreach.Com? Or Timmy won’t?
Well, maybe in that hostile secular university setting he was put off, but surely at a sympathetic seminary such as Covenant, Tim’ll hit it outa the park! Let’s listen in on Rev Keller & CTS Prez Bryan Chappell chat about sodomy at
http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/04/tim-keller-on-sexuality-again.html
TIM BAYLY ON TIM KELLER ~ Tuesday, 06 April 2010
Tim Keller on preaching about homosexuality: “Ummmm… it’s just… it’s just think about… you know… you know…”
By now, when the President of our own [PCA] Covenant Theological Seminary invites Tim Keller to model pastoral ministry to his students over in St. Louis, he should know precisely what he’s going to get and not be left batting cleanup for him. But take a listen to this exchange from one of Keller’s recent visits, there.
It’s a Q & A session in front of men preparing for pastoral ministry. A Covenant student asks the Rev. Dr. Tim Keller this question: “How do you think the church is or should be proactive with regard to the issue of homosexuality? I see the prevalence of homosexuality, yet the church seems to be afraid to touch the issue. How do we actively speak to believers about this topic in truth and in love?”
. . . If Tim Keller were not The Model for conservative Reformed pastors today, I’d not be constant in my criticism of his approach to all things sexual. Sadly though, he is. And doubly sadly, our seminary president is a fan.
. . . My necessary conclusion for ministers of the Word and Sacrament is that Tim Keller is no example to emulate in preaching to an effeminate age.
Unless, of course, Tim Keller is a correction of the Apostle Paul’s bad example.
* * *
CHAPELL: [CTS student question] How do you think the church is or should be proactive with regard to the issue of homosexuality? I see the prevalence of homosexuality, yet the church seems to be afraid to touch the issue. How do we actively speak to believers about this topic in truth and in love?
KELLER: Uhhhh….well…(sigh)…The church is afraid to touch the topic? I….it may…….it..its possible…that….in the 20 yrs that I’ve seen that this issue has actually not.…ummm. it..uh…it hasn’t gone away its really gotten to be much much more..socially….
CHAPELL: Sure. Rural church, Sparta Illinois, 1985. I can tell the first Sunday I used the word ‘homosexuality’ and my wife wondered if I would have a job the next week. I mean, it was that scary of a subject at the time. So, if…now again, that’s rural Illinois but I’m guessing even now the church questions..now there’s all kinds of reasons for the fear. One, are you going to say something that your people are going to get mad at you about? Second, is the subject going to be so hot that the people who are struggling with an issue of of gender or sexuality, that I can’t even say in a public setting the kind of things I want to say to minister privately to this person. So how do I do this?
KELLER: Well, it’s much, much, much easier to to have private conversations about it. I think…..uh…I can make this short. I…I believe in general that if you preach on why homosexuality is a sin,..uhhh….there are……at least in my…in my..in my..in my church I know there’s lots and lots of folks who have same sex attraction who know that that’s not….as a Christian, I can’t do that. I’m not gonna go there. There’s a good number of them. I’ve got a lot of non-Christians who are present who are friends of gay people but are not gay. Uhhh…and then uhh there’d be a number of people with same sex attraction who…are there. And generally speaking, it’s almost impossible to preach a sermon and hit all 3 or 4 of those constituencies equally well. Ummmm.. it’s just.. it’s just think about..you know..you know…you’re a communicator. You know you need to…well, what’s my goal? Who are my audience and..wow! it’s like a conundrum you can’t solve. So, the best thing has always been for me..[CONSPICUOUS COUGH]…to not do the public teaching as much as segment my audience through…ummm [CONSPICUOUS COUGH]..Books, through classes, through one-on-ones, and so on. I think the time is probably coming in which we’re going to have be more public in how we talk about homosexuality. And I haven’t….I’m actually thinking quite a lot about it. Uhhh.. as to how I will go about it or how we should go about it but I’m not prepared to give you 3 bullet points.
CHAPELL: have you been able to say…again, very different congregations and cultures…Could you would you say from the pulpit at Redeemer, ‘Same-sex attraction, if it leads to activity that is same-sex oriented is a sin’?
KELLER: O yeah..well, you have to because you get to it and you’re preaching and you do. sure. But..what I’m saying is if you go…if you make it the subject of your sermon, uhhhh… it’s uhhhh..uh an entire sermon on it would not be an easy thing to get..you..you…you have to say what the Bible says and nobody at Redeemer doubts where we are. But for me to do teaching in the worship service, I am now going to give you the re…you know….the biblical teaching on homosexuality, that has been a hard thing to do when my audience is so diverse. I would have to say the average church, the audience isn’t nearly that diverse. And…so….I have not…made that the main place in which I’ve taught. But…we…we’ve done a fair amount of teaching inside amongst our leaders, our counselors, our undershepherds, our elders. We talk about it. Nobody doubts where we are. But I think that preaching on a Sunday about it…uhhhh…making public statements is…kind of in the cards because I think it’s gonna be a very, very divisive issue in the future.
CHAPELL: Good.
***
Dear Dan,
I’m not trying to vilify Pastor Keller or anyone else … and no, I’m not smoking anything (unnecessary). I, among a growing number of others, simply have some concerns about the trajectory of the philosophy of ministry coming out of Redeemer.
jdp
Really? And yet, in the link you choose below, you equate Tim talking about SOME of the implications of the gospel as if he were talking about the WHOLE of the gospel.
Salvation that comes in the gospel is not only the salvation of individuals, but a new creation. That the gospel extends beyond the cleansing of the sin of sinners, and the renewing of the sinner in the image of God, is beyond dispute. That the salvation wrought by Christ eventually encompasses a New Creation, no Reformed theologian denies.
Tim is discussing part of the gospel by saying it not only brings a new record – the imputed righteousness of Christ – but also eventually, a new world.
To simply truncate the gospel to what happens to me as an individual, or part of what happens to me, is not defining it well. So here Tim seems to be expanding upon the fact that the gospel is MORE than merely imputed righteousness; it is the imparted Holy Spirit and the the promise of the New Creation, for which all the world is groaning (Rom 8: 18- 25).
i have heard Tim say this again and again. The gospel is all three. He taught us this when he taught preaching in seminary. It is a new record, a new heart, and a new world – eventually. It is cleansing, renewing, and re-creation. It is imputed righteousness, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the irrupting Kingdom of God.
You chose a series of comments where Tim was honing in on the last point; the new creation. Are you unaware of the THOUSANDS of comments Tim makes, in literally every sermon he has ever preached, on the justifying, cleansing work of Christ’s death on the Cross? Have you missed his comments on the indwelling Holy Spirit? They are so ubiquitous as to make this line of conversation absurd.
If you have listened to , oh, ANY of his sermons, you know Tim preaches, teaches and holds central the atoning work of Christ, the satisfactory propitiating death and triumphant resurrection of Christ. I have no idea how you have any problem with his comments below, unless you are trying to pass off those comments as the WHOLE of Tim’s understanding of the gospel, in which case you have never heard Tim preach, or you are deliberately distorting his position. So you are either completely ignorant of what Tim actually teaches, or deliberately being deceptive in the way you portray Tim’s approach to the gospel. Which is it?
Sorry, Jon, but I doubt you are that ignorant of his teaching. Therefore, I can only see a deliberate attempt to distort and vilify Tim in your actions. Your denial rings hollow because of the clear trajectory of your actions.
Dan,
Different Jon … though we spell our names the same.
Someone else is posting under the name “Jon.”
– jdp
Sorry- my bad
Dan
No problem, brother.
Have a great Lord’s Day tomorrow!
JDP
There is a problem with Tim not defining the Gospel. He uses the term all the time but rarely defines it specifically. And you might be surprised to learn he probably means something to you wouldn’t expect.
In a talk to Redeemer’s Faith & Work Entrepreneur’s group in 2006 he said the following (which he has repeated many times):
You can listen to it here: http://www.faithandwork.org/uploads/photos/461-1%20Cultural%20Renewal_%20The%20Role%20of%20th.mp3
And here’s a transcript:
“Conservative churches say “this world is not our home — it’s gonna burn up eventually and what really matters is saving souls… so evangelism and discipleship and saving souls is what’s important.
And we try to say that it’s the other way around almost. ***That the purpose of salvation is to renew creation. That this world is a good in itself. That God loves and cares for his creation, the material creation.***
****And if you see it that way, then the old paradigm if you’re going to put your money and your time and your effort as a Christian into doing God’s work in the world, you wanna save souls which means the only purpose of your ministry and your effort is to increase the tribe, increase the number of Christians.****
… there’s nothing wrong with that, but I think in the past ****the theology that says all that matters is salvation so that we can go to heaven some day. And doesn’t understand the goodness of material creation, as a result, everybody but ministers and missionaries and so on, your job was just to get out there and earn a pay check and then give us the money in order to do God’s work.****
I think the good theology shows that it is God’s work for you to do something about the unraveling of God’s creation. When you see it physically unraveling, psychologically unraveling, socially unraveling, falling apart because of sin. For you to use your best efforts to re-weave it right there, in order to work for the common good. Because God saw salvation as eventually for the good of the whole world. That’s God’s work.
In the past Christians have tended to do things that only Christians would be interested in and only Christians would give to. I mean who else besides a Christian would give money to get something started that’s going to win many many people to Christ? Just pretty much only Christians.
BUT, when you have something that’s going to improve the schools in a particular city for everybody. When you have a venture that’s going to re-weave creation physically — that’s going to deal with health problems that’s going to deal with poverty. When Christians do that – out of their theology – they do that effectively because they’re dealing with the common good, because you have the theology to deal with the common good — you’re going to find that all kinds of non-Christians are not only going to invest in that and want to partner with you in that but a lot of them are also going to be attracted to the gospel because of that.”
I haven’t read the other responses, but the missing piece is the preaching of the gospel… and the Lord’s Supper and baptism.
But nos. 1-7 contain no preaching of law & gospel, as y’all have noticed. Why?
TK prescribes moving from a core to contextualization to ecumenism to a movement… Sound familiar?
He prophecies, “…if you have a contextualized, effective, contextualized way of communicating the gospel and embodying the gospel for center city residents, you’re actually going to win large numbers of them, its just going to happen.”
But we needn’t be faithful to the gospel, just “be effective.” Evangelize becomes “contextualize!” {Hence, perhaps, the flaccid comments on homosexuality?}
The key to a gospel movement (like a b.m.?), is of course a theologically diverse organization: “A gospel movement is across multiple denominations and networks…” For Keller, the “eco-sysytem” HAS to precede the “gospel movement.” So it’s actually an “Ecu-system” at root. Ecumenism, rank ecumenism.
Here’s a doozy: “you have to have lots and lots and lots of specialty evangelistic ministries.” Oh yeah.
Back to the core: Why does Tim have the concentric circles going here? He sounds a lot like Rick Warren’s _Purpose Driven Church_. The answer s/b plain: Tim Keller is the Rick Warren of USA Reformed Christendom.~~~For now.
TK may soon to be supplanted, however, by Pope Rick himself when the latter addresses and wins over the beguiled at DG2010 this fall.
See RICK WARREN DECEPTION ALREADY INVADING REFORMED CAMP @ Apprising.org
Groaning in the Spirit,
Hugh
Spot on Hugh. Amen.
“KELLER & Warren are working off the same play book:” …
Looks like it, doesn’t it? …………….
As a long-time member of Redeemer I might be able to provide a little more context on what Tim actually believes. And I do this not out of any animosity towards Tim or the church but out of a loving concern for him and it. I’m deeply distressed and concerned by some of the things that are going on at Redeemer.
I find that sadly Redeemer is leading people away from a belief in the authority and inerrancy of scripture. (In fact, if you told many Redeemerites that the Bible is inerrant they would actually look at you and laugh).
I’m constantly in conversations with people about what the Bible says on this or that subject. We’ll read several verses that are very clear and then I’m inevitably met with the objection that “well, so many mistakes were made in copying or translation that we can’t really know that it says that for sure.”
Or out of loyalty to Tim they twist and distort very clear passages of scripture on whether or not this world will be destroyed in the end (the Bible says it will be, Tim says it won’t be… and this seemingly minor difference leads to giant theological differences later on). And they come up with the most convoluted justifications for Tim’s view.
And check out one of their favorite teachers, Ron Choong, who said in a class that I attended recently that:
• Jesus never gave proof that he was the son of God, only signs;
• The people who copied the New Testament scriptures made a lot of changes and mistakes. Their intentions were good, but they didn’t realize they were copying the “word of God” so they weren’t as careful as they could have been;
• “If you grew up thinking the Bible is inerrant you’ll be very frustrated”;
• Christianity is obliged to explain itself on creation since the discoveries of the sciences offer a compelling scenario of what happened;
• The books of Paul weren’t selected, they are simply the only ones we have;
• Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians were most likely written by someone claiming to be Paul;
• And by email a friend shared with me that he also teaches that Adam and Eve weren’t real people, but rather a composite hominid with a moral compass.
• Christianity is guilty of all the things we accuse Islam of. (And one thing we accuse Islam of is their teachings on jihad. Apparently Choong believes Christianity is guilty of that kind of teaching).
So, there’s some context for you. Also, check out http://redeemer.com – search on “Henri Nouwen” who said he has come to realize that while he believes Jesus opened the door to God, there are now many ways to God and his mission is to help each man and woman find his or her own way. Redeemer promotes his writings on their website. And there are too many others to mention.
They’re also promoting new age/Buddhist/Hindu meditation “techniques” under the guise of Christian prayer & meditation.
Search on “Jan Johnson” while you’re there and read her article on meditation. It’s very watered down from her other writings, i.e. it sounds more Christian and less mystic. But she is a Christian mystic. And Redeemer loves her.
They taught a class about a year ago — several times actually — called Way of the Monk. This class was rooted deeply in Buddhism (look up Way of the Monk on Google) and universalism. When I questioned the pastor who approved this class about it he got very defensive and ended up insulting me saying I didn’t understand the multi-cultural environment we live in here in NYC but the church did and they presented classes like this to appeal to ALL New Yorkers.
I was also told (in writing) by an elder that the church believes not only Christians, but non-Christian New Yorkers alike have the ability to discern the good from the bad in the authors and teachers the church endorses. (I don’t find that they do).
If you look at the big picture of what’s going on at Redeemer it is far more disturbing than this transcript R. Scott Clark posted. Scott, you are absolutely right in your concerns and I’m heartened to see so many people here who realize that! Let’s keep praying for Tim and Redeemer.
Jonathan,
Thanks for these examples. I will be talking to Redeemer about them.
Dan
Thanks Dan!
Who is Ron Choong? Is he on staff?
You know, I’m a little confused on it myself. Originally I was under the impression that he was an assistant pastor, but I think that turns out not to be true. Then someone told me he was at one time an elder. I’m not sure but I think that may have been true.
But I do know that currently he teaches some classes at Redeemer itself on Sundays. (I get emails from him about them). I don’t think he teaches there every week, but periodically. He also has a thing called Project Timothy where he teaches. That’s what I went to where I got the “quotes” above (not word-for-word quotes, but the best I could get taking notes on my iphone!).
Project Timothy isn’t directly related to Redeemer I don’t believe. But in the class I attended as a guest, there must have been 40 people there and almost everyone of them I recognized from Redeemer.
So there are some very close ties, although I’m not sure exactly what they are. I do know Ron and Tim know each other and I know Tim is very aware of all of Ron’s teachings and writings and beliefs. At least that’s what Ron has said.
Thanks for this sad, but unsurprising report. TK’s _The Reason for God_ bears out what you’re saying.
Tim appears to want to want to the Edwards (sort of) of our day. Or better, the Lewis or Wright for 21st Century US Evangelicals.
Brian McLaren-like, he tries to be so hip, so erudite, so inclusive of diverse thought, so above Fundamentalism, that he ends up becoming irrelevant & even dangerous.
Hugh
Jonathan –
I’m also a member of Redeemer. I share none of your concerns. Maybe we should get together and talk sometime.
Also, if you have these concerns, you have a duty to approach the Session. Have you done so yet? I personally know some of the elders – I can give you their contact info if you like.
I find it interesting that the BaylyBlog is cited so often as an authority on Keller. That’s amusing, considering what high regard Dr. Clark holds that particular blog…
I don’t know that anyone else cited the Baylys’ Blog, but I did so not for their commentary. but simply their reporting TK’s incredible wimping out on homosex @ Veritas & Cov’t Sem. He needn’t be Fred Phelps, but maybe being a bit more Pauline wouldn’t hurt?
In general, that’s my beef with the darling of PCA church growers (WHERE’S the beef, Tim?!): That he plays to his audiences at the expense of clearly speaking biblical law & grace. It may be chic, but it’s biblically weak. Paul was a pretty plain speaker, per 1 Cor 1:17-2:7. He’d never have written _The Reason for God_!
Hey Mason & Jonathan: Let us know how the meetings go, esp. with Redeemer’s session. You have a great idea, Mason, but my money is on y’all getting stonewalled by the TE & REs who know who they are and what they’re about, and aren’t about to get too polemic or soundin’ like dem Fundies!
Hugh
Hugh,
I will be very, very surprised if Jonathan either agrees to meet me personally or takes this formally to the Session. It’s very easy to criticize from afar, but takes much more fortitude to actually do things the right way.
Specifically addressing his concerns, I have no idea who Ron Choong is and have never heard him speak. So, I can’t address those points. I will say, however, that Jonathan is way off the mark on the meditative prayer issue. I know the teacher of that class, Susan Castillo, and have spoken with her personally about the class and her philosophy. She holds to nothing unbiblical, and any connection with Buddhist practice is purely incidental. Much ado about nothing.
Also, Pastor Keller called homosexuality sin multiple times in the interview. I thought he did quite a good job – what would you have done differently? And Keller’s influence for the Gospel in New York (and the rest of the planet, for that matter), is massive. He’s not perfect, but God has used him greatly…
+ Hey, Mason,
+ Thanks for writing me!
>>I will be very, very surprised if Jonathan either agrees to meet me personally or takes this formally to the Session. It’s very easy to criticize from afar, but takes much more fortitude to actually do things the right way.
+ No doubt. He appears interested though, below.
>>Specifically addressing his concerns, I have no idea who Ron Choong is and have never heard him speak. So, I can’t address those points. I will say, however, that Jonathan is way off the mark on the meditative prayer issue. I know the teacher of that class, Susan Castillo, and have spoken with her personally about the class and her philosophy. She holds to nothing unbiblical, and any connection with Buddhist practice is purely incidental. Much ado about nothing.
+ J. mentioned a ‘he’ teaching the Monk class. But if Ms Castillo (assuming ‘Susan’ isn’t cross-gendered) is teaching you Redeemer men, then things are worse than we thought. (Oops, that old chauvinistic, misogynistic CBMW-type stuff* is coming through!) Per the Apostle in 1 Tim. 2:11ff & (horrors!) 1 Cor. 14:34, Susan ought to listen more and teach men less.
>>Also, Pastor Keller called homosexuality sin multiple times in the interview. I thought he did quite a good job – what would you have done differently? And Keller’s influence for the Gospel in New York (and the rest of the planet, for that matter), is massive. He’s not perfect, but God has used him greatly…
+ No doubt he isn’t, and He has. I assume you’re asking about the Eisenbach interview, not the CTS one transcribed above? See below for that exchange.
Yours,
Hugh
* Like the Baylys, we are pro-Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (i.e., complementarian), and more ‘Fundy’ on creation than TK’s PCA.
I find it very revealing that Keller does not think that refuting heresies should be part of the methodology of a Gospel-centered movement. This shows a lot even if we accept all that Dan MacDonald has to say about the matter. Unless of course Keller does not believe that believing heresies have the potentital of damning souls to hell.
If one denies the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone (ie. NPP, FV), that person has denied the Gospel and is in danger of the fires of hell. Shouldn’t building a “gospel centered” movement therefore means that false “gospels” are to be refuted so that men can be saved out of the clutches of false teachers and teachings?
Along this vein, why would someone who desires to build a “Gospel-centered” movement want a heretic (N.T. Wright) to speak at a church function in his church?
Daniel, YES! Exactly! I even mentioned this in my recent email conversation with Tim. I said to him that it’s not enough to just stay away from heretical teachers, but that the church should actually be teaching people about the common heresies of the day! Especially new age stuff… that the church can’t teach against, because it’s actually embracing it!
Never in all my years at Redeemer have I even heard the word heresy mentioned from the pulpit. Again, that could very well be because I’m not a great listener. But it’s just not something there’s any focus or emphasis put on. I don’t even think there have ever been any classes on it either.
Hi Mason,
Thanks for your offer to help. I do appreciate that. And I’d be more than happy to meet with you to talk about all this. However, I will say that since you share none of my concerns that I have a feeling we’ll just end up having to agree to disagree. I honestly don’t see how a Christian wouldn’t be concerned by many of the things I mentioned earlier. Maybe not all of them, I can understand… but at least some of them! If N.T. Wright doesn’t concern you then maybe new age meditation would?
I have shared these concerns with many people at Redeemer, pastors, elders and I’ve even briefly discussed them with Tim recently. And their reaction is basically the same as yours. They share none of my concerns.
I wouldn’t be posting here today if I didn’t feel I had exhausted every avenue at the church to try and get these issues addressed. And I only post here (and elsewhere) for two reasons. 1. I want to give any information I might have that could be helpful to people like Scott and some of the others here who do share my concerns – and who are trying to get the truth out about what’s being taught at Redeemer – to help them explain to people as accurately as possible what Tim’s teachings are all about — because I find he’s not always perfectly clear; and 2. to help traditional evangelical Christians from around the country who have heard that Tim’s the best thing since sliced bread… understand that yes, Tim is a wonderful and brilliant man, but that SOME of his teachings on important doctrines will not line up with what you as a traditional evangelical might expect.
For instance, I’ve been going to the church for nearly 20 years and I had no idea that Tim believed that the primary purpose of salvation was cultural renewal! I had NO idea! Until I read it – ON THIS BLOG back last summer! I even wrote to the person who posted it (who I guess must have been Scott) and asked if he could provide a link to the source where Tim said that and he gave me a link to the actual audio! I posted a passage from that talk above in this conversation here. (When I posted that a few days ago I didn’t realize this was the blog I had originally gotten it from)!!
I was literally stunned when I heard Tim speak those words in his own voice. To be honest, I didn’t believe it when I saw them posted here. And that says something. It says Tim doesn’t really speak that clearly on these things from the pulpit. How could I who have attended the church for so long have been SHOCKED by hearing Tim say that? Isn’t that something I should have picked up on in church!? Or maybe I’m just a really awful listener… which could be the case actually!
But after becoming aware of this I’ve listened to his sermons in a different way. And I’ve detected that he does mention these things – from time to time – but he does so in such a subtle way that a traditional evangelical such as myself wouldn’t really notice – unless you were clued in about it.
Anyway, If that doesn’t bother you Mason, then I can see why none of the other things I said here concern you.
If what I related about Ron Choong’s teachings doesn’t bother you, then we have such different views that I really don’t know if there’s any way to reconcile them.
My main concern isn’t that there are people at Redeemer who have unorthodox views of Christianity. My concern is that Redeemer is actually endorsing and promoting authors, teachers and speakers who have unorthodox views and I think there’s a direct connection between that and what many Redeemerites believe.
However, I also now believe that Tim has some rather unorthodox views… like his view that the primary purpose of salvation is cultural renewal. I still can’t find any mention of cultural renewal in the Bible. And I see little to no emphasis on that when it comes to salvation. Paul didn’t say be saved so that the culture may be renewed! Paul said be saved so you can spend eternity with God in heaven. I believe cultural renewal may be a by-product of salvation, but it’s certainly not the primary purpose.
But Tim says we’re not even going to heaven. We’ll all be around on this very earth — forever. He even uses Revelation 21:1 to show that this earth will always be around. Although Rev 21:1 says the exact opposite! And because of that the church now puts a larger emphasis on doing good things for the city and the environment than it does on evangelizing and sharing the Gospel of Christ with people.
It has taken me a long time to begin to see that Tim’s teachings were actually quite different from what I thought they were. I originally began to notice something seemed off, not by listening to Tim preach, but by talking to people who have gone to Redeemer for several years. I’ve had people actually laugh at me when I’ve said the Bible is the Word of God! And I thought to myself – Tim doesn’t teach that. How could this person believe that. And why do so many Redeemerites believe that?
Then I began to discover things like these classes by Ron Choong, that do teach exactly that! No, of course Ron would never say “the Bible isn’t the word of God” but everything he does say about it would lead a rational individual to believe it can’t be. And hoenstly, I’m really tired of the double talk. For a Redeemer teacher to say the Bible is the Word of God… but… you can’t really rely on it because it’s really inaccurate — that’s just downright double talk.
I discovered that Redeemer endorses and promotes authors on its website who disagree with the church on core doctrines. I realized it couldn’t be just a coincidence that so many Redeemerites (not all!), have confused views on core doctrines.
So it’s like more double talk. They say they believe in the exclusivity of Christ, yet the endorse authors and teachers who don’t!
The church endorses people like Henri Nouwen and Richard Foster and Jan Johnson and N.T. Wright. Very smart people. People who do have some good things to say — but also people who disagree with us on the most central teachings of Christianity.
And they claim that people in New York, secular & saved, are smart enough to discern the good doctrine from the bad! But how could they be!? If the church isn’t teaching them!?
I was shocked that in fellowship group after fellowship group that I attended whenever the subject of the exclusivity of Christ came up – there would always be several people who didn’t believe in it. I thought how in the world can they go to Redeemer, listen to Tim week after week and not understand that. Then I find out the church is promoting teachers who don’t believe that. So it should really be no surprise that so many Redeemerites are confused on this issue.
Redeemer does a survey every year where they ask the congregation a lot of demographic/mechanical type questions. Like do you attend a fellowship group? How far away from the church do you live? Those kinds of things.
I’d really love to see a survey of Redeemerties that had some theological questions like to get a sense of where people stood theologically. I think the church would be very surprised at the results.
Why not a few questions like this on a survey?
1. Do you believe Jesus is the only way to God?
2. What about people who come from religions where belief in Jesus is strictly forbidden, surely God won’t keep them out of heaven, right?
3. Do you believe that a form of meditation that invokes breathing exercises and the repetition of a single word is a good way to have an experience with God?
4. Do you believe Adam and Eve were real people?
5. Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God?
I can promise you – you’d get about a 70% “NO” on question #5! Anyway, I’d like to see a survey like that sometime. I think it would be very revealing.
Jonathan,
Thanks for this explanation. I will discuss your claims with the leaders at Redeemer that I know.
However, I do note that from my own personal experience with them over 6 years, that some of your concerns seem overdrawn. In the area of cultural renewal, I admit that Tim teaches far more on it than almost any other evangelical preacher I have met.
And I do agree with you that the Bible says we get a new heaven and earth, and that this world will be burned with fire. Therefore if he says, which I have never heard him say, if he says that this world lives forever, he is not speaking what the Bible says. But I have listened fairly carefully to his discussions on the new earth, since it is a topic of interest to me. As a seminary trained pastor, from a Reformed seminary, I hear nothing in Tim’s teaching that is heretical. I hear his emphasis upon the re-creation that comes with the Second Coming, and I recognize that almost nobody talks about this ‘blessed hope’ that was the motivation for so much of what the New Testament writers discussed.
The only place where I think you might have a point is that Tim is pretty silent on the idea that this world will burn with fire. I have never heard Tim say that this is how the new heavens and earth get ushered in. But in all honesty, I believe that this is true, but I don’t think I have ever preached on it. And in all of the New Testament epistles’ verses that discuss the hope of the New Creation, this one verse in 2 Peter 3: 12 is the only one that mentions it explicitly as well!
Frankly, I find your attempt to evaluate Tim’s teachings based on what you hear in small groups pretty amusing. If you measured my teaching by my flock’s answers to questions, I am sure I would look pretty lame as well!
Do you know that your own church is filled with skeptics and unbelievers? According to the last census I heard about that Redeemer took of it’s people, about 20% of your own church, based on your own church census, are not Christians! So to find in each small group some skeptics and immature believers that do not yet believe the Bible is inerrant is to be expected, even celebrated. You are probably encountering skeptics, even previously churched non-believers, who are encountering the gospel. Welcome to the mess of a church with wheat and tares.
And if you are going to reply to me that, well, it is not just the skeptics, but that even the Christians do not believe in inerrancy, then I ask you; whose fault is that? The average Christian who comes to Redeemer has been in New York less than 3 years. What position on inerrancy did they have BEFORE they arrived? If Tim is not explicitly teaching on it one way or another,. where did they get their stance? My guess: from their churches back home, or from the general culture.
Remember the average evangelical coming to Redeemer from a Christian background is coming out of the evangelical world of the last 20 years. They grew up as kids in our youth programs in the era of Willow and Saddle Back. Those are the churches that formed these Redeemerites. How strongly do you think they were actually taught about inerrancy?
I should know. My congregation in my city mirrors Tim’s in his. Average age: 28. Single or newly married. Moved to the big city to prove themselves. Grew up in general evangelical churches. Have never been taught, or poorly taught, on: inerrancy; sacraments; male leadership; election; hell; charismatic gifts; the role of the church.
So while preaching the gospel to all, I also need to help the spiritually young in my church mature. Patiently, graciously, wisely. Something I need to get much better at.
And this Ron Choong guy is not the culprit either, since less than 1% of Redeemer’s congregation would have heard him in those classes.
If you want to do a survey, make sure it asks a few more questions, like:
a. Where are you in your journey of faith -are you a Christian yet?
b. Where did you get your understanding of the Bible from? What is the main authority on which you built your present position?
On the other hand, does Tim have a responsibility to TEACH inerrancy? Sure. If you know your people are weak on this, then teach on it. Does the membership class deal with this issue, in your experience?
Dan,
so do you know the steps that Redeemer Pres is taking to solve this problem. Do they go through the Westminster Standards (Confession, Shorter and Larger Catechism) with all new members to instruct them in sound doctrine? After all, they are a PCA church, aren’t they?
Daniel,
No I do not. I know that we teach inerrancy every membership class and require a written assent to it from every member applicant. You should ask Redeemer, not me, what they do.
Dan,
I agree with you completely that you should never judge a church based on what the newest believers or even the non-believers think. And I haven’t done that. My concerns were initially aroused not because any of the new believers at Redeemer seemed a little confused on certain core doctrines. But because long-time believers and attenders/members seemed confused.
I do believe it would be fair to survey the church on their beliefs. Not to be used to condemn the pastor but as a certain measure of his performance at COMMUNICATING! He may believe all the right things but be a poor communicator of them. No one would say Tim is a poor communicator, but something about the way he teaches isn’t filtering core truths down to long-time church members.
So that’s one thing to look at. Another is to look at what’s being taught in the church’s classes. And here I find things line up almost perfectly. The doctrines many Redeemerites are getting wrong – are being taught that way in the various classes.
So if Redeemerites were confused, but everywhere you turned you could see that the church was teaching the right things, then you could conclude it wasn’t the leadership’s fault. But if everywhere you turn the church is teaching wrong things, then I think you have a responsibility to make that connection.
A quick example of the kind of people I’m looking at: One woman is a deaconness who has gone to the church for 8 years and certainly been indoctrinated with the church’s teachings. She bristled one day when I happened to say that Jesus is the only way to God. She was offended by that! And I was totally taken by surprise!
Of all the people who you would expect would have agreed with that statement it was her! There’s something wrong in a church when a member of 8 years and in a position of leadership and who has been through all the church’s training has this view. But if she was only one of a handful, and if the church wasn’t teaching bad doctrine you could say she’s an exception. But she’s not one of a few, she’s one of many and the church is teaching people along these lines, EVEN THOUGH when you ask them about it they say that’s not what they believe at all!
Dan, I actually have come to see that the church is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, when questioned directly, they say all the right things. They say they do believe in the exlusivity of Christ. But then they endorse people who don’t, like Nouwen and Foster and others. So how could it be a surprise that Redeemerites are confused on this most essential doctrine?
Actually, the person who posted Tim’s response to the gay question (on which I largely agree with Tim, but think he should be more clear in his answer), I think that answer actually kind of sums up what’s going on at the church. Tim did finally admit that homosexuality was a sin. But it was one line out of many paragraphs!
At some point, the EMPHASIS IS WHAT INSTRUCTS. A pastor might say Jesus is the only way to the Father, but if he only says it once a year, and does so in a church where he knows new people coming into the church are offended by that idea, well, he knows it’s not going to sink in by briefly mentioning it once a year. (I’m not saying how often Tim mentions it because I haven’t counted, but apparently it’s not enough… or it’s not done clearly enough).
Anyway, I totally understand your misgivings about my evaluating Tim based on what people in the church believe. But please know, I am fully aware of how many skeptics and new believers go to Redeemer. And I’m glad they’re there and I would never base an opinion like this on them!
Oh and I also agree with you on what you said about the new Christians at Redeemer and bringing in all their previoius beliefs. Absolutely that happens! And I’m very aware of that. I’m not basing this on them either. But that is one of my concerns. Because Tim knows as well what beliefs they come in with and yet the church is doing very little to counter those beliefs.
And yes, if I could do a survey like this I would absolutely ask questions like the two you suggested. Those would be essential. I’d also ask if they’re a Christian and if so, how long… and how long they’ve been attending Redeemer. Of course!
Believe me, I’m not trying to take cheapshots here! I love Tim. And I love Redeemer. I’m just concerned with what I see there.
And no I have never heard Tim teach or emphasize in any way inerrancy of scripture.
My point to Tim has been that somehow the church is not effectively countering the pre-existing beliefs people come into the church with.
But Dan, on a final note, I have to say that I find it very disturbing that you would minimize the impact of Ron Choong (and others) by saying that less than 1% of Redeemer’s congregation would have attended his classes. Even if only 3 people attended his class, what excuse can Redeemer offer for letting him teach what he teaches? How can that be justified?
And I will tell you hundreds of people from Redeemer have attended his classes so it’s far more than 1%. And in his Project Timothy class, I sat in on a class that had 40-50 people in it. And that was just one class. Almost all of those in attendance were either leaders or future leaders in the church. In fact, you shouldn’t be surprised that the deaconness I mentioned above was even there!
Ron is teaching those who will eventaully be the most influential people in the church.
I’m really disturbed by your 1% comment. Is it okay to have someone come in and teach people a good healthy distrust of the Bible, if only a few people actually hear it? I don’t understand your rationale.
But yes, you’re right… Tim and others should be much stronger on inerrancy. The fact is though, I’ve never heard him mention it from the pulpit. Ever.
Thanks Jonathan. That shed much more light on your concerns. The deaconness story I find particularly disturbing. Regarding my 1% comment, I grant that if Ron Choong is not teaching inerrancy, then this is very disturbing. My only point on that was that the majority of Redeemerites did not get their skepticism on inerrancy from him – they got it elsewhere. Redeemer has, from my understanding, about 5000 people coming weekly. Forty to fifty people represents 1% of Redeemer. Notwithstanding this, I find their willingness to sponsor people who do not believe in inerrancy quite disturbing.
Thanks for giving me this information; I will certainly be looking into it.
Dan
Dan, yes the deaconness story is very disturbing indeed. And yes, I agree with you that Redeemerites didn’t get their skepticism on inerrancy from Ron. And most probably didn’t get it from the church at all. But one thing I’ve said to everyone I’ve talked to is that the church isn’t effectively countering this view that they know many people come into the church with. They really should have classes on this subject to explain why we believe the Bible is inerrant and why we can still rely on it.
But instead you have a Ron Choong who is actively teaching against it. And I don’t know how many others. I’m sure there are probably others. But Ron’s class is the only one I’ve been to.
And I understand your 1% comment. Just that – that was 40-50 in that one class and he teaches many other classes. And over time I’d guess he probably reaches about 10% of the church. Not to mention that he’s highly regarded and other pastors see what he’s teaching and see his popularity and success and it must influence them in some way too.
Anyway, thank you for anybody you may be able to talk to about it!
Thanks Andrew. I really would have no idea how to do all that. And I just can’t see that anything would come of it. Do you think it would?
Dan –
Excellent post, and I agree. I have heard Pastor Keller say on numerous occasions that the New Heaven and New Earth will be perfected, or transformed versions of what we have today. I’ve even heard him compare it to water – water can be boiled and turned to vapor. It fundamentally changes form but is still H2O.
I think the membership class is very good. It is lead by a TE and RE, and they go through all the core fundamental doctrines, and go in detail through the five questions that comprise the leadership vows. The elder interview is very comprehensive as well. I have spoken with an RE who has told me of Redeemer refusing membership to couples who are unmarried and living together. So I think the Redeemer MEMBERS are all very clear about what Redeemer believes and teaches.
Certainly many of the 3000 or so regular ATTENDERS who are not members may or may not believe in biblical inerrancy or other fundamentals, but that’s through no fault of Pastor Keller or the church. He preaches the Gospel clearly every Sunday – you should know that, Jonathan.
Mason wrote: “I have spoken with an RE who has told me of Redeemer refusing membership to couples who are unmarried and living together. So I think the Redeemer MEMBERS are all very clear about what Redeemer believes and teaches.”
This may prove the opposite of what you intend.
How can a person even remotely consider that they would be admitted to membership of a conservative evangelical church if they’re living together without being married?
Something is seriously wrong in a church where somebody in open public sin could think they would be able to become members. Does not Rev. Keller regularly preach on immorality from the pulpit? Do the elders not regularly teach young people about sexual morality? Yes, I know it’s New York City — and that’s why it’s even more important to teach those things publicly and often.
Church discipline exists for a reason. Excommunications need to happen. And if they are not happening, it’s probably not for lack of sin but rather due to a church choosing to ignore sin.
KELLER / EISENBACH exchange from video posted at http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/04/tim-my-parents-gave-most-of-their-lives-to-campus-ministry-they-were-the-first-ivcf-staffers-in-new-england-they-lived-in.html
EISENBACH: ……I wrote a book about the gay rights movement because I was appalled by the oppression and the discrimination against homosexuals in my America [KELLER: uhhmm..]. And this questioner asks, ‘What do so many of the churches have against homosexuals? And what about your church’s approach to homosexuality, is it a sin? Are they going to Hell?
KELLER: uhhh…let’s talk about my church first which will be a little easier than trying to answer for all the other churches of the world….but I’ll try [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]. I’m representing all the churches of the world alright, you know? [EISENBACH: but Christianity I mean….you, you…] Yeah, I know but let’s start with mine.
EISENBACH:…. You go to the Bible quite often and there are many evangelicals who would say it is listed as a sin in the Bible [KELLER: sin in the Bible, right.]…and these people are going to Hell.
KELLER: Right. Now…What you..first…ughhhh…Let’s talk about my church again [nervous laughter]. Let’s go back here. What we would say is…I think it’s unavoidable. I think most Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox Christians over the years have said, you read the Bible and the Bible has reservations. The Bible says homosexuality is not God’s original design for sexuality. Ok? There we are…you have it. The Bible also says, ‘Love your neighbor’. The Bible…in fact, The Good Samaritan parable which is how Jesus tells us to love our neighbor…you put a Jew and a Samaritan there. So, what Jesus is trying to say is everybody is your neighbor. Gay people are your neighbors. Uhhh…people who are of other faiths are your neighbors. People of other….. other…uhhhh….uhhh…races are your neighbors. And it’s the job of a Christian to do what Jesus did on the cross which was to give himself for people who were opposing Him and people who were diff….believe….didn’t believe in Him even. And so, a Christian is supposed to say, ‘I serve the needs and interests of all of my neighbors in the city, whether gay or straight, whether Hindu or Muslim. I mean Hindus, for example, don’t believe in the Trinity. It’s a different view than what the Bible says. Gay people have a different view of sexuality than generally what you see in the NT. I’m supposed to love my neighbors. So, what I don’t see is…at this point, I see some churches that are…basically, ignoring the places in the Bible that talk about homosexuality in order to love their gay neighbor. And I see other Christian churches taking very seriously what the Bible says about homosexuality but in a very self-righteous way. So, they actually do single out gay people. I mean, there are a number of conservative churches that will love their Hindu neighbors and will love their Muslim neighbors, and not their gay neighbors. And I really don’t think there is any excuse for that. So…that’s what [EISENBACH: Is…is] I mean, I…I….Therefore, I have to take some responsibility for being a member of the Christian Church for the oppression of homosexuals.
EISENBACH: Are committing homosexual acts sin….against God?
KELLER: uhhhh….What do you mean by ‘sin’? The answer is ‘yes’.
EISENBACH: Yes.
KELLER: Now see. Here’s the problem with that. You don’t go to Hell for being a homosexual…..
EISENBACH: …..but committing homosexual acts will get you to go to Hell?
KELLER: Noooo. Wait a minute. Wait, wait [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER].
EISENBACH: well, you know. Some people say, ‘Well, it’s not the homosexuality or being gay. It’s being/doing gay stuff that’s the problem’.
KELLER: No, no. First of all, heterosexuality does not get you to heaven. I happen to know this [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER/CLAPPING]. So, how in the world could homosexuality send you to Hell? And actually…uhhh…The Bible…Listen…..This is…this is true. Jesus talks about greed 10x more than he talks about adultery, for example. Now, one of the problems Christians have here is partly…let’s be nice to Christians. You know when you’re committing adultery. I mean you don’t say, ‘Ohhh, you’re not my wife’ [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]. I mean you know when you are committing adultery. But, almost nobody knows when they’re greedy. Nobody admits…thinks they’re greedy. You know cause everybody is comparing yourself to other people and so, it’s a frog in the kettle kind of thing. Ahhh….however, the fact of the matter is…the Bible is much harder on greed/materialism. It’s a horrible sin, terrible sin. Will greed send you to Hell? No! What sends you to Hell is self-righteousness – thinking that you can be your own savior and lord. What sends you to heaven is getting a connection with Christ because you realize you’re a sinner and you need intervention from outside. That’s why it is very misleading actually to say, even to say, ‘Homosexuality is a sin’ because most people…Yes, of course homosexuality is a sin because greed is a sin, because all kinds of things are sins. But what most Christians mean when they say that and certainly what non-Christians think they hear when they hear that is ‘If you’re gay, you are going to Hell for being gay’. It’s just not true. Absolutely not true.
EISENBACH: So then, what’s….then how is homosexuality a ‘sin’. I’m not….
KELLER: ….Well, homo…[sigh]..Greed is a sin. In other words, it doesn’t help human flourishing. Basically, Christianity has an account of what we think human beings were built to do and what will therefore, help human flourishing. So, we would say if you spend all of your money on yourself, that’s bad….not only for your own soul, but for everybody elses. We would say homosexuality is not the original design for sexuality. Therefore, it’s not good for human flourishing. We want people to do things that are good for human flourishing. But that’s not what sends you to heaven or Hell. Now, there…maybe we ought to talk about that [NERVOUS LAUGHTER]. What sends you to heaven or Hell really has to do with your faith in the Gospel which is that you can’t….uhhh…be your own savior through your performance and your good works. Now here, I’m coming at this like a protestant now. You know…ummm…everybody’s gotta be a particular kind of Christian and there’s differences of opinion within Christianity about this. But uhhhh…no. being gay doesn’t send you to hell and sin doesn’t send you to Hell like that. The sin underneath the sin is, ‘I am my own savior and my lord’. And that’s the reason why pharisaism, moralism, Bible-believing people who are proud and think God is going to take people to heaven because they’re good…that’s sending them to Hell. I mean, I know that this is a lot to take in at once.
EISENBACH: It’s a lot.
KELLER: I’m…well…yeah…I mean….[EISENBACH: I want to go back to……]but inside our church…[EISENBACH: right.] There’s just not going to be this disdain of homosexuals [EISENBACH: right.] There just can’t be…not when I’m teaching the gospel like that.
EISENBACH: right.
* * * *
Again, see http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/04/tim-my-parents-gave-most-of-their-lives-to-campus-ministry-they-were-the-first-ivcf-staffers-in-new-england-they-lived-in.html
* * * *
BONUS Spurgeon quote:
‘I know of no surer way of a people’s perishing than by being led by one who does not speak out straight, and honestly denounce evil. If the minister halts between two opinions, do you wonder that the congregation is undecided? If the preacher trims and twists to please all parties, can you expect his people to be honest? If I wink at your inconsistencies will you not soon be hardened in them?
‘Like priest, like people. A cowardly preacher suits hardened sinners. Those who are afraid to rebuke sin, or to probe the conscience, will have much to answer for. May God save you from being led into the ditch by a blind guide.
‘And yet is not a mingle-mangle of Christ and Belial the common religion of the day? Is not worldly piety, or pious worldliness, the current religion of England? They live among godly people, and God chastens them, and they therefore fear him, but not enough to give their hearts to him. They seek out a trimming teacher who is not too precise and plain-spoken, and they settle down comfortably to a mongrel faith, half truth, half error, and a mongrel worship half dead form, and half orthodoxy.
‘God have mercy upon men, and bring them out from the world; for he will not have a compound of world and grace. “Come ye out from among them,” saith he, “be ye separate: touch not the unclean thing.” “If God be God, serve him: if Baal be God, serve him.” There can be no alliance between the two. Jehovah and Baal can never be friends. “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” “No man can serve two masters.” All attempts at compromise or comprehensiveness in matters of truth and purity are founded on falsehood, and falsehood is all that can come of them. May God save us from such hateful doublemindedness.’
Well, he’s absolutely right that being gay isn’t what sends you to hell! And I’m glad he points that out. And he’s also right that the culture hears “you’re going to hell because you’re gay” when we say “homosexuality is a sin.”
But, the solution to that isn’t to back away from saying what the Bible says and speaking clearly and directly! The solution is to state clearly what the Bible says… Yes, homosexuality is a sin, AND the Bible gives you a way out… just like it does everybody else! In Romans 1 where Paul so strongly condemned homosexuality he didn’t wait long… just until Romans 3 to tell homosexuals and everyone else that Jesus has provided an out. And I think when we share our faith it works best when we do the same thing… and in the same order and with the same clarity.
All my gay friends know what I believe — that their homosexuality is sinful but that God has provided a way of repentance and forgiveness. And it hasn’t stopped them from being friends with me and it hasn’t stopped them from asking me more questions about Christianity.
My friend Joel send me a link to a sermon by Paul Washer. He thinks it would be a good idea to compare and contrast Keller’s idea of “gospel eco-system” with Washer’s mission strategy.
The sermon can be found here (http://hcmissions.org/download.php?file=A-Biblical-Vision-and-Strategy-for-Missions-Paul-Washer.mp3).
Dan, sorry I forgot to mention this in my previous long post! But you said you haven’t heard Tim teach that this earth doesn’t get destroyed. Or that the primary purpose of salvation is cultural renewal. So here’s a link to the audio. You can listen for yourself. Thanks!
http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/04/tim-my-parents-gave-most-of-their-lives-to-campus-ministry-they-were-the-first-ivcf-staffers-in-new-england-they-lived-in.html?cid=6a00d83451d09d69e2013480a7691b970c#comment-form
Ooops! Sorry, wrong link! Here it is: http://www.faithandwork.org/uploads/photos/461-1%20Cultural%20Renewal_%20The%20Role%20of%20th.mp3
That first link is a transcription of most of this audio.
THIS is madness, people:
>>Well, he’s absolutely right that being gay isn’t what sends you to hell! And I’m glad he points that out. And he’s also right that the culture hears “you’re going to hell because you’re gay” when we say “homosexuality is a sin.”<<
No, Keller is wrong to say, "You don’t go to Hell for being a homosexual." And he's wrong to waffle, playing games.
EISENBACH: Are committing homosexual acts sin….against God?
KELLER: uhhhh….What do you mean by ‘sin’? The answer is ‘yes’.
EISENBACH: Yes.
KELLER: Now see. Here’s the problem with that. You don’t go to Hell for being a homosexual…..
EISENBACH: …..but committing homosexual acts will get you to go to Hell?
KELLER: Noooo. Wait a minute. Wait, wait [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER].
EISENBACH: well, you know. Some people say, ‘Well, it’s not the homosexuality or being gay. It’s being/doing gay stuff that’s the problem’.
KELLER: No, no. First of all, heterosexuality does not get you to heaven. I happen to know this [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER/CLAPPING]. So, how in the world could homosexuality send you to Hell? And actually…uhhh…The Bible…Listen…..This is…this is true. Jesus talks about greed 10x more than he talks about adultery, for example. . . . . But what most Christians mean when they say that and certainly what non-Christians think they hear when they hear that is ‘If you’re gay, you are going to Hell for being gay’. It’s just not true. Absolutely not true.
Actually, apart from repentance and faith in Christ, it is true, absolutely true. Romans 1 tells us that homosex itself IS a judgment of God against some ungodly folks. To play such games (at which Keller is adept!) is not Christlike.
K says, "What sends you to heaven or Hell really has to do with your faith in the Gospel which is that you can’t….uhhh…be your own savior through your performance and your good works."
Of course original sin is damning (if that's what TK is obscurely referring to). And of course all unregenerate sinners are self-righteous, auto-soteric idiots.
And BEING self-righteous, that's precisely what the adulterer, liar, homosexual, and greedy person are doing: They reject God's mercy in Christ, and commit damnable sins. Their adultery, lying, homosex, and greed (covetousness) have separated them from God (as Isaiah 59:2 has it).
Why Keller refuses to say it straight up (sorry for the pun) is bizarre.
Hugh
“… KELLER: No, no. First of all, heterosexuality does not get you to heaven. I happen to know this [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER/CLAPPING]. So, how in the world could homosexuality send you to Hell?…”
My Answer: Heterosexuality will not get you into heaven, nor send you to hell. Homosexuality (along with any other sin) will not get you into heaven and yet will send you to hell… save the intervening salvation that comes by grace through faith in Christ; a faith that leads us away from all sin.
What I find additionally troubling is that in this response Keller is putting homosexuality in some kind of moral equivalence with heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is a morally neutral and God-created biological/personal reality. Homosexuality is a moral departure from the ‘being made in the image-male and female-cleaving to become one…’, which is clearly defined as sin in Scripture. The fact that it is an accepted “lifestyle” in most western quarters today shouldn’t change how one talks about it and certainly shouldn’t lead to subtle redefinitions as in Keller’s response. And when one begins redefining sin as something less than… then the hearer of the gospel will not readily “hear The Gospel” and come to realize he “is sick and in need of a (the) physician.” For that is every man’s state. Cloud that diagnosis and the Cross becomes less and less relevant.
Hugh, I agree that Tim should have been “straight up!” with his answer and that he wasn’t. Although I have heard him give a very straight up answer to this question in past years at the church during the Q & A after the service. I distinctly remember one time someone asking him exactly this… “is homosexuality a sin” and he said, “Yes, the Bible say it’s a sin.” I remember this because I was actually surprised at his directness! He’s not usually that direct on questions like this.
But I don’t agree that homosexuality will send you to hell? What if a gay person becomes a Christian? Wouldn’t they then go to heaven? And to say homosexuality sends you to hell implies that if you’re not gay – then you’ll go to heaven! The Bible certainly doesn’t teach that.
Jonathan,
You wrote:
“But I don’t agree that homosexuality will send you to hell? What if a gay person becomes a Christian? Wouldn’t they then go to heaven?”
Yes, only because Someone in that person’s place bore the penalty of hell for the sinner. The sin(s) still sent Someone to hell as the representative sin-bearer of that believer.
“… And to say homosexuality sends you to hell implies that if you’re not gay – then you’ll go to heaven!”
No, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents. In fact heterosexuality is a morally neutral God-created and intended aspect of humanity. Homosexuality is an abberation from that.
The way I would look at it is this:
Homosexuality, whether a lust in one’s heart or an overt act, is sin. Just as can be said of any sin (murder my brother through hatred in my heart, lust for a woman is adultery). And sin sends one to hell, except for the intervention of saving grace bestowed mercifully by God upon the undeserving sinner. Whether a person is a Christian doesn’t change the dynamic… the sin with which a believer struggles still deserves hell. Yes, Christ took that penalty… but His paying that penalty doesn’t redefine the relationship between any sin (hidden in the heart or overt) and the wages it deserves, death (or hell).
best regards,
Jack
Jonathan,
“But I don’t agree that homosexuality will send you to hell? What if a gay person becomes a Christian?”
> Then he’s no longer considered “gay,” anymore than a murderer or thief or greedy person is considered such by God upon their inclusion in Christ and his righteousness. See 1 Cor. 6:9-11.
“Wouldn’t they then go to heaven?”
> Amen!
“And to say homosexuality sends you to hell implies that if you’re not gay – then you’ll go to heaven!”
> It may imply that if one is thinking that heterosexuality is righteous, or some other confusion. Hetero is right, but not righteous. Keller had a great opportunity to clear up the confusion and he failed. Jack Miller is right, below.
“The Bible certainly doesn’t teach that.”
> Au contraire, mon frere.
> l’Hughuenot
I just noticed that Mason after asking me to meet with him, said before I had a chance to reply, that he was certain I would decline his invitation, suggesting that I was a coward who likes to write online but would never meet in person. Also suggesting that I’m not the kind to actually bring any of this up to the church.
Well, I replied said I’d be happy to meet with him anytime. And then I never heard from him again!! (So who’s the coward now)!?
And I explained that I had in fact spoken to pastors and elders at the church about these things, including Tim himself, and I couldn’t help but note that Mason never came back and apologized. (unless I missed it in this long thread).
I, was in fact quite conscious about not talking about the church behind its back until I was sure that what I suspected was actually happening. I quietly listened and watched what was going on at the church for over a year before I began to contact the church leaders about it. I wanted to make darn sure I had my ducks in a row and knew what I was talking about. And it was only after I had engaged in much dialog with them and I became convinced that they were not only fully aware of what was going on but that they fully supported it, that I began to speak publicly about it. It was my naive assumption in the beginning that they must not be aware of it! But of course I quickly learned they were fully aware.
The bottom line is the leaders of Redeemer and I disagree on these subjects. And that’s it. It was never my belief that I could in any way change their minds. But I did want to have clarity. I did want to know exactly where they stood on several issues. (for instance the doctrine of justification and the exclusivity of Christ. They gave me the right answers there, but said they would not stop endorsing authors and teachers who disagreed with them on those two important issues).
It’s not easy to get this clarity. Because Redeemer will promote something on the website or in a class, but will tell you in person they don’t agree with this or that aspect of it. So, I was confused for a long time. I didn’t know what to make of it. I just thought they were confused! I thought maybe they didn’t know all the disturbing beliefs of the authors and teachers and classes they endorsed.
But finally, I came to realize they weren’t confused at all. They do know exactly what they’re doing. I believe… I hope I’m not right, but I believe I am… that they want to have it both ways. They say the church is about divided in half between liberal & conservative Christians. I feel like Redeemer is now pushing a liberal theology, but doing so in the language that conservatives won’t be offended by. So it’s very, very subtle.
The person above (sorry, it’s so much to scroll through now I’ll never find your name!) but who said he had never heard Tim teach anything wrong about how this world will end… or whether it will end at all — I totally understand where you’re coming from.
The first time I was told this I didn’t believe it until I was led to the audio file (which I posted above) where I could hear Tim saying it in his own voice! I was SHOCKED! I couldn’t believe it. Because I couldn’t believe Tim believed something that to me was such a radical departure from what the Bible teaches. And after sitting in his church for all those years – how could I have missed this!?
I should have had a clue! But I didn’t! I thought Tim and I were in almost total agreement on all that. So I realize now, as I’ve sat through sermons after finding this out… that he does say what he believes but he says it in such a very subtle way, that unless you’re looking for it – you’re going to totally miss it.
Anyway, back to Mason’s comments for a minute. I’m a little disappointed that Mason, who was so good about suggesting we meet and also instructing me in the Biblical way to handle a dispute with the church, I’m disappointed that he hasn’t replied with an apology for his mis-pre-judgment of me.
On the teacher of the Way of the Monk class… no, I didn’t say “he”… unless it was a typo. But you’re right it was Susan Castillo, who I knew as well. She has since left the church and they no longer offer the class.
But the reason they don’t offer the class isn’t because they found anything wrong with it, but because Susan left and moved to Dallas! Although they did tell me they got a lot of complaints about this class.
Anyway, for the person who said Susan doesn’t believe anything non-Biblical, I’m sorry but I’m afraid you’re wrong on that. First, she believes women should be allowed to be pastors and elders. Whatever your stand is on that, we can all agree that it’s not a Biblical stand. So that’s one non-Biblical teaching.
Also, this class she taught was called Way of the Monk. This isn’t a name she just made up. It has been around for hundreds of years and was started by a Catholic monk who was looking for a better way to EXPERIENCE God. So he came up with… guess what? Mystical meditation!
The description of the class said that Susan traveled annually to a monastery where she “honeymooned with Jesus”. So we know she got this from a Catholic monastery. And we know it was originally the teaching of a Catholic mystic. So to suggest that Susan just made this all up on her own and it’s perfectly orthodox, and it just happens to have the exact same name as a well-known Catholic mystic’s form of meditation, is — well, if it’s not just downright dishonest, then it’s a very sloppy vetting of classes.
There is in fact nothing Biblical about the class she was teaching. Part of the class was on the use of a PRAYER ROPE. Yes, that’s right. A rope you use when you pray.
Can anyone guess what the purpose of the prayer rope is? No, it’s not like a rosary exactly. But similar. The purpose as it was taught by Susan is a device to use to clear your mind of ALL THOUGHTS so you can relax and meditate and EXPERIENCE God.
You were supposed to picture all the busy thoughts of your mind traveling down your neck, into your shoulders, down your arms, into your hands and finally into the rope.
This is New Age / Buddhist / Hindu / mystic meditation. This is exactly the tecniques used in self-hypnosis. And if you haven’t studied new age meditation techniques PLEASE, I URGE YOU TO DO SO!
I know there are at least one pastor here and this is such a big issue today and hardly any churches are addressing it. In fact many churches, including Redeemer are embracing it.
The technique of new age meditation is to get extremely quiet, empty your mind of all thoughts and basically put yourself into a light hypnotic trance by repeating a word over and over. The word is called a mantra.
Well, what Susan and others who Redeemer endorses teach, is that you should pick a word from the Bible and repeat it over and over. They don’t call it a mantra. They use Christian language. But the actual technique is exactly the same. And the results are the same as well.
I was just reading some reviews of a book on Amazon by Ken Wilson titled “Mystically Wired”. Wilson teaches these same methods of prayer and meditation and one of his positive reviewers had this to say about it:
“Prayer can be so much more than a simple conversation. It can be a wordless connection with God, a step beyond the boundary of the separated self. It can be a way to LISTEN TO THE SILENCE.”
Then he added that Wilson’s book shows how the brain is designed by God:
“to calm itself, to relax into love, to BECOME INCREASINGLY AWARE OF HOW CONNECTED EVERYTHING IS IN GOD.”
(ALL CAPS – MINE).
And this is exactly what this kind of meditation leads to. But if everything is connected, it is connected by what? Well, New Age / Buddhist / Hindu thought teaches that we’re all connected because we and God are identical. i.e. pantheism.
And that’s what Redeemer endorsed when they allowed Susan to teach this class. They defend it. But they defend it in what I find to be a dishonest way. They defend it by saying that that’s not what it REALLY teaches. But it is exactly what it teaches.
Instead of offering classes like this Redeemer (and all urban churches) should be offering classes in New Age / Buddhist / Hindu spirituality and teaching the flock how to spot it! And teaching the flock why it’s wrong. Because if you’re not studied up on it – it’s so subtle you’ll never see it coming. Just like the poor reviewer of this book! He never saw it coming.
A couple of weeks ago a Redeemer friend was at a bar-b-que with a bunch of Redeemer people. She told me a guy who had been in the church 7 years and was a Sunday school teacher brought a new age book like the one by Ken Wilson to give it to another Redeemer friend. He was raving about it. But my friend knew the book and told me it’s just another book on new age meditation in the guise of a book on Christian prayer. This stuff is RAMPANT at Redeemer and the leaders of the church wash their hands of ALL repsonsibility. They don’t offer classes warning us of it, and in fact, they offer classes that endorse it.
Sorry Jonathan & Mason,
My mistake in reading this too quickly & thinking that ‘he’ (‘the pastor’) was the teacher:
“They taught a class about a year ago — several times actually — called Way of the Monk. This class was rooted deeply in Buddhism (look up Way of the Monk on Google) and universalism. When I questioned the pastor who approved this class about it he got very defensive and ended up insulting me saying I didn’t understand the multi-cultural environment we live in here in NYC but the church did and they presented classes like this to appeal to ALL New Yorkers.”
I apologize for my sloppy error!
Hugh
Hi All,
Just a quick comment regarding the interaction between Jonathan and Mason.
Long before I became a Christian, my parents used to know when I’d been playing with fire in the woods. I always wondered how, and one day I asked my mother, and she said “it’s because you smell of smoke dear, and where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
Now in the case of Redeemer when we see or smell smoke, whether it’s NT Wright speaking, or deaconesses being “accidentally” ordained, or people associated with the church veering off into aberrant theology, we are always given a long and complicated explanation of why the smoke doesn’t indicate the presence of fire. I’m getting a little tired of being told to disregard the evidence and go with the explanation offered by Redeemer as for instance Mason seems to be constantly engaged in doing all over the web.
Because, you see, we don’t constantly get this kind of report about other churches, of comparable size. No one is saying these things about First Presbyterian Jacksonville, or Briarwood or Village Seven, and so on. Once again though we have smoke so we grant the benefit of the doubt, but I have to say I’m getting mighty suspicious there might actually be a fire over yonder.
Andy, boy you said that well! Those are my feelings exactly. There’s smoke all over the place and Redeemer always responds with a long and complicated explanation of why we should ignore it.
WELL SAID! And in fact, I’ve actually gotten to the point of believing if something needs an explanation of more than a couple of sentences, it’s probably wrong!
Jonathan –
Writing an e-mail to elders or pastors or Tim Keller himself isn’t the same as bringing a formal complaint to the Session or Presbytery. As a member, your options are to formally complain to the Session or leave the church. There is absolutely no Biblical or historical precedent for undermining a church and its pastor without first going the proper church courts. You vowed in your membership vows to support the work of the church – by going on these blogs and slamming the church and its leaders you are breaking those vows.
To meet, e-mail me anytime at mmandy@chpnet.org. We’ll set up a time to get together. In the mean time, I suggest your next course of action is to write a letter. It can be your resignation from membership or a formal complaint to the Session. Any other action is simply wrong.
Mason, wow! I’m blown away by your sudden CONCERN that someone keep perfect fidelity to the “law”! Yet, still not a bit of concern that the church is leading people astray! No concern that Redeemer has teachers who teach that the Bible is error-filled. And still no concern that the church is subtly behind the scenes bringing in more and more New Age teachings. And no concern that the church not just tolerates but actually embraces people like N.T. Wright. But an emphatic concern that I must not say anything about those things! Interesting priorities.
However, I really want to be clear. I’m not SLAMMING Redeemer. I’m simply telling the truth about it. And it saddens me greatly and all of this is quite painful for me to go through. But I’m doing this here after more than a year spent in virtual silence – making sure I really knew what the church was doing and that it wasn’t just an accident or oversight. Once I was completely convinced that it’s not accidental, but quite intentional, I had to speak out.
But I didn’t speak out until talking to all the people at the church who were willing to talk to me. I went to them first with my concerns. And I think that’s what the Bible asks us to do. I’m not sure what the church asks us to do… they didn’t give me a list of rules on this when I joined. So I went by what I know the Bible requires. It requires that we speak to the “sinner”, and if they won’t listen that we try to get a few others to speak with us. I did as much as I could in that respect.
And after doing all that I’m now speaking out publicly because of my fidelity to Christ. I’m more concerned that people not get misled by the church than I am at possibly offending the church.
I know no church is perfect and I know ALL churches have some bad theology on something. But this is bad theology on the most major things. And that’s why I’m speaking out.
If you consider the things I’ve said about Redeemer – slamming, then apparently you think the things I’ve said reflect negatively on the church. And since the things I’ve said are true and can be verified quite easily, then possibly you might want to re-think your own feelings (and concerns) toward the church.
I’ve had many people at Redeemer complain that I’m speaking out. Many have told me that I’m being divisive. But Paul had something interesting to say on divisivness. Paul said it was the people who bring us false doctrines who were actually the divisive ones. Not the ones who call them on it. He said people who teach false doctrine bring division.
I didn’t realize that I checked my right to free and truthful speech at the door of the church when I became a member. In fact, I don’t think anything in the Bible calls us to remain silent in the face of false doctrine coming into the church. In fact, just the opposite. I think we’re called to leave as you said AND to warn everybody we can. So I don’t find your commands to me on what my sole course of action must be to be valid.
I do realize that I agreed to submit to the authority of the church and that’s why I’m very sadly leaving Redeemer. I obviously can’t submit to the authority of a church that I think has gone in a non-Biblical direction on core Biblical doctrines. But I do it with immense sadness.
Jonathan –
Since you’ve discussed this, apparently, with elders, pastors, and Dr. Keller himself, along with numerous other Redeemer members, and NONE of them have supported you it seems, have you stopped to consider that you might be wrong? Maybe you are misunderstanding or making more out of this than there it is? Or are you 100% correct on this and EVERYONE else is wrong other than a small handful of agitators on the internet that will gladly bash a pastor and church from afar? I hate to say it, but I think everyone will be better off when you leave Redeemer, and the sooner the better. Good luck finding another church to your liking in New York. Seriously.
Andy Webb –
Please give me your Scriptural evidence and historical Reformed precedent for a man publicly bashing his church and pastor without first going through the appropriate church courts.
And exactly what fire are you looking for “over yonder?” What’s your big “aha!” moment? You and others go all over the internet making petty, unfounded, sometimes plainly absurd accusations with no proof and expect no defense from members of the church? Wouldn’t you expect members of your flock to defend you against unfair attacks? You see “smoke” because Redeemer and Tim Keller are globally influential and aren’t afraid to be innovative and do things outside the precise cookie-cutter mold of the PCA (though in line with the WCF and Scripture). The number of Reformed churches and church-goers has nearly tripled since Redeemer was founded, almost all due to Redeemer’s influence. What have you managed over yonder in your neck of the woods? Has the Reformed presence in your town tripled since you arrived? If not, then perhaps you should be handling things at home rather than gazing at the “smoke” from 800 miles away.
And when your overture is soundly defeated – and it will be – at the GA, will you acknowledge your error and cease your attacks on deaconesses? Just wondering what approach you will take after the church courts reject your thinking.
Mason, how exactly are those churches Reformed when they are part of an eco-system that doesn’t see the need to distinguish Reformed Protestantism from non-Reformed Christianity?
Dr. Hart –
Redeemer partners with and supports mostly PCA and Reformed churches, but also supports non-Reformed churches. If you include the non-Reformed churches they’ve supported, their overall evangelistic influence is that much greater.
I enjoy your blog, by the way, although as a Giants fan I am disappointed in your loyalty to the Eagles…
But, Mason, what kind of Reformed church cooperates or sponsors non-Reformed churches? The ease with which you admit this suggests you may not understand the way some of us use Reformed. It’s New School/ Old School all over again.
Dr Luther –
Since you’ve discussed this, apparently, with elders, pastors, and Cardinal Cajetan himself, along with numerous other Churchmen and NONE of them have supported you it seems, have you stopped to consider that you might be wrong?
Maybe you are misunderstanding or making more out of this than there it is? [???] Or are you 100% correct on this and EVERYONE else is wrong other than a small handful of agitators that will gladly bash a pastor and church from afar?
I hate to say it, but I think everyone will be better off when you leave Mother Church, and the sooner the better. Good luck finding another church to your liking in Germany. Seriously.
Yours,
Johann Eck
Three quick notes per Dr Mason:
>>Redeemer and Tim Keller are globally influential and aren’t afraid to be innovative and do things outside the precise cookie-cutter mold of the PCA (though in line with the WCF and Scripture).
Didn’t know the PCA was all that “cookie cutter”! A not-unrelated post from Dr Ray Ortlund appears at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/rayortlund/2010/06/03/10-truly-reformed/ ALL here interested in Ecu-systems of reputedly reformed pastors should read it. This and the above on Keller beg the questions: “What is it to be Reformed? How prevalent should one’s theology BE?”
>>The number of Reformed churches and church-goers has nearly tripled since Redeemer was founded, almost all due to Redeemer’s influence.
THIS too begs the questions: “What is it to be Reformed? How outwardly ‘Reformed’ *is* RPCA?”
>>What have you managed over yonder in your neck of the woods? Has the Reformed presence in your town tripled since you arrived?
Still we ask: What is it to be Reformed? How prevalent should one’s theology BE? If numbers = success, then Saddleback, Rome, and the LDS are big winners!
Spurgeon said that truth is always in the minority!
Hugh
Mason, I always appreciate your gentle kindness. I appreciate that you don’t scoff and those with whom you disagree. You know it’s funny because Tim has said that when people scoff at others because of doctrinal differences, then maybe they’re making an idol out of something other than God.
There are many people at Redeemer who agree with me and mostly they’ve all left.
Also, I’m concerned about your method of determining truth. It seems to be based on whether or not people agree. Truth should be determined with how well it holds up to the Bible.
If you’re in a church that’s teaching errant doctrine it should be no surprise that the remaining people don’t agree. What does agreement or disagreement have to do with whether anything I’ve said here is true.
You actually in your response have not responded to any of the problems I’ve pointed out. You’ve actually only responded with personal attacks on me. So I really don’t see any reason to continue the conversation with you. I’ve learned when people want to respond with personal attacks it’s better to just drop out of the conversation.
If you’d like to address any of the issues I’ve brought up though I’m happy to respond to that. But you have not once said why I’m wrong on anything. But you have belittled me and you’ve demeaned me. Would you like to take a stab at pointing out the flaws or untruths in anything I’ve said about Redeemer here.
Once again, everything I’ve said is public information. You can see it all right on their website. Or download and listen to Tim’s sermons. So, everything I’ve said can be verified for truthfulness.
By the way you guys… if I could just use Mason as an example here. He truly typifies the kind of reactions I get from a lot of people at Redeemer. They’re very angry that anyone would dare to criticize the church. And they’re completely dismissive of the complaints… quickly relegating the complainer to the status of STUPID.
I guess that’s not surprising coming from people who I personally don’t believe are following Biblical Christianity. I guess we shouldn’t expect them to take seriously Peter’s admonition to respond to people with gentleness and RESPECT. (I Peter 3:16).
And I can’t help but note the seeming hypocrisy in being told exactly what I must do to keep within Biblical bounds (while ignoring the fact that I’ve already done it!), while ignoring all the non-Biblical teachings going on and brushing them off with a simple, “IT DOESN’T CONCERN ME.”.
Jonathan,
You narrow-minded, Fundamentalist bigot! This is just the kind of tripe we expect from you Neanderthal-types:
“Also, I’m concerned about your method of determining truth. It seems to be based on whether or not people agree. Truth should be determined with how well it holds up to the Bible.”
You tight-shoed, tiny-souled, Bible-thumping morons can go jump in the Hudson, or better yet, go back to Backwoods, Arkansas, where you and your IRRELEVANT friends belong!
WE’RE winning 1000’s GLOBALLY, so THERE! What have YOU done, lately?! We’re winning the WORLD with our message!
The truth is
(1) what we say it is;
(2) what packs the house;
(3) what seems reasonable to all.
Ouch! You got me Mason. I must bow out of this argument due to my utter lack of significance.
You’re right. All I did was come to Fayetteville in 2002, plant a church using outmoded and bound to fail Old School methods with 11 people, and now 8 years later all we have are a little over 100 members and are currently struggling to build a building. Man that old story must have been repeated what for 2000 years now? We are so backwards and bookwoods ignorant we reckon a Gospel “echo system” is something you get when you reads John chapter 3 out loud in a cave! And we are so outside the mainstream most of our members don’t even have a PCA background and some are even converts. We’ve so failed to contextualize and adapt to the local setting that we’ve utterly failed to get anywhere close to the roughly 60% divorce rate for Fayetteville and are still stuck at 0%. And justice and mercy ministry? There again we are utter failures. All we do is offer diaconal support to those in need (oh, and we only use offensively manly men to do so). We’re even dopey enough to believe that the mission of the church is found in Matthew 28 not Acts 29. Ugh.
Well after our attempt to enforce that old school stifling male hierarchy fails and the uber-hip who know what’s best for the church blaze another new trail into the glorious social gospel future I guess we’ll have to join one of them NAPARC micro-denominations and stumble on, maybe plant a church or two, preach the gospel or something. But we’ll definitely never be in the New Yorker or get interviewed by Larry King, in fact, no one who really matters will probably even know we existed.
If only I’d embraced the right use of means, this abject failure might have been avoided. Sigh.
Well, Mason, you’re the future of evangelicalism. I guess you’ll have to go on to the bright future without me. I’m a walkin’ that dusty old paths trail.
Signing off,
Andy
Dr. Hart –
No need getting in to that debate again- we’ll have to agree to disagree on our definition of Reformed.
Hugh –
I got a good laugh out of the Martin Luther post. Comparing Jonathan to Martin Luther, Tim Keller to the Pope, and this blog to the 95 Theses is classic! Martin Luther spoke out against sacerdotalism, indulgences, and the importance of sola fide. Jonathan is speaking out against…the title of a class? You’re right though, the similarities are uncanny! I’m not arguing that numbers are everything in Christianity. I am arguing that sticking your neck out and engaging the world comes at a price. It’s easy to sit back in Arkansas or Indiana or wherever there’s a Protestant church on every street corner and go through the motions. It’s quite another to go into the heart of the most powerful, influential, and secular city in the country and have an impact there that spreads globally.
Pastor Webb –
Another classic response! I love the sarcasm, really, because what you intended to be tongue in cheek is truer than maybe even you realize. You seem to relish the small-town church, which is fine. But Paul and Peter both ended up in Rome, not the back woods of some small Asian province. They were outspoken and had a global influence, rather than sitting back and taking potshots at their brethren from thousands of miles away. They engaged the philosophers of Athens, rather than decrying the “uber-hip.” They went to the secular, pagan, powerful city of Rome rather than hiding away in a small Christian stronghold.
Now who is more like Peter and Paul, and who is more like…I dunno, someone unnamed in the Bible? There’s nothing wrong with being a nobody, but then the nobodies shouldn’t go around always finding fault with the somebodies. There are plenty of issues in your place that you could be focusing on rather than harping on Redeemer and Keller. And writing useless overtures that are sure to be rejected…
Mason,
Are there “nobodies” in the body of Christ? Are “somebodies”? Really? Where in the Pauline corpus would we find that attitude? Seems to me he says “In Christ there is no….” Seems to me that the bulk of 1 Cor deals with this very thing. We don’t have super apostles. We just have Paul preaching the foolishness of cross.
He didn’t have any glorious strategies, not that we know about, except to preach Christ, administer the sacraments and administer discipline.
What are we talking about here?
Paging Dr Mason,
Glad you had a chuckle. But you missed (surprise!) the point by trying to find correspondence in too many points. Oh well. The point was that your stance against Jonathan’s criticisms of Rome, I mean Redeemer, reminds some of us of the papists’ blind heavy-handedness against Luther.
It’s a good thing, BTW, that Luther didn’t stop criticizing. Jonathan is no Luther (duh, doc!), but he may be right, and you may be wrong, man.
My point is that though a hundred Presbyterian elders say something is true (or good, or right), don’t make it so, anymore than Rome was right, though she had the majority report.
Short form: Numbers (you did make much of them) and ‘innovation’ do not truth make. You seem to be a pragmatist, fairly unconcerned about theological truth. Are you a PCA ruling elder? {I knew it!}
“engaging the world,” or capitulating to it?
“have an impact,” or implode under false teaching? Maybe, just maybe, Jonathan is right, and the emperor (despite your catty protestations and those of the GA) is truly naked…
“that spreads globally,” begs the question, “WHAT’S it spreading?” Yuck!
Your house is left unto you desolate, and you’re missing it, man.
Hugh
* Peter going to Rome is Rome’s contention, not ours, O Reformed church defender. And Paul hardly went there to make a ‘global impact’ or to church-plant and tell sodomites that being gay doesn’t send one to Hell, or to ordain deaconesses! “They were outspoken and had a global influence…” Now THAT’S funny, coming from you, Mason.
Mason, what version of Reformed are using that cooperates with Arminians? Sure, we’ll have to disagree. But we’ll have to agree that your understanding is not Reformed. If you don’t see any problem with Arminianism then I don’t know what you mean by Reformed.
DGH,
So do you now define reformed not only by people’s theology, but by how they interact with people of different theology? It seems you are taking the idea of being Reformed to another level. If you decide to make this an additional requirement for being Reformed, what are the boundaries of this requirement? For example:
a. Is a person/church Reformed who partners with Arminians on social gospel initiatives – like sending some of your congregation to feed the homeless at a Salvation Army soup kitchen? We do that; does that disqualify us from being Reformed?
b. If we hold a training class on gospel- centered, reformed, Van Tillian methods of apologetics and witness for laypeople and allow Arminian churches to come and bring their people – are we disqualified? We just did that; two reformed churches got together to teach people how to defend their faith but – egads- some Alliance people heard about the conference on the Web and registered, showed up and enjoyed the teaching.
So, just to be clear; how does one KNOW when one is being Reformed under this new definition of being ‘Reformed’? Where are these boundaries of who you can work with and cannot? And who makes the rules? You? Show me e in the Westminster Standards where it delineates these boundaries you are clearly presupposing in your comments.
Dan, it is not exactly new for Calvinists to have no fellowship with Arminians. Have you heard of the Synod of Dort? 1618 isn’t exactly recent.
To bring it a little closer to home, have you heard of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Christian Reformed Church, or the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America? At one point each of these communions refused to join the National Association of Evangelicals because that body tolerated Arminianism.
I like that you have connected social gospel to Arminianism because many of us believe that the social gospel is a form or works righteousness. You see, there is a long debate among American Presbyterians, at least, about the church’s involvement in social activism. Old School Presbyterians excluded New Schoolers partly over this in 1838. The PCA, the communion in which Keller is a minister, used to uphold the spirituality of the church. So there is precedent even in Keller’s own church for questioning his logic and methods.
BTW, the Westminster Standards teach that there are churches that are more or less in error. The reason for that is to discern which churches with which to have fellowship.
Your point, in other words, seems to do little with the notion of fraternal relations and the ecumencial committees that Reformed churches have for determining which churches with which to have fellowship.
Of course, when you ask about a believer/church you also tread lightly upon the important distinction between the church as institution and the church as body of believers. Just because I engage in plumbing and do so as a legitimate vocation doesn’t mean that the institutional church is called to do so. So yes, doctrine and the teaching ministry of the institutional church (as in ministry of the Word) is pretty important for understanding Reformed.
Dr. Mandy:
If you think that Fayetteville is backwoods, please do a Google search on Fort Bragg and find out what it means to be planting a church outside one of the largest Army posts in the United States.
Fayetteville is for the United States Army what cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are for other parts of American culture.
Rev. Webb might just have a calling to plant churches in a military community and if you’re going to do that, you’re probably not going to go to New York, unless it’s a few miles up the river near West Point.
By the way, I live outside Fort Leonard Wood. This is backwoods compared to Fort Bragg, but not if you’re in the Army engineer, MP, or chemical corps.
Wresting Scripture outa context for fun (sorry, ’twas irresistible):
JER 6:16 ~ Thus saith the LORD, ‘Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for THE OLD PATHS, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.’ But they said, ‘We will not walk therein.’
LUKE 5:39 ~ No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, ‘THE OLD IS BETTER.’
{Argh! That silly, irrelevant* old English!}
Seriously, CHRIST is the path, way, rest, & wine we need! As we truly point to him (in olde English or new), we are faithful. Let God give the increase if he will.
Hugh
* THE mortal sin of ‘successful’ church planting (eco-systematics) is anything seemingly irrelevant.
Nay, but O Scott, who art thou that repliest against SUCCESS?!
“We don’t have super apostles.”
> We most certainly do! OK, you may not, but we have Rick Warren & Tim Keller.
“We just have Paul preaching the foolishness of cross. He didn’t have any glorious strategies, not that we know about, except to preach Christ, administer the sacraments and administer discipline.”
> You’re a loser and Paul was a loser. Am reminded of Rob’t Schuller on White Horse Inn a billion years back explaining that he couldn’t preach the way Jesus and Paul did b/c he reaches more people (via TV & radio in those days) than they did. To impact more folks, you have to be more inclusive!
Jonathan –
I never attacked you personally. I said I doubted you would contact me personally or make formal complaints through the church courts. To date you have done neither. I have indeed interacted with your concerns. I know nothing about Ron Choong, so I can’t comment on him, but if you scroll up you’ll notice I have refuted your complaints about Susan Castillo’s Way of the Monk class. I also discussed Keller’s view of the heavens and earth, and how they are indeed biblical. So yes, I have interacted with your specific complaints. If I have offended you, I apologize. But I strongly disagree with your methodology in dealing with your concerns.
Dr. Clark –
Sure, generally speaking, there “great” and “least” in the Kingdom of God. As Calvin says, there are those at the front and those at the back of the queue to get into heaven. I don’t know that it applies here, but there is some degree of distinction in the Body. God gives many talents and much responsibility to some, and to others he does not. Surely you wouldn’t disagree with that? Perhaps the terms “nobodies” and “somebodies” aren’t the best choice of words, but there are the men God uses to great degrees for His Kingdom, such as a Tim Keller, and then there are others, like myself, who are only used in minor ways. I would call myself a “nobody” – there’s nothing wrong with it, but my point is the guys in the small churches should make sure their churches are exemplary before criticizing others from afar. Andy Webb and others can easily criticize Keller because he pastors a large, influential, visible church. His practices are easy to identify and criticize. On the other hand, who really pays attention to a small church in Fayetteville? I’m sure we could find just as much “smoke” if we suddenly focused our attention there.
As for strategy, I would disagree that they had no strategy. Paul always approached the Jews first, then the Gentiles. He went to big, influential cities. He planted “epicenter” churches, to use a phrase from Harry Reeder (pastor of Briarwood). Did the Apostles have a more detailed, comprehensive strategy? The Bible doesn’t say they did, but it also doesn’t say they didn’t. They preached the Gospel, indeed. And isn’t that Keller’s point after all? Sticking to the Gospel message above all else?
Hugh –
Jonathan may be 100% right and I may be 100% wrong on this, but I wouldn’t call my dismissal of his complaints blind or heavy-handed. I’m a member of Redeemer also, remember, so I have just as much knowledge – if not more – of what goes on than he does. I know far, far more than you or anyone else on this board besides Jonathan, for that matter. I’ve spoken in person, face to face, with the parties involved here about these very issues. So I think I’m a pretty good judge of his complaints. God has used Redeemer to bring thousands of people to Himself and plant hundreds of churches around the world, all with a Gospel-centric view. And you say “Yuck” to that?
As much as I’ve enjoyed this discussion, I’ll be away for the next couple of weeks on a trip to Spain and Rome. I’ll be checking in, but won’t be posting with as much frequency….
Enjoy Spain and Rome, and your rest from ‘Geneva’ and Westminster…
Mason,
While it may be true that there are now greatest and least, have you considered that the greatest will become the least and the least the greatest? And if you’re a small fish in Keller’s big pond what does that make no account schmucks like me in least-y churches? I think you have a point about fellows running around blogdom openly bad mouthing their own leadership (not exactly decent and orderly), but your sense of great and least sure undermines what it means to be decent.
Mason,
(1) You say, “Jonathan may be 100% right and I may be 100% wrong on this, but I wouldn’t call my dismissal of his complaints blind or heavy-handed.”
>>OK, but they came off like: “Love it or lump it; shut up & submit or ship out!”
(2) “I’m a member of Redeemer also, remember, so I have just as much knowledge – if not more – of what goes on than he does. I know far, far more than you or anyone else on this board besides Jonathan, for that matter. I’ve spoken in person, face to face, with the parties involved here about these very issues. So I think I’m a pretty good judge of his complaints.”
>>Fine; I’m not disputing these. But given that Tim Keller and RPC appear to be less-than-zealous in holding forth Reformed soteric distinctives, I question your knowledge of the sovereignty of God, not your familiarity with people or issues. How you discern what is true in these debates is vitally important, as you no doubt agree.
>>So you have knowledge, far, far more knowledge than anyone reading this (apart from the Searcher of hearts). You’ve even spoken to people face to face! Great. But given the teaching coming from Keller (the three quotes in this thread are horrible) and his association with N.T. Wright, we are seeing bad fruit.
(3) “God has used Redeemer to bring thousands of people to Himself and plant hundreds of churches around the world, all with a Gospel-centric view. And you say “Yuck” to that?”
>>We will have to wait until glory to determine whether “God has used Redeemer to bring thousands of people to Himself.” Many are called, few are chosen. As DGH & I have said, Rome has a great induction program, too.
>>I quoted from your assertion, “It’s quite another to go into the heart of the most powerful, influential, and secular city in the country and have an impact there that spreads globally.” I said this begs the question, “WHAT’S it spreading?” Yuck!
>>I asked this rhetorically, as I see from Keller’s lame assertions on sodomy (here) and other issues (The Reason For God) dubious fruit. That such is being spread globally is yucky.
>>BP could assert: “It’s quite another to go into the heart of one of the deepest points in the Gulf of Mexico, and have an impact there that spreads globally.” BP’s abilities to drill are not at issue. That Keller is persuasive and pervasive is not, either. But like BP’s “overflow,” it’s what TK is spreading that’s disconcerting.
Bon voyage,
Hugh
Mason, you wrote, “God has used Redeemer to bring thousands of people to Himself and plant hundreds of churches around the world, all with a Gospel-centric view. And you say “Yuck” to that?”
Same goes for Rick Warren. In the numbers game, he’s done more than Keller. I know, it’s only measly little So. Cal., not the bright lights, big city that is NYC. Still, if you’re talking numbers and influence, you could put Warren up against Keller.
And some of us would say “yuck” — in an affirming and charitable way, of course — to that. And our grounds for that Spirit-filled yuck would be that Warren is not Reformed. No offense, but my sense of Redeemer folk is that Warren would receive a yuck because he’s not Manhattan chic.
Either way, the numbers you keep touting don’t really matter. Roman Catholicism is the largest church in the United States, and they believe in Jesus. At some point, you’ve got to pay the Reformed piper (not John).
Mason, please. You say, “but I wouldn’t call my dismissal of his complaints blind or heavy-handed…”!? Really, so what do you call it when someone says:
“…but I think everyone will be better off when you leave Redeemer, and the sooner the better.”
What is that? Is that kind? Is it gentle? Where I’m from it would be called downright rude & mean. And it gets really frustrating because those who are the most ardent supporters of Tim & Redeemer can also be the rudest. Which is especially surprising in light of the fact that Tim teaches this:
“An idol is something that we look to for things that only God can give. Idolatry functions widely inside religious communities when doctrinal truth is elevated to the position of a false god. This occurs when people rely on the rightness of their doctrine for their standing with God rather than on God himself and his grace. It is a subtle but deadly mistake. The sign that you have fallen into this form of self-justification is that you become what the book of Proverbs calls a scoffer . Scoffers always show contempt and disdain for opponents rather than graciousness. This is a sign that they do not see themselves as sinners saved by grace. Instead, their trust in the rightness of their views makes them feel superior.”
–Tim Keller
So while Tim I think was talking about people like some of us here who do hold doctrine in a high position, I think this could be applied to people like you as well. Tim says “scoffers always show contempt and disdain for opponents rather than graciousness.”
And Mason, I think it could be easily said that that’s how you’ve treated some of us.
We know anything can be made an idol. I think we could change Tim’s quote a bit to the context of this conversation and say:
“Idolatry functions widely inside religious communities when the pastor is elevated to the position of a false god.”
Again, I’m happy to talk about the issues, but I will ask that you please refrain from attacking me or even talking about me. Just talk about the issues. No need to talk about what I may or may not know or who I may or may not have talked to in person. You don’t know that. No need to insinuate that I love to go online and attack my church and pastor. Let’s just not talk about me at all. Let’s talk about the issues.
So, along those lines, do you think it’s Biblically accurate to say that the “primary purpose of salvation is cultural renewal – to make THIS world a better place.” ?
Hugh, you said: “We will have to wait until glory to determine whether “God has used Redeemer to bring thousands of people to Himself.”
And sadly, I think that’s true. I’ve actually come to the view that Redeemer can be like a boomerang. It brings them in, then just as quickly turns them around and ships them out!
Quick story. Recently a wonderful guy began coming to the fellowship group that I led. He grew up a Jew and became a Christian as a result of reading Reason for God and then attending Redeemer.
Some of you here might question genuineness of his conversion, but I’m convinced of it. He is deeply indebted to Tim and the church because he credits them with being the ones who led to his committing his life to Christ.
As we studied the Bible together he had a deep respect for its words and I could tell he truly believed it was the Word of God.
However, over time I began to notice that he became gradually more and more skeptical of certain Biblical claims that we’d talk about. As I began to ask him about the source of his skepticism he told me he had been attending this wonderful class taught by Ron Choong called Project Timothy. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think Project Timothy is directly connected to Redeemer, but certainly the classes are filled with Redeemerites. And Ron does teach Sunday classes at Redeemer.
He invited me to attend one of Ron’s classes and that’s the one where I heard Ron say all the things I posted above. After sitting through the class it became crystal clear why he was starting to become so skeptical of Biblical reliability.
When you’re taught by an intellectual Christian leader that the Bible was put together in such a sloppy way because the people doing it had no idea at the time that they were working with the Word of God… then it pretty much opens you up to question any Biblical that you for whatever reason don’t wish to believe.
And that’s what I’ve seen happening to my friend. We have been in a long-running email conversation about some of the things being taught at the church and if you could see the convoluted intellectual steps he’s willing to take to get the Bible to conform to Tim Keller’s teachings, rather than the other way around… it would take your breath away. It’s so sad to see.
So, I do agree that some people do come to Christ through the ministries of Tim and Redeemer. But almost as soon as they do they start getting indoctrinated with the very kinds of teachings that will ultimately lead them away from their new-found faith.
I also know other people whose faith I do question on various grounds. So I think there’s a lot of I guess what you could call, shallow commitment too.
Jonathan,
Thanks for this. I called Redeemer and talked to one of the elders. They are checking out Ron’s teaching on inerrancy, but Project Timothy is not related to them. This elder has sat in on Ron’s courses – which are, he says, restricted to standard doctrinal topics – Systematic theology stuff. Redeemer does not have Ron speak on the topic of bibliology. He was surprised that anyone was challenging Ron on inerrancy, though, and is looking into it. He has never heard this complaint before.
By the way, he advised me strongly to be gentle and gracious in any communications regarding Tim and Redeemer, so if I have crossed the line I apologize and ask for your forgiveness.
Dan MacDonald
Hi Dan,
Thanks so much for doing that! And yes, I believe I said here (but who could go back through all these hundreds of posts and really find out!?) that Project Timothy isn’t a part of Redeemer. But Ron is… he teaches there on some Sundays. I don’t know what he teaches. But I have to tell you, I didn’t hear him say anything in that class that would give believers CONFIDENCE in the reliability of the Bible.
His talks at Project Timothy are videoed, so presumably the elders could watch any of them. I also just remembered I took some photos of his notes on the board. Which I think are almost readable, if anyone would like to see them. Anyway, I have a feeling that no one at Redeemer will have any problem with anything Ron taught.
Also, you said Redeemer doesn’t have him speak on bibliology. As if it’s okay to have someone with his, how shall we say – “innovative beliefs” – teach on anything. (For instance he doesn’t believe Adam and Eve were two real and specific people. He believes they were a “composite hominid that was endowed with a moral compass”.
This excuse that they don’t allow teachers to teach on the specific bad doctrines they may hold is the same thing they did with N.T. Wright. They invited him in while saying ‘we’re not going to let him teach on the things we disagree with him on.’
So in the end they’re able to have a whole panoply of people with rather bizarre views (from a Biblical standpoint) come in and teach and if anyone raises a question they simply say, “well, we don’t ask them to talk on THAT”!
But at some point a church has to be known for the friends it keeps. And if a church keeps very theologically liberal friends… at what point are we allowed to conclude that the church is theologically liberal?
It’s the same thing they’re doing with Jan Johnson, (new age “Christian” “spiritual director” who teaches on “Christian” meditation), Henri Nouwen (who believed there were many ways to heaven), Richard Foster (same… plus the fact he holds some Marxist economic views that he wrote about in a book that one of the Redeemer Faith & Work groups studied recently).
Redeemer is inviting in A LOT of people who hold very radical views (for an evangelical church) and they excuse it by saying they don’t ask them to teach on their radical views, just their good views.
I’m sorry, but I can’t buy that any longer. A pattern has been established at Redeemer. When a church over and over again invites people in with radical or heretical views at some point you have to say those people represent what the church really believes.
If it was just one here or there, I could understand some excuse-making. But it’s constant at Redeemer.
You know, now that I think about it, and I know this is going to sound pretty harsh and I don’t mean it that way at all. I just mean it as the most accurate description I can find for my experience with Redeemer over the last year. It’s like a world where up is down and down is up. You’re constantly told that what you see plainly on its face, is not what it appears to be… at all.
N.T. Wright coming in is in no way a reflection of Redeemer’s view on the atonement. Endorsements and promotion of Henri Nouwen in no way suggests that Redeemer believes there are many ways to God. Endorsement and promotion of Jan Johnson and Richard Foster IN NO WAY SUGGEST that Redeemer supports “contemplative prayer” or new age meditation! Even though it’s endorsing classes, and authors and teachers who do!
It’s an upside down world. And I couldn’t figure it out for a long time. But I think I’ve just about concluded I’m going to go with what’s plain on the surface and stop listening to all the excuses and justifications – because in the end, they just don’t ring true.
Dan,
By the way… did you have the list of things I posted here earlier that Ron had said in that class when you spoke with the elder? I’d really like to see someone at Redeemer respond specifically to those things that Ron said during the class. And even if they feel each and everyone can be defended, do they feel that taken as a whole they support Biblical inerrancy or they undermine it.
By the way, one last thing for anyone who is trying to assess the direction Redeemer has taken, you can do it pretty easily by checking out their website, http://Redeemer.com.
The first thing you’ll see at the very top is the church’s mission statement, which is:
“Seeking to renew the City Socially, Spiritually & Culturally”
I think that really says a lot. Yes, it is a matter of interpretation on what you might think it means, but there is no question that that’s what it says.
Then click on About Us/Vision & Values — then over on the right click on CORE VALUES. (or just click here: http://redeemer.com/about_us/vision_and_values/core_values.html)
I think that pretty much says it all. It confirms what Tim has said in talks that he believes the primary purpose of salvation is “cultural renewal — to make this world a better place” (that’s Core Value #1).
In Core Value #2, we find that Christ liberates us in order to accept people we once excluded and break the bondage of things that once drove us. In particular, the gospel makes us welcoming and respectful toward those who don’t share our beliefs.
Are all those things true? I think yes. But is this the #2 most important thing about being a Christian? I don’t think so.
And that’s how it goes with Redeemer. True things that are minor are promoted to major and true things that are major are demoted to minor.
One purpose of salvation, it seems to me is, that we are rescued from an eternal death and punishment in hell and taken to eternal life with God in heaven… becomes a very minor point at Redeemer. (Cultural renewal is much more emphasized).
If you ask a Redeemer pastor directly if he believes that salvation saves us from hell and takes us to heaven, he’ll say of course yes. But it’s once in a blue moon that you’ll actually every hear it preached in a sermon on Sunday. (And I don’t know how often blue moons occur, so I should specify that that’s if blue moons occur only maybe once a year!)
I wouldn’t mind if Tim taught that a **by-product** of salvation ***COULD*** possibly be cultural renewal if enough people in the culture were saved and began to live by Biblical principles and values. But to say it’s the primary thing – I think is wrong because the emphasis is wrong.
It’s all a matter of emphasis at Redeemer. I think minor things are made into major things — which is a little ironic when you think about it. Because Tim talks so often about how we can turn good things into idols by emphasizing them too much.
In the end the church really begins to revolve around the idea of cultural renewal (as his illustrated by its mission statement at the top of each page of the website and it’s #1 Core Value).
I wonder whatever happened to a “What We Believe” statement that most churches provide? You know, where they talk about our belief in the Bible as the inerrant and literal Word of God. Where theymight mention man’s sinfulness and Christ’s gift of forgiveneses? I don’t see anything like that on Redeemer’s site. I wish I knew if that was there a few years ago. I thought it was, but maybe not. I never paid much attention to the site until recently. But I’m not even sure that the term “core values” has a Biblical basis.
Jonathan,
Thanks for your posts. Great points to Dr Mason!
I tried teaching my young adult group _Reason for God_ (thanks BTW for correcting my title error), and they were too Bible savvy to hang with my trying to validate and rationalize TK’s dancing around issues (we are 6 day creationists, for one thing) and lack of Scripture or clear sovereign grace gospel witness.
It read like a NYT best seller for religious urbane urbanites.
I’m sure God has used it for his glory to both call folks to Christ, and to harden others against him.
hughmc5 AT hotmail.com if you want to write me.
Yours,
Hugh McCann
Wow, this is some of the harshest stuff I have read on the internet about Tim Keller. Most of the stuff I have read until now has been praise about having a Biblically based, church planting church in the heart of New York City that is committed to the gospel and to Jesus Christ. You guys treat him here like he slapped your mother or something.
For what it is worth, this type of dialogue doesn’t seem corrective at all. Has anyone asked Redeemer why they invited N.T Wright to speak at their Faith and Work Conference? I did. They cited to me a PCA approved paper denoting that the PCA can learn lots from Wright and that they saw this as encouragment to actually speak with him. I bought that.
As for the “accident” of saying ordination vows to a woman, I got a personal note from the individual who actually said it (btw–it wasn’t Tim Keller), who said he messed up, came from a different denomination and was being careless. I bought that too. Besides, I have seen pastors mess up at the Lord’s Table before–which in my mind is a lot worse than this. Nobody is going after those individuals.
Lastly, all this gospel eco-systems stuff Tim is saying sounds a lot like Jonathan Edwards. If you haven’t read Edwards’ piece “On Revival” I strongly suggest you do so. Tim Keller in basically repeating this piece in modern language. Again, no one I know thinks Edwards is “post-modern” or drastically outside the realm of orthodoxy.
Instead of trying to behead one of the lights of evangelicalism, why does this blog seem hell bent on posting transcripts (like the one where Tim Keller speaks to Covenant Seminary students) that places pauses and common language breaks as a means to discredit the sayer? If it was me speaking on the subject, I think I would have as many of those pauses as well. Anyway, sorry for the mini-sermon, but if this blog is filled with men who strive for holiness, I don’t think it is good for any of our souls to stew.Blogs hve enabled this ablility which only further our inability to talk to each other and reconcile. Blessings to you all.
Richard,
Blessings to you, too. But there is life outside the PCA. You may never have read anything as scathing on Keller, but are many sites that deal with issues by those concerned about the PCA’s trajectory. See GreenBaggins and GodsHammer.
To address your concerns:
Richard Stevens, on June 21, 2010 at 9:15 am Said:
>>Wow, this is some of the harshest stuff I have read on the internet about Tim Keller. Most of the stuff I have read until now has been praise about having a Biblically based, church planting church in the heart of New York City that is committed to the gospel and to Jesus Christ. You guys treat him here like he slapped your mother or something.
>If we consider the church our “mother,” then this is an apt analogy ~ yes, he’s slapped our mother with his weak defense of truth and his ecumenism.
>>For what it is worth, this type of dialogue doesn’t seem corrective at all.
>Then please allow me to correct my fault in that: Repent of blindly following the PCA!
>>Has anyone asked Redeemer why they invited N.T Wright to speak at their Faith and Work Conference? I did. They cited to me a PCA approved paper denoting that the PCA can learn lots from Wright and that they saw this as encouragment to actually speak with him. I bought that.
>You need to reevaluate your PCA in the light of Scripture, not just implicitly trust their pronouncements. 1 Thes. 5:21. Bishop Wright encourages heretical thinking. He’s wrong on justification, and hence, unfit to address the church, a “PCA approved paper” to the contrary notwithstanding!
>>As for the “accident” of saying ordination vows to a woman, I got a personal note from the individual who actually said it (btw–it wasn’t Tim Keller), who said he messed up, came from a different denomination and was being careless. I bought that too.
>They’re selling ya a bill o’ goods!
>>Besides, I have seen pastors mess up at the Lord’s Table before–which in my mind is a lot worse than this. Nobody is going after those individuals.
>Well, they oughta be! If Redeemer is ordaining deaconesses, woe be to them.
>>Lastly, all this gospel eco-systems stuff Tim is saying sounds a lot like Jonathan Edwards. If you haven’t read Edwards’ piece “On Revival” I strongly suggest you do so. Tim Keller in basically repeating this piece in modern language. Again, no one I know thinks Edwards is “post-modern” or drastically outside the realm of orthodoxy.
>I have read Edwards, and know of his desire to join hands with other churches. You’ll also like his _A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God_
and _Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God_. For all his brilliance, Edwards was not inspired, and we ought not follow him where he erred. If he or Keller or we desire to work with those who oppose the true gospel of God’s sovereign grace, then we are being unfaithful to Christ.
>>Instead of trying to behead one of the lights of evangelicalism, why does this blog seem hell bent on posting transcripts (like the one where Tim Keller speaks to Covenant Seminary students) that places pauses and common language breaks as a means to discredit the sayer? If it was me speaking on the subject, I think I would have as many of those pauses as well.
>”Behead”? “Hell bent”? Pretty strong, condemnatory language if you’re trying to convince us to be nicer! Keller’s coughs were copied from Baylys’ blog. It is queer (pun intended) that a well-trained teacher of preachers hems and haws so at his own PCA’s seminary, among his friendly admirers, as much as he did @ Veritas Forum among God haters. The point is that he talks too much and says too little that’s biblical. He failed to stand, Richard, when he had great opportunities to do so. That’s my disappointment with him, and my warning to others – he doesn’t STAND and contend, instead, he dances with wolves and sings songs pleasing to the dogs. Uh, er, um, well, yeah, but… He’s more like Rick Warren than John the Baptist.
>>Anyway, sorry for the mini-sermon, but if this blog is filled with men who strive for holiness, I don’t think it is good for any of our souls to stew.Blogs hve enabled this ablility which only further our inability to talk to each other and reconcile. Blessings to you all.
>Good points ~ we need to think and pray and love and listen more. But we are also called to contend because the church is under attack from within as well as from without:
Jude 3f ~ “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
Acts 20: 30f ~ “from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert…”
Romans 16:17 ~ “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.”
>To return to my first point: These all presuppose that one has a standard above the church’s thinking on Anglican agitators or ecu-systems or women’s ordination, by which to judge such things; as well presupposing that one has the ability to do so. Paul assumed this here, too: 1 Thes. 5:21 ~ “test everything; hold fast what is good.”
Yours,
Hugh
Dear Richard,
I would like to respond to a couple of things you mentioned.
a) Just to clarify your comments about transcriptions, I would suggest that there is nothing of the sort you describe in the transcription which is the subject of the original post. I treated Dr Keller as I would like to be treated were our positions reversed: scrupulous accuracy, along with a courteous passing over of minor stutterings, etc., that conveyed no meaningful content. Check it over and tell me if things are so. If they are, it would be courteous of you to ammend your comments accordingly.
b) I have read “On Revival,” as well as a few other things Edwards wrote. I can tell you that Edwards never advocated cooperation outside of the confessional Reformed camp. Notice that Edwards gives a list of 7 things to further the revival work already in progress (Yale Edition vol. 4:496-530). The second listed is “Orthodoxy Should be Reaffirmed.” In it, Edwards was laying in to those within his own “denomination” (Saybrook Platform associations of churches) who were tending towards Arminianism. (503) He believed that God was in effect cursing the work of these “fashionable” ministers, while affirming the doctrines of Grace through genuine spiritul fruit. Cooperating with avowed Arminians (whom he considered little better than Deists) would be beyond his imagination.
Incidently, the fourth item is “Ministers Should Seek Grace, Zeal, and Courage” (506). I think Edwards lived that. He went to the mat over doctrinal and ecclesiastical purity, over a specific matter that too many of us would consider to be of completely secondary importance (the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.) He was willing to pay the price of unpopularity with his own congregation, rejection, and ejection from his pulpit. The day we see ministers of today willing to do the same is the day they can legitimately call Edwards their father.
In Christ,
Bill
Amen, Bill. Hey, Richard: What he said…
Bill, you’ve read Edwards more recently than I, I think, and better remember him.
While I am not as polite or articulate as you are here, I appreciate your answer to Richard and hope he does too!
Hang in there, Jonathan!
Hugh
Hi Richard,
I just wanted to address one thing you said:
“For what it is worth, this type of dialogue doesn’t seem corrective at all. Has anyone asked Redeemer why they invited N.T Wright to speak at their Faith and Work Conference? I did. They cited to me a PCA approved paper denoting that the PCA can learn lots from Wright and that they saw this as encouragment to actually speak with him. I bought that.”
Yes, I asked as well, and they cited the same thing to me that they did to you. What the “PCA approved paper” you’re talking about actually said (and I this isn’t an exact quote, I actually have it on my other computer, but it’s being upgraded right now and inaccessible for a few days… but this is very close to completely accurate), was that while we understand there are problems with some of Wright’s teachings, we don’t think that should prevent us from availing ourselves to his good teachings.
And Tim said if our own, I think it was General Assembly, doesn’t see anything wrong with learning from Wright’s good teachings, then Redeemer shouldn’t either.
Well… you’re right – they did have an answer, and it was basically as you said.
However, several people disagree with that assessment. Personally, knowing some of what Wright’s “bad” teachings are, I’m appalled that they’d let him anywhere near the church. Because when they do, they are telling the members that Wright is an approved and endorsed Christian teacher.
They told me that they weren’t going to let Wright speak on any of his “controversial” topics, and he in fact didn’t SPEAK on them. But, guess what? After the talk, there was a book table where ALL of Wright’s books were on sale and people were gobbling them up like crazy!
There was no warning from Redeemer about Wright’s errant teachings. No statement was made in his introduction to let Redeemerites know that while we agree with Wright on some things, we strongly disagree with him on THE MOST IMPORTANT things! And they could have added to that that if a “Christian” teacher gets the most important things wrong, you should be very wary and alert because chances are they’ll get a lot of little things wrong too!
Of course they couldn’t say that because if they did, and people in the audience were alert, they would have all walked out!
So you see, they can have people in who have bad teachings, but in reality they can’t actually warn people about the bad teachings because people would start asking, “then why are you bringing these teachers to us in the first place!?”
Yikes! I just saw a really disturbing post where Tim has endorsed what is basically a book on new age meditation.
http://apprising.org/2010/06/15/saddleback-church-rick-warren-and-spiritual-disciplines
The book is “Spiritual Disciplines Handbook” by Adele Calhoun. In the endorsement Tim said:
“I have long profited from Adele Ahlberg Calhoun’s gifts in the field of spiritual development, and I am delighted that she has compiled her experience with spiritual disciplines into book form. I highly recommend it and I look forward to using it as a resource at our church.”
—Dr. Timothy Keller, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NYC”
And just what did he profit from? I hate to give you just a few excerpts because people at Redeemer would immediately jump to his defense and say a couple paragraphs don’t prove anything. But I’ll give you a couple and let you decide.
On the back cover of her Spiritual Disciplines Handbook Calhoun tells us this handbook of heterodox (at best) practices features “how to” information on Contemplative-Centering Prayer and Lectio Divina. She also tell us that we can learn how to “open ourselves to God” through the Examen of Counter Reformation figure Ignatius of Loyola.
We’re also told that we will learn the ways we can “relinquish the false self” through MANTRIC MEDITATION ala Roman Catholic mystic John Main (1926-1982), which actually originated in pagan Eastern religions:
****Go into silence, placing yourself in the presence of God with the words “Here I am.” As distractions come to mind, let them go by imagining they are boats floating down a river. Let the current take the distractions away. Don’t follow the distractions. Gently return to God repeating “Here I am.” Let the current of God’s Spirit carry you. What is this like for you?****
QIRE?
What’s QIRE?
TK endorsement: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/review/code=3330
Hugh
Read RRC
Sent from my iPhone
Darryl Hart contrasts Keller & Machen* at
http://oldlife.org/2010/06/22/the-corporate-gullibility-of-the-church/
and asks and answers these questions:
1) Why would anyone heed a pastor with ideas about urban life if they were at all familiar with the history of cities, schools of urban planning, and the politics and economics that drive modern American urban centers?
2) Why use the metaphor of ecosystem when the Bible already provides an organic and less lethal metaphor? 2a) How can an ecosystem be a movement?
3) Is New York City really comparable to a prison?
To further whet your appetite:
*JGM: “The corporate witness-bearing of the Presbyterian church is carried on especially through the pulpit. Under Presbyterian law, no man can permanently occupy a pulpit of the church without the church’s endorsement; the preacher therefore speaks not only for himself, but for the church. That does not mean that the church seeks to impose any beliefs upon any man simply on the ground that they are beliefs of the church; it does not mean that there is the slightest interference with the right of private judgment. But it means that if a man is to speak in a Presbyterian pulpit, and obtain the endorsement which is involved in that position, he must be in agreement with the message for which the propagation of which the church, in accordance with its constitution, plainly exists.”
DGH: The obvious implication for Keller’s gospel ecosystem is that all members of the PCA (along with those in churches that have fraternal relations with the PCA) are responsible for Keller’s ideas and practice. Of course, if his scheme is desirable and faithful, then everyone in the PCA gets to bask in the positive contribution of Redeemer New York. At the same, if Keller’s proposal is undesirable and unfaithful, then for starters members of the PCA have an obligation to walk Keller away from the ledge of this flawed measures. . .
Hart on Keller & Machen
Oops, missed this one:
“3a) Will New York become like Wheaton, Illinois if Keller is succeeds?”
@ http://www.feedingonchrist.com/ Nicholas Batzig has posted the following:
“Kenneth Kang-Hui, a ruling elder in the PCA in New York City, has given us a very helpful analysis of N.T. Wright’s recent lecture at Redeemer Presbyterian Church’s Center for Faith and Work.”
“N.T. Wright made a splash Tuesday night in New York City as the guest lecturer at an event sponsored by the Center for Faith and Work (CFW), the marketplace ministry of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (RPC). Speaking to a packed house of over 500 New Yorkers, most of them young Christian professionals, Bishop Wright spoke engagingly on the topic of Christian character.
“Bishop Wright’s appearance has been the subject of both great anticipation and great consternation on the part of many in the Reformed camp. In particular, the blogosphere has been buzzing with questions on the propriety of a well respected Presbyterian church sponsoring a lecture by one of the leading proponent of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP).
“Having attended the event, I want to share my notes on the lecture itself and my own thoughts on the appropriateness of having one of RPC’s ministries invite N.T. Wright to speak at their event…”
READ the rest from Kang-Hui @ http://www.feedingonchrist.com/n-t-wrights-redeemer-prebyterian-church-lecture/
Hugh
BTW: Nicholas Batzig has written an article on worship for the July 2010 Tabletalk mag entitled, ‘The Fine Line.’
TT says he is “the planter of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Richmond Hill, GA. He co-hosts ‘Christ the Center,’ a podcast focusing on matters of import to Reformed churches.”
He writes in part, “Ministers are called to take a stand for truth before those who oppose the word of God in the world; but they also face the unique challenge of taking a stand for truth before who oppose biblical teaching in the church.”
And, “The fiercest opposition in the church frequently arises from those whose consciences have been least informed by the Word of God. Often well meaning in their sentiments, such individuals unintentionally cause much harm to the work of the church.”
Hmm,
Hugh
My daughter has been following this thread and emailed her thoughts to me. I thought she summed up rather well some things about Keller’s talk, and I post them with her permission:
“I haven’t seen any other discussion about that talk. To me, the absence of clear gospel at the “core” and throughout what he was talking about is concerning–as are a number of issues brought up by commenters on that thread. Of course, I read them all… So, concerning me are things like the heavy emphasis on the kingdom “work” being transforming culture, the de-emphasis on the power of the gospel preached plainly without accommodations and “contextualization” (I’m suspicious of this language and goal), and the great stock put in all the techniques, programs, and formulas that supposedly will produce such amazing results.
“I think the truth is, this kind of frenetic activity and wholesale cooperation does produce results–growing churches (or, more likely–church), mercy and justice initiatives in the community and around the world…but does it really deepen and grow the Kingdom in significant ways? These methods produce quantifiable results, but do they also produce confusion or de-emphasis of the actual gospel, the transforming work of the Spirit in ordinary ways through the ordinary means of grace?
“I wouldn’t want to be too hard on Keller though, as this was a specific talk to a specific group with a specific purpose…but, as I said, some concerns…”
-Laura
I agree with the general sentiment of the comments here, but does anyone really think that Steve Wilkins, Peter Leithart, or Doug Wilson are big Tim Keller fans? I’m not saying this in support of the FV. It’s just that I don’t see the connection. They’re on opposite ends of the spectrum. None of them would ever give a talk like this.
I was just rereading Thomas Witherow’s “The Apostolic Church” which was originally published in 1856, but as I was reading his concluding words I couldn’t help but be reminded of this thread. I sincerely apologize if you can’t see the connection, to me it is obvious. Read it and see if you don’t agree:
“The lukewarm and odious indifference to Presbyterian principles that in this day meets one everywhere, calls loudly for a remedy of some kind. The best I know is from the text–book of the Divine Word to teach the people publicly and privately what Presbyterianism really is. Had we entered into one vast conspiracy to let our principles die out of the memory of the world, we could not adopt any course more likely to accomplish our end than never to breathe them from the pulpit. But if we wish the people to know and value them, it is very plain we must show that we know and value them ourselves. If we would drive any principles into the popular mind, and make them as “nails fastened by the master of assemblies”, we must never cease to hammer at them. Sentiments perpetually falling from the pulpit, the platform, and the press, cannot, in the course of nature, for ever fall pointless to the earth; they may at first be disliked by not a few, but they will modify the views even of persons whose judgments have already attained maturity they will fasten with the greatest tenacity on young minds opening to thought they will spread abroad in ever–enlarging circles they will grow to be public opinion at the last. The pulpit is the proper sphere for the promulgation of religious truth. Error needs no effort to spread it through the world, even as the seeds of nature, carried by the autumn wind, are sown broadcast over the land, and germinate in the soil without the culture of the husbandman; but truth rarely goes forth alone, the human heart has no natural affection for it, ignorance and prejudice obstruct its progress at every step, it requires an impulsive force to carry it though the world. Weeds grow of themselves, but the flower requires all the skill and care that the gardener can give it. Error sprouts rankly in human bosoms without any help of ours; but truth needs some kind hand to plant and water it, and keep it in the sunshine. Religious truth, of all others, presents least charms to the natural mind and how truth of this nature can be expected to make its way through such a world as ours, without receiving an impetus from the pulpit, I do not know I cannot even imagine. It is certain that a man who, at the proper time and place, states and illustrates his principles, and satisfies others that he believes and prizes them himself, is sure, sooner or later, to make converts to his views; but a man who is known to profess opinions, and is always silent on them, raises doubts as to his own sincerity, and never makes one.
If we wish to have Presbyterianism the religion of the Church universal, we must let the world know that we cherish a warm and devoted attachment to its principles. We should not halt between two opinions, clinging to one sect and giving our influence to another. We should cease to be a lukewarm and hybrid generation Presbyterians only in name. This is not a time for inconsistency and doubt but for decision, for energy, for action. “
Darrell Maurina writes today above:
“Are the pentecostal or charismatic churches being planted through Tim Keller’s work congregations which teach sovereign grace? Are their pastors and lay leaders five-point or four-point Calvinists? Are they perhaps people who are followers of Martyn Lloyd-Jones semi-charismatic views?”
“…On the other hand, if all that Rev. Keller is doing is teaching church-growth methods to pentecostals and charismatics without the essentials of the Reformed faith, that’s of very little value. It’s even worse if he’s taking Reformed people and turning them into charismatics.”
Good questions!
A little leaven leavens the lump, as I recall St Paul saying, and he was none too keen on mixing with unbelievers.
If we want to assume that (at least SOME) Pentecostals and Charismatics are benighted brethren, with a merely semi-distorted gospel, then Darrell’s call is all the more pertinent: Is Keller leading the way and teaching the most excellent doctrines of sovereign grace? It appears, not.
Keller finds friendly ecumenism more appealing than dogmatic truth-telling.
See also the sad tale at the Gospel Coalition blog where Ray Ortlund (PCA minister out of bounds?) writes “Truly Reformed,” where dogmatic Calvinists are tarred as Judaizers. Both D.G. Hart and Lane Keister have commented at their blogs.
If these PCA men (or any of TGC or any other mixed group, T4G, ACE, etc.) wants to lead the way, then they must preach the way without reservation, and make distinctions, even (horrors!) pointing out damning error in others.
But if Piper can have his Wilson or Warren and Keller his Wright, then what the h*ll…?!
Hugh
Jonathan,
I think the concern is not so much that charismatics may come into Reformed Redeemer PCA (although such is not w/o precedent), but that Keller is not leading Pentecostals into Reformed glory, is failing to preach to other communions the faith he confesses, but appears rather to be content “building relationships” for the sake of future possible “sharing” of his faith? (Or, worse, feels that his mere presence, apart from a clear, verbal Reformed witness, is sufficient to discharge his responsibilities to those outside his Presbyterian fold!)
As Pastor Batzig wrote (above), “Ministers are called to take a stand for truth before those who oppose the word of God in the world; but they also face the unique challenge of taking a stand for truth before who oppose biblical teaching in the church.”
I add that in the case here, we have a PCA minister working in community with those in the “visible church,” the large corporate body of Christ, but is he being a light to those in Arminian or charismatic darkness?
Batzig continues, “The fiercest opposition in the church frequently arises from those whose consciences have been least informed by the Word of God. Often well meaning in their sentiments, such individuals unintentionally cause much harm to the work of the church.”
‘Nuff said.
As Darrell M. said, “…if all that Rev. Keller is doing is teaching church-growth methods to pentecostals and charismatics without the essentials of the Reformed faith, that’s of very little value. It’s even worse if he’s taking Reformed people and turning them into charismatics.”
His point being that the infiltration of Redeemer by charismatics is preferable to a Presbyterian minister failing to bear witness to the Faith he professes & Confesses.
Hugh
Hugh, I completely agree with you. My only point was that I seriously doubt many at Redeemer are about to become charismatics anytime soon! It’s just not in the Redeemer DNA – thankfully!
But un-thankfully, Mysticism does seem to be in the Redeemer DNA and it’s growing. And I can’t help but make the connection between traditional “Christian” mysticism and universalism. Maybe that explains Tim’s apparent willingness to work with those with whom we ostensibly disagree. Sounds a lot like Rick Warren to me.
Anyway, I completely agree with you on everything else you said here.
Seems like Keller is not the only one compromising the Gospel…
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/503.html
I think he’s even spoken at events with NT Wright too…
When can we start a thread about the dangers of this Horton guy?
@baddison11 – I see Dr. Horton as trying to engage the “great conversation” while attempting to attract folks to historic Reformed Theology. I see Pastor Keller as speaking more from his PCA platform and accompanying compromises through the Redeemer Network – even so far as helping to plant non-Reformed churches. While Keller seems to downgrade things, Dr. Horton is trying to influence more so for Reformation thought. That seems to be a poor comparison. Has Dr. Horton attempted to plant non-Reformed churches?
Brad,
I can understand why you may feel that way. However, it is a serious matter of debate whether Keller is “downgrading” things while Horton is trying to exert Reformation thought.
Keller is Reformed. Keller’s church is Reformed. Whether or not supporting Reformed churches is a good thing or not is up for debate. Partnering with Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, Episcopal, Methodist, Congregational, or even some Eastern Orthodox churches is not a bad thing. I’m not sure where the Confessions restrict the marks of a true church to ones that subscribe to the WCF, Belgic, Canons of Dodrt, and Heidelberg.
My point is that there is a SERIOUS double standard with Keller. Horton and Keller are not doing identical things, but they are doing similar things. If Keller were allowed to speak for himself, he would say he is using his platform and the PCA to preach the Gospel.
Furthermore, I’d like to see what it means that Keller is planting non-Reformed churches. Is he intentionally teaching things contrary to the WCF in these churches? Or is he financially supporting churches that disagree with varying theological points in the WCF?
The former would be problematic while the later is still within the bounds of the WCF. The language in this whole conversation is so prejudiced one way or another that no meaningful discussion can occur. The Reformed faith does have a set of doctrine, but the expression of our doctrine expresses itself differently. Moreover, the Confession is a consensus document which allows for different beliefs on a number of issues. Are there minimal standards? Of course, and Keller and Redeemer should be examined. But I fear by the nature of the rhetoric the real problem isn’t Keller’s confessional committment but the expression of it.
Very well said. It is intriguing to me how every time Tim does something that is inter-denominational ecumenical he gets doubted and suspected, but the same standard is not applied equally. When I was in campus ministry with Campus Crusade for Christ, Rod Rosenbladt came and taught the staff theology. Reformed minister, White Horse Inn contributor, teaching a parachurch, interdenominational group filled with non-Reformed people? Imagine. Using Clark Pinnock’s writings as one of the required text books? Scandalous…. but I was there. And it was fine.
Well, I don’t know if I’m questioning Keller’s commitment or his expression of it here, but I’ve been made to wonder what he means by “Gospel” when he uses that word so frequently, in light of his numerous statements that “the primary purpose of salvation is cultural renewal, making this earth a great place.”
Is that what he means by Gospel? So that we can all be saved in order to renew the culture and make this world a great place? If that’s what he means (and it is what he has said on numerous occasions, so I have to assume that quite possibly it is what he means), then I simply don’t recognize that as the Christian Gospel. And in light of it, I really don’t know what to make of what he believes – based on how he expresses it.
Jonathan,
Remind me – point me to- where Keller says this? Never heard him say this myself, met with him about ten times now, heard him at about 8 conferences with the church planting network, heard him preach about 200 times – but never heard him say this. He has been hiding it well. Where is it again?
Dan, yes! He hides it well. I went there for nearly 20 years and never noticed it until about a year ago!! I posted this above, but I know there are too many posts to go through so here it is again. The first is a link where you can listen to him say it in his own voice (because when I was first told he said this I didn’t believe it myself until I heard him say it in his own voice).
http://www.faithandwork.org/uploads/photos/461-1%20Cultural%20Renewal_%20The%20Role%20of%20th.mp3
And here’s a transcript:
“Conservative churches say “this world is not our home — it’s gonna burn up eventually and what really matters is saving souls… so evangelism and discipleship and saving souls is what’s important.
And we try to say that it’s the other way around almost. ***That the purpose of salvation is to renew creation. That this world is a good in itself. That God loves and cares for his creation, the material creation.***
****And if you see it that way, then the old paradigm if you’re going to put your money and your time and your effort as a Christian into doing God’s work in the world, you wanna save souls which means the only purpose of your ministry and your effort is to increase the tribe, increase the number of Christians.****
… there’s nothing wrong with that, but I think in the past ****the theology that says all that matters is salvation so that we can go to heaven some day. And doesn’t understand the goodness of material creation, as a result, everybody but ministers and missionaries and so on, your job was just to get out there and earn a pay check and then give us the money in order to do God’s work.****
I think the good theology shows that it is God’s work for you to do something about the unraveling of God’s creation. When you see it physically unraveling, psychologically unraveling, socially unraveling, falling apart because of sin. For you to use your best efforts to re-weave it right there, in order to work for the common good. Because God saw salvation as eventually for the good of the whole world. That’s God’s work.
In the past Christians have tended to do things that only Christians would be interested in and only Christians would give to. I mean who else besides a Christian would give money to get something started that’s going to win many many people to Christ? Just pretty much only Christians.
BUT, when you have something that’s going to improve the schools in a particular city for everybody. When you have a venture that’s going to re-weave creation physically — that’s going to deal with health problems that’s going to deal with poverty. When Christians do that – out of their theology – they do that effectively because they’re dealing with the common good, because you have the theology to deal with the common good — you’re going to find that all kinds of non-Christians are not only going to invest in that and want to partner with you in that but a lot of them are also going to be attracted to the gospel because of that.”
OK Jonathan I am listening to the audio as I speak, but as I have read this transcript I do not see the transcript as saying what you think it says. I note a few things:
1. Keller is combatting cultural separationists who care nothing for the culture. While doing that, he points out that God gave us culture and the world, and will re- make a physical, cultural world. That was the beginning and will be the end of our destiny as humans; God will renew creation – that is the consummation of the gospel when He comes again, is it not? Is that not our blessed hope? Is the blessed hope not a future New Heaven and Earth? I think Keller is referring to that New Heaven and Earth as the end of the gospel – which is true – Jesus is making a new creation, and he STARTS by making humans new creations. We are the first-fruits of God’s new creation.
2. While making this talk, Keller points out the value of helping to renew our present culture. But look at the last part of the transcript you typed out: ‘a lot of them are going to be attracted to the gospel because of that..’ So it looks to me that here, Keller is using cultural renewal as both a biblical good AND an effective way to attract people to the gospel !!! You see, Keller is saying that this cultural renewal activity is ATTRACTING people to Jesus. So, from this transcript, it would seem to me that Keller is making cultural renewal as a TOOL for EVANGELISM. So how is that making cultural renewal above the gospel? In fact, the clear implication of this transcript is the opposite: cultural renewal is a good way to get unbelievers interested in the gospel.
I do grant that in this talk there are some things that could be either misunderstood or wrong:
– Keller does say here that the world is not a temporary theatre for evangelism, I agree. But he talks about at the end of time the power of god ‘comes down and renews this material world.’ then he says the whole purpose of salvation is to cleanse and renew this present material world.’ But again, He is saying this eschatologically: in the new heavens and earth – which he refers to specifically, several times, here.
– he does say that ‘the whole purpose of salvation to make this world a better place.’ He says that ‘salvation is a temporary means to the renewal of creation. ‘ But in context here He is saying that our present salvation is only a precursor to the total renewal of the earth in the New Creation.
So yes, out of context, these comments can be misleading. But I need to ask you: do you believe in the blessed hope of the New creation, when we see Jesus face to face, as THE hope of the New Testament and of the gospel? Do you not see Paul’s eschataological hope as his primary – or at least one of his primary – motivation for encouraging his readers to holiness?
I agree that if you thought Keller meant cultural renewal of THIS world, before the Consummation that happens at the Second coming, you would be unnerved. But he clearly does try to set all of his comments in relation to the New Creation. he is saying: foreshadow what is to come NOW by the way you relate to culture.
But his ‘cultural renewal as the goal of salvation’ – Keller is only guilty of this, in this talk, when cultural renewal as it is manifested in the Second Coming is in view.
So sorry – this audio does not actually say what you think it says. Though there are times when Keller could have been a little clearer in reasserting all throughout this talk that he meant the Second Coming, Keller is simply not saying what you accuse him of saying.
Hi Dan,
I’m a little surprised at what you said. I didn’t say what I *thought* Tim said, I said what he said!
Anyway, I didn’t mean to suggest that by posting his entire statement that I disagreed with all of it. I don’t! I posted it all for the context.
You say he’s combating cultural separationists – but he says this:
““Conservative churches say “this world is not our home — it’s gonna burn up eventually and what really matters is saving souls… so evangelism and discipleship and saving souls is what’s important.”
He doesn’t say he’s combating cultural separationists, he says he’s combating conservative Christians (of which I am one). And I do believe that evangelism and discipleship is what’s important – I don’t believe as he says that it’s the other way around. And I believe if you read the books of the new testament with an eye towards this that you can’t help but walk away thinking how important the saving of souls is – nor can you walk away without being impressed by how temporary our lives here are or this earth itself is, and how permanent and eternal – eternity is!
Then he says, “And we try to say that it’s the other way around almost. ***That the purpose of salvation is to renew creation. That this world is a good in itself. That God loves and cares for his creation, the material creation.***”
So while I appreciate your interpretation of what he said, and I think you have a few good points, I really have to go by what he said. And I strongly disagree with it.
I agree in part with your point #2 that there is value in helping to renew our present culture. OF COURSE there is! And Jesus tells us to work at it! The Old Testament tells us to do it! But nowhere are we told this is the PURPOSE OF SALVATION! We’re told it’s a BYPRODUCT of salvation! It’s a SIGN that you have been saved… but it’s not the purpose!
I think what Tim has basically said here is that we need to shut up and act good. Stop talking, start living well. At least that’s the point a many Redeemer members take from it. Many people at Redeemer are actually hostile to the idea of witnessing to people, or sharing our faith with them in words. They will tell you – no, just let your life point to the one you follow. I actually agree with that advice! But it can’t just be your life alone. You also have to tell people who you follow and why you follow him, and why you think they would do well to follow him.
But that’s really not what Redeemer is doing in its ministries, it’s not what they’re teaching people to do. When I led the Entrepreneur’s Group – I wanted this to be one focus of the group — how you can witness & share Christ through your businesses with people you work with and people who work for you. I was told that that wasn’t the purpose of the group and I shouldn’t spend any time on it. And I was told they were afraid if we talked about Biblical things too much that people would stop coming because they can get all that from church on Sundays and their fellowship groups.
So, coming from personal experience, I’ve seen how these words Tim speaks play out and they go far in what I believe is the wrong direction. Most people at Redeemer would have a heart attack if you told them you got into a “discussion” with a non-Christian and actually tried to combat their wrong ideas!
It’s easy to see how their thoughts on that could come from what Tim has said here.
My point though isn’t to convince any of you to agree with me – my only point is to put this out there so people can see it. Some people will agree with it and some won’t. But everyone should be aware of it. That’s my only purpose here.
Thanks Jonathan for your clear concern for the church and her purity. I will agree to disagree on how to interpret Keller on cultural renewal; I still think you are taking Tim’s comments out of context regarding the PRESENT day role of cultural renewal v. evangelism. There are so many other places in many talks where quoting Tim would make him look like an old-school Baptist evangelist. This one talk, taken out of context, is being made to say more than I think it really says.
But I appreciate your concern and love for both Redeemer Pres,, the global church, and of course our Incarnate Redeemer.
Blessings
Dan
Hi Dan… yes, we will have to disagree. And that’s fine. In fact, I understand where you’re coming from, because it used to be where I was coming from when I sat there for nearly 20 years coming up with reasons why what Tim was saying was all good.
My real concerns grew out of my experience with people in the church who were picking this stuff up and putting far more emphasis on it than I thought Tim ever intended. But then when I heard these statements from Tim I suddenly thought “Oh wait a minute! Maybe I’m the one who’s gotten it wrong.” Maybe the people in the church were picking up exactly what Tim intended and I wasn’t.
I agree with you that Tim has said many things that would make you think he was a Southern Baptist! In fact, he’s even said that if you don’t understand that you need to share the Gospel in WORDS, then you don’t understand the Gospel!
I totally agree with that. But for whatever reason, that message just doesn’t come across strongly enough for it to actually take root in the minds of many at Redeemer. These other messages about cultural renewal come across far more strongly and they have taken root.
One guy, a Harvard-educated lawyer who had attended Redeemer for several years – balked in a fellowship group that I led one time. We were doing a study of Tim’s book, Reason for God (at my suggestion! Because I thought it was a good book – and still do). This book is very good on apologetics so I suggested to the group that there were many things there that we could use when we share Christ with our unbelieving friends.
This guy suddenly sat up and said, “well, I don’t think it’s our place to be telling other people what to believe, when we ourselves don’t have all our beliefs in perfect order yet.” A woman in the group who has been a member of Redeemer for many years and is a deaconess there, nodded her head in agreement, as did several other long-time attenders and members.
So what’s coming across to people even though I don’t think Tim would agree with it is an attitude that you simply don’t TALK to people about your faith. You work in cultural renewal and social justice and all these things – you work so hard at them that eventually someone will take notice and ask you to tell them why you’re so intent on doing good. And apparently that’s when it’s okay to talk to them about Jesus. (No this isn’t anything I’ve ever heard Tim say, but so many Redeemerites believe this – that whatever he’s saying isn’t challenging them on this).
So the cultural renewal horse is definitely put ahead of the evangelism horse. It is made the main thing – exactly as Tim says here in these quotes that he thinks it should be. So while you say I’m misinterpreting Tim, I’m just going from personal experience at Redeemer, where I see actions following these words to a T.
Anyway Dan, I just wanted to say I’ve disagreed with a lot of people there and for the most part, that experience has been very disagreeable. Most people have been either condescending or dismissive – or both (and I’m talking about pastors and elders as well as members). With the exception of just one person, no one there wanted to have anything to do with me after I expressed these concerns. It was like I was the bad guy who must be avoided at all costs. After I expressed my concerns to the pastor and lay leader who were over me as I led a fellowship group, they let me know they strongly disagreed and then they never made any attempt to talk to me again! It’s like they just disappeared and wouldn’t talk to me anymore!
But you have been quiet kind and respectful in our disagreement and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that. I really do. It means a lot. It’s very rare today in the church.
Jonathan
Keller may very well be a transformationalist, but he is certainly not two kingdoms.
I can’t apologize for what may be Keller’s imprecise discussions on cultural renewal, but I think his point is that the Gospel has implications for us and our interaction with this world. The kingdom of God has come in Christ and his kingdom is expanding, and we are to proclaim the spread of his kingdom throughout the earth. This proclomation necessarily means that the Church should be involved in ministering to the poor and needy and that the Gospel should be affecting our culture, like it did in Rome for example.
Disagree? You certainly have confessional room to do so and I can understand where you are coming from. But Keller’s views are not novel and have been accepted as within the bounds of the Confession. Nearly every sermon I’ve heard, Keller has been beautifully and brilliantly clear on the Gospel. The questionable or inconsistent portions should be critcized; however, they should not be taken as evidence that Keller is somehow not Reformed.
From your comments, you have much more experience at Redeemer than I do, but I am suspicious of your claim that you don’t really know what to make of what he believes based on how he expresses it. I understand you sincerely feel that way, but I find it difficult for that criticism to carry weight when he has been one of the clearest voices in the modern church on what the Gospel is…
Jonathan
Regarding Keller’s comment in your quote. If anyone disagrees, then I would have questions about their orthodoxy. Of course matter is good, and Dr. Clark emphasizes this in his Ancient Church class. This was one of the primary argument against the Gnostics and people like Marcion. Keller is simply articulating the position of the church for the past 2000 years.
Well, that’s not how I see it Baddison. In fact that’s not even what he says. He doesn’t say he’s articulating the position of the church for the past 2000 years, he in fact says just the opposite! He says the church for a long, long time has gotten it all wrong in their mistaken assumption that a primary goal of the Christian is to share our faith and try to win converts. He says that’s bad.
He even kind of ridicules people who have spent their lives doing that – wrongly suggesting that that’s all they care about. That they don’t care about the human needs of the people they’re trying to get saved. Well, nothing could be further from the truth in my personal experience. My uncle served as a missionary in the jungles of Brazil for nearly 50 years. He did so because he wanted to share Christ with people and help as many of them get saved as possible. But while he was there doing that, he cared so much about their physical well-being that he started studying medicine, and requested modern medical supplies and equipment from the church. So I find what Tim said about people who care about winning people’s souls and put a priority on that, I find it not only historically wrong, but personally offensive.
Saying that the material world is good – does not make it an ultimate thing. God made it of course, but I don’t find it anywhere near as exalted in scripture as it is by Tim Keller. In fact, Tim exalts it to such a point that in the “Can Faith be Green?” forum a few years ago he said that if you see someone doing something bad to the environment YOU MUST STOP THEM! He said that’s what the Bible teaches us. And yet he said nothing about the Biblical teaching that the physical world was put here by God to serve the needs of mankind. To lead to human flourishing. He said nothing of that. He left out half of what the Bible teaches about the environment — on a sermon about the environment.
And interestingly, the half he left out was the same half the secular left not only leaves out, but strongly disagrees with. It’s the half that distinguishes Judeo-Christian teachings on the environment from secular teachings. So he in essence secularized the teachings of the Bible on the environment, apparently so as not to offend the secular liberal New Yorkers who were in attendance.
I know I said I was signing off but one of my hotbuttons was just pushed for the umpteenth time. The Confession is NOT a “consensus document” and the repeated declarations that it is does not make it so. The Westminster Standards were specifically crafted to create a more Reformed religion for Great Britain. In doing this, the strongly held opinions of a variety of different “Reformed” and non-reformed groups were rejected and even condemned including Episcopalians, Erastians, Amyraldians, Independents, Baptists, Levellers, RCs, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Arminians, amongst others. There was NO compromise over issues like worship and the Sabbath despite the fact that this stomped on the toes of Episcopalians. As a result this “consensus” document was rejected and overturned at the restoration and the 39 articles and the BCP restored.
Jonathan,
You missed what he meant. it was a consensus document amongst reformed people – for example: congregationalists v. presbyterians; views of the effect of baptism; the role and importance of the ‘active obedience of Christ, etc. Lots of differences existed and were crafted to find consensus in that document.
Dan, actually – I’ve missed what a LOT of people here meant! I didn’t realize when I first commented here that there were so many pastors and theologians here! I’m just a regular Christian guy. I don’t have a degree in anything related to Biblical studies! I’m not a theologian or a “professional” church person… so yes – a lot of what has been said here has gone straight over my head!
I appreciate you guys though for putting up with me and indulging me in some good conversation!
Andy…
Maybe you’re buttons were pushed because you misunderstood.
I never said that it was a consensus document for those outside of the Reformed faith. If you read my post, it is a consensus document in that there are minimal confessional committments. However, there are a number of issues that the Assembly allowed room for varying understanding.
Who said there was a compromise on worship or the Sabbath? Of course, if you mean to say there is no room left for intrepretation or that the Divines didn’t have different perspectives on this issue then you are wrong. I don’t think you are affirming this but I am confused as to why you would get so exercised about my statement that the WCF is a consensus document in the sense that there were different understanding of Reformed theology expressed in the document. None of the Divines believed the exact same thing on every topic, and they knew this and it is reflected in the WCF.
Jonathan –
If I have been dismissive or condescending in our interaction I apologize. Having taken a couple of weeks “off” and just now revisited this discussion, I still believe you are way off on a lot of your criticisms. I have never heard Tim Keller saying that sharing your faith with coworkers is bad – quite the opposite. In fact, he wrote an entire book on apologetics (as you mention) – so I think he believes in the importance of personal evangelism. On the other hand, he believes that evangelism isn’t the ONLY function of the church. Plenty of people on here will disagree with him on that, but once again, I think you’re misunderstanding him. As far as the environmental lecture he gave (I was there), you are simply wrong that he left out the biblical teachings from his talk – the entire lecture was biblically based. He made the point several times that humans should cultivate and use the physical recourses that God has given, but do so in an appropriate way. I don’t understand how we’re attending the same sermons and lectures and coming away with such different views. To me Dr. Keller is very clear in his teaching and beliefs.
Tying this in with the subject of the thread, the very point of all those lectures (including the environmental lecture) and the sermons is to present the Gospel. Do you remember the point of the “green” talk Jonathan? Keller made the point that the only people who will experience the New Heavens and New Earth (the perfect environment) are those who have come to Christ through faith and repentance. That was the heart of his message that day. And again, isn’t that his point in the lecture transcribed above? To make the Gospel the center of all the church’s work?
Mason,
I don’t know why this is, but I find many people who hold your view don’t seem to have good reading comprehension. (And lest you think that’s a mean or unloving thing to say I’ve heard Tim say it to others). But I say it because after reading where I said:
JONATHAN: “In fact, he (Tim) has even said that if you don’t understand that you need to share the Gospel in WORDS, then you don’t understand the Gospel!
I totally agree with that. But for whatever reason, that message just doesn’t come across strongly enough for it to actually take root in the minds of many at Redeemer. These other messages about cultural renewal come across far more strongly and they have taken root.”
I also said this in the same post you’re responding to:
JONATHAN: “So what’s coming across to people ***even though I don’t think Tim would agree with it*** is an attitude that you simply don’t TALK to people about your faith. …
You work in cultural renewal and social justice and all these things – you work so hard at them that eventually someone will take notice and ask you to tell them why you’re so intent on doing good. And apparently that’s when it’s okay to talk to them about Jesus. ******(No this isn’t anything I’ve ever heard Tim say,****** but so many Redeemerites believe this – that whatever he’s saying isn’t challenging them on this).”
Then you came back and said:
MASON: “I have never heard Tim Keller saying that sharing your faith with coworkers is bad”
So why are you saying this unless you simply didn’t read my post that you’re responding to or you have reading comprehension problems, or you’re trying to dishonestly make it look like I said something about Tim that’s UNTRUE!
I’ve been very careful here Mason to state the truth as best I can. I have not condemned every last word of Tim’s. Nor would I ever! He says much that I agree with wholeheartedly. I’m not one of those people who once I find an area of disagreement sets out to destroy a person. Or make it seem as if nothing they say is ever good or right.
I have very openly and honestly stated here that Tim does NOT say we shouldn’t share the Gospel in words… in fact, he says just the opposite! I clearly said Mason, that it was the way the people in the church hear and interpret what he says that causes it to become problematic.
Anyway, I have to say I really don’t appreciate your method of debate, which I find to be wholly dishonest and in fact slanderous. You have put across a lie here. You’ve insinuated that I said something about Tim that’s not true of him. And I don’t appreciate that. I would never knowingly lie about Tim Keller or anyone else in order to advance my point of view.
Jonathan –
You said above: “I think what Tim has basically said here is that we need to shut up and act good.”
So how am I mis-characterizing what you said? But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for mis-representing your views. If I did this it was not intentional.
But this really undermines your point. If Tim is preaching the right things (as you say above), then what else do you want him to do? Is it his fault if some members of the congregation aren’t perfect and evangelize incorrectly or inappropriately? Is any congregation in the PCA any different? So far all of your criticisms have been refuted here by multiple people – in addition to the elders and pastors of the church. So again I ask, are you sure that you are correct in this? Where’s the fire for all of your so-called smoke? You may not like some things at Redeemer, but are any of them worth leaving the church and bashing it on a blog?
Jonathan
I would say this; you have two serious reservations that seem to bear closer scrutiny:
a. Does Tim actually teach that the goal of salvation is current cultural renewal?
b. Does Redeemer bring in teachers with false and heretical views (eg NT Wright)
As I have mentioned, on the first accusation I respectfully disagree with how you are understanding Tim. On the second accusation I think you have a point.
But you have a third line of accusations, and it is this that I want to caution you on. There are times when you accuse Tim and Redeemer of wrong teaching ( let us call it teaching ‘X’), which if true is fair game. But then, when challenged on some of your accusations, you have fallen back on a response that is something like this: ‘well, no I am NOT accusing Tim of actually teaching X, but his people all seem to think or believe X, so he is not doing a good enough job of teaching against X…’
As a pastor, this is quite hard. I have been, among other things, trying to consistently teach my people that their relationship with God is not dependent upon their moment-by-moment, pietistic understanding of just how much they have done for Jesus this second. You know, for some people it has been quite a revolution. For others, it is as if I never have taught on it once! Pietistic insecurity abounds in my church; my congregation grew up learning it at their churches of origin! Now, my elders are holding me accountable to ensure I am not enabling this pietistic streak in my people. Yet a poll of them would find a significant number of them are still bound to some extent by this thinking. Whose fault is that? We see progress, but much work to be done.
So a lot of your… reservations about Redeemer seem to fall into this category of…’well Redeemerites I have met have this faulty teaching and that wrong view, etc.’ Yet you consistently pin the blame on Tim for this.
Here is an example: in your latest response to Mason, you get quite angry about him challenging you. And, in fairness, you do put disclaimers throughout your comments about Tim not being guilty of teaching some of this. But it feels a little like nailing jello to a wall. On the one hand, you impute the blame for much of the doctrinal views you experience at Redeemer to Tim; on the other hand, when people object, you say – ‘wait, I never said Tim TAUGHT that, simply that his people believe that.’
So it feels a little…disingenuous of you, Jonathan. I don’t think you are lying, but look at this example of what I mean. in this excerpt below, you put in 2 qualifiers that lets you say you are not accusing Tim- but really, aren’t you?
QUOTE “So what’s coming across to people even though I don’t think Tim would agree with it is an attitude that you simply don’t TALK to people about your faith. You work in cultural renewal and social justice and all these things – you work so hard at them that eventually someone will take notice and ask you to tell them why you’re so intent on doing good. And apparently that’s when it’s okay to talk to them about Jesus. (No this isn’t anything I’ve ever heard Tim say, but so many Redeemerites believe this – that whatever he’s saying isn’t challenging them on this).” UNQUOTE
Look, if you want a public discussion with people about Tim, and you want to be fair, please stick to critiquing what he and Redeemer actually teaches, not what some of his people believe. This sort of ‘well, some people I have met at Redeemer have this kind of defect…’ stuff really doesn’t get us anywhere. Why? Here is why:
Those of us who read your comments can’t prove you did or did not meet these people and hear this stuff, so we cannot quantify any of these anecdotes of yours. They sound troubling to me and I am trying to follow up with Redeemer on some of them – but the kind of response you got from Mason is not that surprising. You really are, in the paragraph I quoted above, accusing Tim of either teaching people NOT to share their faith, or Tim is NOT refuting their false cowardice enough.
In my personal dealings with Redeemer laypeople I have met people who are afraid to share their faith – and courageous evangelists. I have met people who are quite insecure about God’s love for them – even though Tim preaches every WEEK that all of God’s love and pleasure are guaranteed by the effectual sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. So while I remain amazed at the ability of laypeople not to absorb the most fundamental teachings of their preacher, I can only say that I no longer blame the preacher so readily.
You, however, seem to be heaping every wrong inclination and doctrinal deviation you find at Redeemer at Tim’s feet, either directly or by obvious implication. And then you get outraged when people call you on it, because you put in some qualifier that does not really change or blunt the force of your accusation. Sorry, but either you are or you are not accusing Tim of bad teaching – you can’t have it both ways. Your qualifiers say Tim is not guilty of bad teaching; the paragraphs that contain those qualifiers say Tim IS guilty of bad teaching. Which is it?
So I would drop this third line of accusation; it is unhelpful, impossible to really respond to properly, and does not help your cause much.
Hey Mason… you’re right! Sorry about that! You have my heartfelt apologies. Although if that’s the quote you were referring to, then you said I mischaracterized Tim in that quote, but that’s exactly what he said. He said we need to be less concerned about evangelizing and winning souls and far more concerned about renewing the culture.
I’m still having trouble finding in the New Testament where anyone said that we need to be saved from cultural stagnation or social injustice – two things Redeemer puts a premium on.
Dan, I appreciate your comments. I just wanted to share my personal experience for anyone who might find that it fills in a little of the story. I think everything Tim has said is very public and no one needs me to confirm or deny that he’s said or hasn’t said something.
I agree with you that you can’t hold a pastor responsible for every wrong belief his members may hold. Certainly not! We’ve actually discussed this before.
(Actually, this whole conversation seems to be repeating itself at this point, so I’m not sure there’s really anymore that can be added by any of us… but I’ll try one more time)!
I think you’d agree that you can hold him responsible for wrong beliefs if he himself publicly endorses those beliefs or endorses people who hold them.
And that’s all I’m doing – is holding him responsible for the wrong beliefs in the church that mirror either his own teachings (or the emphasis of his teachings) or the teachings and beliefs of people the church endorses and promotes (which I discussed at some length earlier so I won’t repeat those examples here).
A LOT of emphasis is put on cultural renewal at Redeemer. Is cultural renewal a bad thing? No! Is it Biblical? Yes! But like any other Biblical principle, if it’s taught to the exclusion of other important principles it can become a false teaching.
God is love. But if all we teach is that, then we’ll quickly develop some bad doctrines. God is just. But if all we teach is that, we’ll also develop bad doctrines. God is love AND just. It has to be taught in balance. (sorry, I realize you pastors probably have some nifty shorthand way to say all that! But I have to spell it all out).
Cultural renewal is good AND so is having a deep concern and desire to see people get saved. They’re both good. And one comes before the other.
But at Redeemer, Tim is putting a near total emphasis on cultural renewal and is in essence saying that it comes first. It should be our primary priority. All that concern about saving souls that conservative Christians used to have, that’s all out the window. That’s no good.
So when Tim minimizes the importance of salvation and maximizes the importance of doing good for the world, I believe he gets the Gospel backwards AND out of balance. So, yes I would have to lay the blame at his feet for the fact that many people at Redeemer get it backwards as well. They’re really just being good followers of what he’s teaching.
Dan, you said no one can really know if what I’m saying about my personal experiences is true. And I understand that. And I’m not asking you or anyone to base anything you may say or do on my personal experiences. But all I’m actually saying is nothing other than the people at Redeemer are following what Tim teaches.
Anyway, I think the bottom line – at least for me, is Tim’s statement that I’ve posted twice here, that the primary purpose of salvation is cultural renewal and that those conservative Christians who used to think we should work to help as many people as possible find salvation through Christ — well, they just have it all wrong.
Some of you have tried to say that’s not what he means. You’ve said I’ve misunderstood it. You’ve said that his teachings are perfectly sound. But no one has actually tried to defend his assertion that salvation is all about cultural renewal and an emphasis on saving souls is all wrong. I don’t believe anyone here has actually defended that. The best argument for your side seems to be that that’s not what he meant.
So it seems that you would agree with me that if that were what he meant, then that would be wrong. Right?
Well, I take him at his word. He’s a brilliant communicator and I highly doubt he often says things as frequently as he says this while meaning the opposite! I believe that’s what he means, because he’s said it on many occasions, the work of the church reflects it and the people in the church reflect it in their beliefs.
I happened to run across this quote from N.T. Wright and I was stunned at how similar it was to what Tim said that I’ve quoted here. Here’s N.T. Wright and for convenience I’ll post Tim’s quote again below it:
N.T. Wright says:
For generations the church has been polarized between those who see the main task being the saving of souls for heaven and the nurturing of those souls through the valley of this dark world, on the one hand, and on the other hand those who see the task of improving the lot of human beings and the world, rescuing the poor from their misery.
The longer that I’ve gone on as a New Testament scholar and wrestled with what the early Christians were actually talking about, the more it’s been borne in on me that that distinction is one that we modern Westerners bring to the text rather than finding in the text. Because the great emphasis in the New Testament is that the gospel is not how to escape the world; the gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. And that his death and Resurrection transform the world, and that transformation can happen to you. You, in turn, can be part of the transforming work.
That draws together what we traditionally called evangelism, bringing people to the point where they come to know God in Christ for themselves, with working for God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. That has always been at the heart of the Lord’s Prayer, and how we’ve managed for years to say the Lord’s Prayer without realizing that Jesus really meant it is very curious.
Our Western culture since the 18th century has made a virtue of separating out religion from real life, or faith from politics. When I lecture about this, people will pop up and say, “Surely Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world.” And the answer is no, what Jesus said in John 18 is, “My kingdom is not from this world.” That’s ek tou kosmoutoutou. It’s quite clear in the text that Jesus’ kingdom doesn’t start with this world. It isn’t a worldly kingdom, but it is for this world. It’s from somewhere else, but it’s for this world.
————————————————–
Tim Keller says:
“Conservative churches say “this world is not our home — it’s gonna burn up eventually and what really matters is saving souls… so evangelism and discipleship and saving souls is what’s important.
And we try to say that it’s the other way around almost. That the purpose of salvation is to renew creation. That this world is a good in itself. That God loves and cares for his creation, the material creation. And if you see it that way, then the old paradigm if you’re going to put your money and your time and your effort as a Christian into doing God’s work in the world, you wanna save souls which means the only purpose of your ministry and your effort is to increase the tribe, increase the number of Christians.
I think the good theology shows that it is God’s work for you to do something about the unraveling of God’s creation. When you see it physically unraveling, psychologically unraveling, socially unraveling, falling apart because of sin. For you to use your best efforts to re-weave it right there, in order to work for the common good. Because God saw salvation as eventually for the good of the whole world. That’s God’s work.
In the past Christians have tended to do things that only Christians would be interested in and only Christians would give to. I mean who else besides a Christian would give money to get something started that’s going to win many many people to Christ? Just pretty much only Christians.
The material world is an end in itself. Then you can move out and work for the common good instead of just simply building up the tribe (i.e. sharing Christ with people and winning converts). And what that’s going to do is build up the tribe in the long run but it’s also going to be doing God’s work and it’s actually going to weave together Christians and non-Christians in your community in a way that a lot of other Christian ministry just doesn’t. (i.e. those Christian ministries that share Christ with people and win converts).”
Jonathan,
While some people may use different vocabulary, what Keller and Wright say here is Christian orthodoxy. It seems you are misunderstanding what Keller and Wright are saying.
Obviously spiritual salvation is important, they don’t put a higher premium on cultural renewal than on salvation. They simply observe that there is a trend within conservative Christianity to devalue the physical world in pursuit of “higher spiritual” realities. Their point is that Christ didn’t come to save us FROM the world, he came to save and redeem the world. This is not new or revolutionary, this is one of the things the Reformation recaptured.
Brandon,
I don’t accept this as “orthodoxy” as it stands. You read NTW with a hermeneutic of trust. I do not. He has not earned any confidence—only suspicion.
Brandon, where exactly does it say in Scripture that Christ came to save the world? It used to be that “world” in texts like John 3:16 needed to be interpreted against universalism. Now, from globalism?
But how exactly does Christ’s fulfilling the demands of the Covenant of Works save street sweeping? When did streets violate the covenant of works?
Think about it.
Dr. Hart
With all due respect, where does my statement say that Christ’s fulfilling the demands of the CoW save street sweeping? Reading someone chartiably, (especially if you don’t know them) is usually the best way to go. Thus my caveat at the beginning that the vocabulary used is up for debate. Tranformationalists and Two-kingdoms folk will disagree about how Christ’s redemptive work is applied to the world.
No orthodox person on either side however, believes that Jesus does not care about the physical world and that the physical world will not be transformed, whether by the work of the Church or by Christ in the consumated kingdom. If your suspicious of Keller and Wright on their language, fine. But the sections quoted above are orthodox statements.
To your statement concerning Scripture and interpreting John 3:16 from the perspective of “globalism.” John 3:16 of course does not explicitly refer to nature (or as you may prefer, street sweeping), but the whole of humanity who reside in the world. No objection here.
I am simply using this type of voabularly theologically to articulate a biblical truth. The greatest argument for the goodness of creation is the Incarnation. Of course, we see in the life and ministry of Jesus that he comes to restore the broken material world through his miracles (feeding of the 5k, healing of the paralytic).
I don’t think and hope you don’t disagree. Just in case, I’d ask a few questions. If you mean to say that the only thing that Christ does is bring life those who vioalted the CoW then how do you read stories of the newly formed city (no doubt Keller’s talk of the city is a bit odd) in Revelation or the prophecy in Isa where the lamb and lion lay down together? Also, does the curse on the ground, found in Genesis 3, remain?
Brandon,
dgh is fine.
But I’m befuddled by your response. Christ cares about the physical world but not street cleaning? It’s when you keep emphasizing the physical world that some of us wonder if there are limits to it. I know Redeemer does a lot with the arts and economics. But why not road construction and street sweeping? (Sorry, but the upper middle class tastes seem to be shaping what Redeemer means by physical world).
Also, if you think that Christ came to save the world, which is how you put it, then isn’t federal theology the frame of reference for understanding Christ’s redemptive work? So why not ask how the physical world violated the law?
And this goes to a third point of confusion. The creation is good. The incarnation proves it. Then how does something good need to be saved? I thought only bad things need to be saved.
Look, I get it. Keller and co. think that a lot of conservative Protestants are too otherworldly. (What I don’t get is that, having grown up in a fundie home, I know otherworldliness and today’s conservative Protestants are not otherworldly.) But the way to get such otherworldliness under control is not to use the lift of salvation or redemption, but the reality of creation and providence.
Ironically, the language of “saving” the world is all too reminiscent of fundamentalism. Unless you can turn worldly activity into full time Christian service, as in saving activity, then it’s not good enough for Christian pursuits.
Jesus did not perform his miracles as a part of a transformational program, at least not as that language is typically understood. He was manifesting the power of the eschatological kingdom.
Yes, Jesus cares about this world. He has two natures one of which is truly human. He was resurrected in a true human body and will return in the same to judge true humans but he has not initiated (and especially not through the visible church) a program a socio-cultural transformation prior to the eschaton. That program has been imposed upon the church from without to make apparently important and useful that which seems weak and foolish to this age.
NTW’s explanation of that passage misses the point by rather a lot.
dgh
Romans 8 teachs (or at worst strongly implies) that the “world” – as understood to be God’s creation- is awaiting the salvific effects of redemption just like covenant-breaking humans are.
Ken
Ken, right. And that implies the world does not need to be saved. Creatures bearing the image of God do. And once they are liberated from the constraints of sin and death, the earth can serve God in the way it was created.
Though even here I don’t think there will be direct continuity between creation and glorification. Adam and Eve were married. In glory marriage will not exist. So we will have sexual organs, presumably, with not outlet for them. This is going to be a strange place.
dgh,
Maybe the problem is the verb choice. I might agree that Christ/the Church won’t be “saving” the world from damnation. But they will be setting it aright and maximizing its potential. I think it would be a mistake to read Romans 8 as saying that the earth is groaning under the weight of our sin, and then when redemption comes, it blossoms under its own auspices apart from man’s direct influence.
The Scriptures teach that the earth reaches its fullness under the dominion of man; a redeemed man can more fully & perfectly implement a divinely-authorized dominion than can an unredeemed man. So perhaps we’re not saving the world, just bringing it to fullness.
As you’ve pointed out with regard to marriage and sexual organs, we don’t know what that fullness/perfectness/completeness always entails, but that doesn’t negate its existence.
Ken
Ken, so we don’t know what that maximal fullness looks like, but we’re going to shoot for it anyway. That sounds scary. It hardly sounds biblical.
Dr Clark,
Noted. And you read TK with a hermeneutic of suspicion. I do not. He has earned my confidence- not suspicion.
Dr. Clark
My statement is an endorsement of everything Wright says as orthodox, but I’m not sure that he says anything in the statement above that is unorthodox. Am I wrong?
The Scriptures teach that the earth reaches its fullness under the dominion of man; a redeemed man can more fully & perfectly implement a divinely-authorized dominion than can an unredeemed man. So perhaps we’re not saving the world, just bringing it to fullness.
Ken,
It might help to distinguish between the cultural mandate and the Great Commission. The former is law, the latter is gospel. If that’s true then what you seem to be suggesting is that the redeemed imago Dei is now in a more natural, even superior position to carry out law. Not only would that suggest a believer can do creational tasks better than unbelievers (which real-world experience obliterates), but that seems to go against something like HC 114 which says that even the holiest amongst us make but the slightest progress in this life. With that sort of low view of even redeemed man’s ability, how does one actually get to the conclusion that he outpaces the unredeemed man in doing what he is naturally inclined for?
Instead of saying redeemed man can do the law better than he who is naturally oriented for it, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that he is charged to carry out gospel for which he is now supernaturally oriented? Obviously, that doesn’t do much for the premise that believers are to re-capture the land, but if Jesus’ kingdom really isn’t of this world maybe that’s the point.
And what exactly is the principled difference between “saving the world and bringing it to its fullness”? Those seem to be synonymous ideas. Moreover, isn’t that solely the Host of heaven’s job?
Zrim,
Yes, I am suggesting that the redeemed were created expressly to do good works – or perhaps to “carry out law” as you phrase it. (I’m curious to know if you do equate good works with the law.)
These good works are performed in the context of both the Great Commission (GC) and the dominion mandate. You apparently believe that the GC now trumps the dominion mandate. I’d be curious if our host historian of Reformed thought would concur that historically the Reformed have come to this conclusion or if it isn’t a more recent innovation. It is my understanding that the Reformed have taught that the GC is a more express fulfillment of the dominion mandate.
As to whether or not non-believers can do creational tasks “better” than believers, and notwithstanding the hyperbole of HC 114, I think you’re probably wrong — if “better” means more acceptable to God. Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable whereas Cain’s was not, and it had nothing to do with whether or not Abel’s sacrifice was more abundant, artfully displayed, etc. But if “better” is a stumbling block, I would willing substitute “more perfectly” — in its 18th century connotation.
As to the principled difference, perhaps it is subtle, but I think the language fits the good point that Darryl made about fallen men need saving, the earth created in goodness does not – it needs restoration. Perhaps the connotations of “save,” “redeem,” and “restore” overlap but the underlying principle is clear: the earth has been damaged by man’s sin, and it’s restoration is a consequence of the salvation and redemption of man. Isaiah 61 seems to blend the two together quite nicely, and our Lord thought so as well as he used the passage to announce his kingdom. {To be clear, I’m not equating restoration of the earth with a Christian green movement.}
dgh – Evidently you have a more cramped understanding of dominion than I do. I’d be interested to understand what you think dominion means.
Ken
Ken,
You might want to rethink this whole notion of Christians doing a “better” (ie: more acceptable to God) job at creational tasks. This reasoning breaks down on a couple of levels:
1) The believer’s creational tasks (vocational, avocational, etc.) are beset with the same depravity of the unbelievers. The reason why our work is rendered as acceptable service to God is based on the mediatorial work of Christ (cf. Ex. 28:36-38 for a typological analogy), not because the work we are called to perform is more or less intrinsically holy and acceptable to God than that of the unbeliever.
2) In the case where skill and proficiency are called for rather than piety, Christians simply do not have a corner on the market. I am more concerned about the surgeons skill than his piety when on the operating table; the same is true for the civil engineer’s design skills for constructing a bridge that won’t collapse.
To make this personal, when our oldest son had to have an open-heart surgery, the last concern my wife and I had was his spiritual disposition, or the acceptability of his work to God. I do not know whether or not Dr. Lamberti was a believer when he performed surgery on our son. However, I do know that he is one of the nation’s foremost pediatric cardiologists. God used his skills, doubtlessly tainted by depravity, to heal our son. Frankly, I could care less if his intent in surgery was “to glorify God” by operating from a Christian framework, the fact remains that God’s glory was aptly displayed in the skills of this fallen doctor. My family is grateful to God for his skill regardless of his piety.
We’ve discussed this many times on the HB. If anyone searches “transformation” or “Christ and culture” those discussions will come up.
I continue to wonder at the notion that Christians are better than non-Christians at the secular callings. I doubt that any of the original Dutch neo-Calvinists taught that and yet it seems to be at the heart of what a lot of their followers regard as Reformed orthodoxy. It strikes me as gnostic. It’s a secret knowledge that none of them can quantify. They can’t say how they got it. They can’t say what it is. They can’t prove that it exists but they believe that they have it.
I think the doctrine of common grace teaches us that non-Christians may be as skilled as or more skilled than Christians at secular callings. Calvin wrote on this at length with respect to the classics and political philosophy.
Whatever one thinks about transformationalism, the notion that Christians are inherently superior at secular vocations is an idea that needs to be abandoned because it brings their entire program into immediate disrepute. It’s very difficult to take a claim seriously that is so obviously and manifest false and contrary to the main stream of Reformed theology for centuries.
Whoa! Who said that Christians were necessarily more skilled than or inherently superior at secular vocations? I would agree that the statement “Christians are inherently superior at secular vocations” is generally false. I qualified better as “more acceptable” to God, thus my reference to Abel and Cain (And for the record, I think worship is a creational task). I’d be happy to grant -speculatively- that Cain’s sacrifice could have been presented more skillfuly than Abel’s…and that the Assyrians were superior to Israel with regard to siege warfare; and that the Greeks were superior to Israel with regard to the carving of statues, etc. ad infinitum.
But as to the broader context of dominion, including the Great Commission, I stand by the statement that believers should necessarily be better at fulfilling the mandate, especially over and against those that don’t recognize the mandate in the first place. Isaiah 61 indicates very clearly that the skills of the unbeliever will all be brought into the service of the kingdom – because that’s what they were designed for in the first place and that’s where they will achieve their final fulfillment. I conclude from this that men who come to faith now and explicitly dedicate their hands to the glory of God in their vocations by definition offer a more acceptable offering than do unbelievers – who’s work, as Jed illustrates, is still used by God to bring glory unto himself.
Ken
Again Ken, “more acceptable to God” in the Cain and Abel context was sacral not vocational. Which surgery would more acceptable to God – a successful one by a pagan, or a botched one by a Christian?
What does a creational task have to do with acceptance with God?
What does it mean for a creational task to be accepted by God?
Ken, I don’t think dominion means fossil fuels or nation-state superpowers. I’d actually follow Wendell Berry a lot more closely on dominion than I would the pastor urbanist Keller. In other words, dominion can’t mean the destruction of parts of the created order. It must involve stewardship.
Too often I fear dominion has meant for Protestants a kick-butt and take prisoners approach that baptizes whatever we do as good and wholesome. If Adam was displaying dominion as a gardener, then I’m not sure why that still doesn’t apply. In which case, an agrarian transformationalism will be different from an urban/industrial version.
dgh!
We finally agree on something.
And for the record, I don’t think its all that scary pursuing agrarian transformationalism, acknowledging that mistakes will be made along the way.
Ken
Jed & Scott,
You’ve switched from “creational task” to distinctions between sacral and vocational, which are subsets, since the WCF clearly states that the chief reason for man’s being is to glorify God, which simply summarized the Reformation point that all vocational work has a sacral aspect. I would suggest then that of two equally-competently-performed surgeries, the one done by a Christian intentionally for God’s glory is the more acceptable to God.
I mentioned earlier the term “more perfectly” and specifically called out its earlier connotation of being more complete or more fit. A vocation performed with the express recognition of its place within God’s economy is a more perfectly/completely performed vocation than one that doesn’t make this acknowledgement.
Not that its at all conclusive but I find my four-year old’s drawing of birds more endearing than I do Audobon’s which are undoubtedly more technically perfect.
Finally, its clear that advent of the Kingdom brings righteousness to the earth, and brings justice, fruitfulness and peace with it. These are promises God makes to His people and are brought about by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon his people as clearly articulated in Isaiah 32. The Kingdom achieves its fullness through the power of the Holy Spirit working through his people. The gifts and skills of nonbelievers can and are used to further the kingdom, but I don’t believe they bring the same level of pleasure (hence acceptability) to God as do the good works done in His name by His chosen people.
Ken
Ken, it’s really nice to say,” A vocation performed with the express recognition of its place within God’s economy is a more perfectly/completely performed vocation than one that doesn’t make this acknowledgement.” But what does that really mean in the real world we live and operate in?
The plumber who recognizes his vocation’s place in God’s economy, but can’t solder a copper joint gets fired. I do agree with you that we as Christians should work in our vocations to glorify God. However, vocations on this side of glory are passing enterprises, bound to the rules and principles of this world where execution, efficiency, and quality all carry a lot more weight than piety and worldview.
You still seem to be saying that the believers labors are intrinsically glorifying to God, and biblically that is not the case. Even the work we are called to perform is only acceptable in the presence of God based on the mediatorial work of Christ. Without this mediation, our work, even our very best is filthy rags and profane. Christ receives the service we render to God in our vocations and he alone makes them acceptable before the Father. There is no such thing as work that is more-or-less acceptable to God, nor is there a redemptive quality to our work. Redemption is the province of Christ, not sinful men.
Our work is work, just like anyone else. We offer it in faith, but there isn’t something inherent in our labor that distinguishes it from a non-believer’s. It is our faith, not our work that distinguishes us.
jed,
Last comment from me…
You said, “execution, efficiency, and quality all carry a lot more weight than piety and worldview.” One of the legacies of the Reformation is that Reformed Christians agreed, and therefore sought to execute better and more efficiently and deliver more quality because they were Christians. In their mind excellent work was a reflection of a striving piety. I agree with them. Whether or not our current vocations are passing enterprises, I wouldn’t know. As creatures who were put into the garden to work, I think it’s quite possible that as we will continue to be embodied souls that we will continue to work in glory, and that may mean we’ll still have carpenters making chairs and masons building walls and gardeners tending gardens. All to God’s glory, while the damned stew in torment and probably not working.
You said ” There is no such thing as work that is more-or-less acceptable to God, nor is there a redemptive quality to our work. Redemption is the province of Christ, not sinful men.”
Would a man who in his work uses unjust measures find his work neutral before God, or would his work be an extension of his wickedness and come under judgment? God condemns both the man because of his wicked work and heart; out of the abundance of his heart he commits actions that merit judgment. One cannot divorce one’s actions from one’s beliefs; they are symbiotic. As stated above, all of which the 16th century Reformed understood and thus created the language of vocation and elevating common work to a semi-sacral state. I think you’d be hard pressed to find any or many Puritan(s) who would concur that your work is neutral.
But let’s work with an example: there is a market where cheating is rampant amongst the merchants; when these men become redeemed by faith in Christ then necessarily their work should reflect their new allegiance. I would expect (and evidently so does God) Christian merchants to use honest measures and thereby their work reflects their allegiance…and proves it. To assert one’s Christianity and continue in dishonest measures belies one’s profession of faith. Now whether or not the market, now full of honest Christian merchants, is redeemed or restored, I won’t quibble, but it is a better and acceptable market in the sight of God.
I would suggest then that of two equally-competently-performed surgeries, the one done by a Christian intentionally for God’s glory is the more acceptable to God.
But, Ken, what about the godly surgeon who does a bad job? Doesn’t he still glorify God? I would want to make a distinction between a job well done and a work of faith. Often I get the sense from transformers of whatever degree that these are the same thing.
Surely, I want to meet the better doc at the operating table, and I don’t care one whit about whether he is godly or not since faith has no direct or obvious bearing on effectiveness at creational task. But I only want to meet the man who has faith at the Lord’s Table, because faith is the only standard there, and I don’t care one whit if he performed his creational/vocational tasks that previous week worse than the unbeliever. It seems to me that when we don’t distinguish clearly between faith and good work, not only is it a variant of confusing law and gospel, it also leaves the faithful who stumble with that much less hope, as well as perhaps giving the ungodly false assurance that their good creational work counts for something redemptive. In a word, then, the categorical distinction is faith/unbelief.
A vocation performed with the express recognition of its place within God’s economy is a more perfectly/completely performed vocation than one that doesn’t make this acknowledgement.
If you’re right then a believing son would have to say of his unbelieving father that his father is not as good a father as his friend’s believing father by virtue of belief instead of performance. But that would force the first son to have to break the fifth. And if the unbelieving father is actually better at the creational vocation of fatherhood than the believing father then you’d be asking everyone to deny what is plain. But the believing father who isn’t as good a father as the unbelieving father, by virtue of faith alone, is still glorifying God in his fatherhood while the unbelieving father isn’t.
Zrim,
I think your last concern is what’s driving your implied and unfounded insistence that I would rather meet the poorer of two surgeons on the operating table.
You write, ” it also leaves the faithful who stumble with that much less hope, as well as perhaps giving the ungodly false assurance that their good creational work counts for something redemptive.”
The Bible repeatedly instructs us on this point: we know that we love God and are His children when we obey His commandments; the good works that are the result of obedience are the reason for which we exist. False assurance comes from asserting that one’s placement in the categories of faith or unbelief are determined by mental assensus apart. Methinks separating the activities of the heart/mind from that of our hands skirts dangerously close to Marcion’s dualism.
What we do with our hands and bodies, our creational tasks, are important parts of what it means to be human for both thosee redeemed and unredeemed. Our souls will always have bodies and creation will always exist. To assert that one believes and has faith but then downplays the confirmation of said faith as displayed by works would contradict the entire thrust of scripture. God is calling us out of darkness for the express purpose of good works.
Finally, and I’ll admit that I found your last paragraph confusing, “But the believing father who isn’t as good a father as the unbelieving father, by virtue of faith alone, is still glorifying God in his fatherhood while the unbelieving father isn’t.” And thus the believing father’s paltry efforts are acceptable works where the unbelieving father’s aren’t. Isn’t this the point that I’ve been making?
Ken
Ken