"One thing Christians need to know about Tim’s teachings is that they are really anything but what we have come to know as 'Evangelical' Christianity."

Ouch! That’s quite a harsh statement. I don’t even know where to begin. First, why is Jonathon Cousar’s view on this matter even being brought to the forefront at SI? Is it because he is a former member of Redeemer’s church? With the many, many overstatements and stereotype arguments that Cousar uses against Keller, this reminds me of the blogging “journalism” that I’ve read from tabloid bloggers such as Ken Silva and Lighthouse trails. Unfortunately, Silva and Lighthouse trail have a “Maslow hammer” (when all you have is a hammer in your tool box, then every problem becomes a nail) which is Contemplative Spirituality being the main thing wrong with everything in evangelicalism and Christianity, while Cousar’s hammer seems to be political socialism. This is not surprising since he is a sell-professed conservative political junkie. By the way, I happen to be quite conservative in my politics as I have seen first hand great society programs do much more harm than good in my ‘hood where I minister. But to infer that Keller is a Theological liberal and that Tim’s teaching is “anything but what we have come to know as evangelical Christianity” is just plain dishonest and wrong. Despite my disagreements with his view of Baptism, his old earth creation view, and his eschatology (which does inform his view of justice), he is clearly within the bounds of conservative evangelical Christianity.

I have mentioned just a few disagreements with this article on another post, which is only a sample of what I believe is wrong in this article.

Let me give you an illustration. Towards the end of article, Cousar talks of Christian Community Development pioneer John Perkins who talks about redistribution. Of course when most people think of redistribution, they think of communism and socialism. (By the way, John Perkins was conservative enough to serve on a hunger task force in the 1980’s for Ronald Reagan) To Perkins, redistribution mean redistributing skills to help others. Our ministry is doing this. For instance, UTM is starting to connect Christian entrepreneurs to teach former drug-dealers that have come to faith in Christ and are currently being discipled in our ministry to also start their own businesses, to create a business plan, and etc…By the way, these former drug-dealers also are evangelists in our ministry, sharing the gospel whenever they can. But it is taking people from the outside coming along side our students because our students don’t have the normal social capital that a typical middle-class person has and sharing their skills with them.

Also, Cousar assumes that the free market economy (which I strongly believe in) and all the social structures in America that have been created works well for everyone. Not true in my neighborhood. For example, my inner-city neighborhood has a high school which is considered a drop-out factory by a study from John Hopkins university. The school’s standards are so low that they refuse to fail anybody unless the students drop out of the school and approximately 46% do. That makes it much, much more difficult for some of our students that come from single parent families and do not have someone advocating for them. And what if liberal social policies have created some of these problems (such as automatically passing students regardless of their actual grades in order to not hurt their “self-esteem”) and these liberals who are in charge will never change them? (The city of Grand Rapids liberal in its politics but the surrounding suburbs are quite conservative). And what are the options? Charter schools often skim from the top from inner-city taking students that will score well in state requirement testing or at times will take students for a month and then drop them after the state money comes in for that child. Of course, Christian schools are too expensive. My point in all of this is that not everything is fair, so justice for the poor, the widow, and the fatherless is Biblically legitimate. (Proverbs 29:7) Enough of my rambling.

I agree with Joel. Why in the world is this even on SI? It seems that all you need to do is post a blog that is outrageously (fill in the blank).

So this guy’s been at Keller’s church for 20 years and left last year because of his “growing concern that the church and Tim were far more liberal, theologically and ideologically than I had ever imagined.” Has Keller changed that much in 20 years or did Cousar suddenly get a dose of discernment? He left the church and now he’s exposing Keller for the liberal he really is? Give me a break!

The article doesn’t substantiate the crazy quote that Keller’s not even evangelical. I think the author of the article equates conservative politics with conservative evangelicalism. He’s got an axe to grind or something.

Keller has enough in print and audio that anyone can quite easily find out what he believes. I don’t think anyone communicates the heart of evangelical Christianity as clearly and persuasively as Keller. Read Prodigal God and form a judgment from that. If you’re concerned about his political/economic views, read Generous Justice.

By the way, it wouldn’t hurt to remember that liberalism is a theology of reduction, and “social justice” is what’s left of Christianity once the transcendent has been ensconced in the immanent. So, a form of social justice was evangelical long before it was liberal. I think Keller does a good job bringing that out.

Being incredulous that SI would link this to me seems like posturing. The fact is Keller is a controversial figure for many. One need not agree with it but its posting is worthwhile, if not for anything but those that disagree to rebut and enlighten those whom they believe might otherwise be influenced.

Keller is Presbyterian (PCA) by ordination and training and within the PCA his theology is permissible. I don’t agree with his social justice interpretations and believe that if fails much of what we would call traditional Conservative Evangelicalism. However, today there is a greater willingness within CE to accept teachers with whom CE’s once would have acknowledged as brothers in the faith but falling outside of too many doctrinal expressions to be given the kind of reception he has today with many CE’s.

As to Ken Silva and anyone else noting possible issues with Keller’s teaching, it does nothing but do exactly what is being complained about regarding Keller to call speak of Silva and others derogatorily simply to minimize our hearing them and their findings. There are some implications of Keller’s teachings that are quite concerning. But as I have observed, along with several other prominent Teachers who have demonstrated seriously missteps, Keller is a sacred cow for many and any those who have made up their minds that no one will be able to find anything that is a show stopper simply cannot and will not endure hearing or considering otherwise.

I have not read any of Keller’s books. Just not in my field of vision. He evidently has built a large ministry to urbanites. This article does appear to have a good in context quote from Keller and appears to be based on Keller’s own statements over time. Therefore we should probably make sure for ourselves.

I do know that the call to social justice and ministry is loudest in Evangelical colleges and Seminaries that have abandoned the inerrancy of scripture and diminished the vision of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Seattle Pacific University, Azusa Pacific University, Westmont College, and Fuller Seminary are some on the West coast that come to mind.

We should check out the messengers message and facts before criticizing him.

By the way, the great social ministry that comes out of the Rescue missions and like ministries are greater than anything talked about by modern intellectuals and ministry theorists in books. They stand on the old fashioned Gospel and the saving of souls. The consequence is often social transformation.

I think such an article is appropriate here on SI. Informative. Will make me look at Keller and others of his followers with caution.

The real issue is false doctrines and teachings. That is the real issue.

But instead of focusing on the real issue on both sides, so many choose to be partial.

Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are far more concerned about heresy and false doctrines and strange associations that occur on the LIBERAL side of the aisle than they are on the CONSERVATIVE side.

Therefore, Tim Keller’s even using the term “social justice” makes him a possible heretic. Never mind the detailed instructions that God gave to Old Testament Israel that were specifically designed to take care of the poor, and to keep the gap between the rich and the poor from growing too wide, and that Israel’s failure to implement and keep those instructions were one of the main issues that MOST of the prophets told Israel that they were facing God’s judgment for. So what does things given to Old Testament Israel have to do with us? Well, gee, Keller is PRESBYTERIAN. COVENANT THEOLOGY. Conservative covenant theologians LOVE to apply the MORAL and RELIGIOUS commandments from the Sinai covenant to modern society to influence issues like supporting capital punishment, but hypocritically TOTALLY IGNORE the economic justice portion of the Sinai covenant! Now I am not a covenant theology guy. But the people who ARE need to see if they are being hypocritical by only supporting the parts of it that they personally like! The liberal covenant theology types are the social gospel/social justice crowd and ignore the moral law. But the conservative covenant theology types who ignore the economic justice issues in the Sinai covenant are just as hypocritical! Sure, they may be doctrinally correct in other areas, things touching the New Testament gospel, but on the Sinai covenant issues, they are just as partial, just as hypocritical, and just as WRONG as are the social gospel crowd! And the person who cannot accept that NEEDS TO ABANDON COVENANT THEOLOGY. The problem is not Tim Keller’s attempt to articulate a comprehensive covenant theology. The problem is covenant theologians, whether right or left, omitting the parts that they don’t like! The problem IS NOT Keller being some heretic for including the economic justice component of the Sinai covenant and its modern application via covenant theology. Instead, the problem is with guys like Francis Schaeffer and D. James Kennedy for leaving it out! If you are a covenant theology adherent, well the Sinai covenant wasn’t just the Ten Commandments. It was the jubilee year and the instructions concerning taking care of the poor. But that is only part of the problem.

The other part is that conservative theologians and pastors, covenant theology or not, exhibit doctrinal errors, heresies and align themselves with apostates (and worse) all the time. Even though this is just as wrong according to the Bible as the social justice crowd, they get a pass because they are conservative. The Manhattan Declaration was really just the tip of the iceberg … religious right types have been working with Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons etc. and changing their doctrines and practices to suit them for decades. But because they are social and economic conservatives, no one gets angry, no one says a thing. It is an outrage to hammer Keller on social justice while ignoring the falsehoods taught and the very questionable behavior of so many conservative evangelicals: the aforementioned Kennedy and Schaeffer as well as Falwell, Dobson, Mohler, and a great many more.

The only reason to favor any of those over Keller (at least regarding the social justice issue) is if you favor conservative politics to the Bible. It is the only reason. If anything, Keller’s teachings are more Biblical than so many of these guys’ hawking books and tapes claiming that freemason George Washington was a Christian, and repeating the utterly false claim that Ronald Reagan was a warrior for the Christian and pro-life cause. So, attempting to present a comprehensive covenant theology (and I repeat, I am not a covenant theology guy!) is liberal heresy, but willfully promoting falsehoods (lies!) is just peachy? Conservative politics supports that, but the Bible doesn’t. The Bible contains dozens of commands to advocate and seek justice on behalf of the poor and oppressed, but nowhere does it command us to deceive Christians because it is expedient to right wing politics. It is OK for conservative evangelicals to have financial ties with Sun Myung Moon, but taking what the Old Testament says about the poor seriously makes you a heretic? Again, elevating politics over the Bible, and that is worldliness.

Now I am not going to endorse Keller’s teachings. Not being a covenant theology adherent means these issues are not my concern. But those who do adhere to covenant theology DO have to address the issues that Keller is raising lest they be found guilty of being selective with scripture because of their own personal political beliefs; of turning the Bible into a buffet where you can take what you like and reject what you dislike. If you have a problem, it is with covenant theology, and it isn’t Keller’s fault that most conservative covenant theology teachers have failed to articulate and advocate a balanced, comprehensive version of the system. It also isn’t Keller’s fault that more people who profess to believe in covenant theology haven’t challenged their pastors and theologians with “hey, how come you are omitting key elements of the Sinai covenant, some of the very ones that the prophets spoke of”?

This double standard where conservative error is accepted (or overlooked) but liberal error is denounced has to end, because it is itself error. Either have a consistent Biblical standard or have no standards at all.

I think that Keller’s views are open to scrutiny and discussion. Why wouldn’t they be? He has plenty in print and audio, and not one of his books is above popular level, so anyone who wishes to get straight answers can do so quickly and easily. I strongly encourage people to pick up Prodigal God, since it’s easy to read and devotionally rich. It’s also very typical of Keller’s emphases.

He is controversial, and at least in the PCA, I think the controversy has been mostly good and helpful. For example, he debated Ligon Duncan on the presbytery floor about deaconesses in the last year or two. It’s healthy for two respected leaders to model appropriate methods of disagreement.

As for Job’s comments, I’m not sure what to make of them, except to say that mainstream covenant theologians, as in those who follow the teaching in WCF 19, don’t believe that the Sinaitic covenant is binding on new covenant Christians.

1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.

4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

5. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

Let me make this clear. I don’t have a problem with Keller’s view being open to scrutiny or discussion and I don’t really care how popular he is. I have problems with overstatements and stereotypes. I have problems with the social gospel label being thrown around loosely against those (Tim Keller) who have orthodox beliefs, such as the inerrancy of scripture, the doctrine of original sin/total depravity, penal substitutionary atonement, the return of Christ/final judgment. It is not an overrealization of the kingdom by itself that leads to doctrinal error. If that were true, we’d be calling out William Carey out as one who held to the social gospel. He was Post-mil which led him to do all sorts of social reform in India such as helping abolish widow burning, abolishing child infanticide, educating girls, getting rid of Usury, and the list goes on and on. He also preached the gospel and translated the scriptures of course.

However, those who have both an overrealization of the kingdom and have compromised or rejected these doctrines of the faith are social gospelers. For instance, both Walter Rauschenbusch and Brian McLaren (yesterdays and todays most prominent proponents of the social gospel) reject original sin, total depravity, penal substitutionary atonement and final judgment (actually Rauschenbusch claimed ignorance about Hell). Or what about Rob Bell? He is very naive about sin, has rejected penal substitutionary atonement and now comes out with an unorthodox view of hell with its many chances to get in after death. They are rejecting orthodox theology alongside of holding to an over-realized kingdom………..When Tim Keller starts rejecting the basic tenants of the faith, then I will get concerned about the social gospel path.

Henri Nouwen said, “I personally believe that while Jesus came to open the door to God’s house, all human beings can walk through that door, whether they know about Jesus or not. Today I see it as my call to help every person claim his or her own way to God.”

In his book “What St. Paul Really Said”, N.T. Wright said, “Many Christians, both in the Reformation and in the counter-Reformation traditions, have done themselves and the church a great disservice by treating the doctrine of ‘justification’ as central to their debates, and by **supposing** that it described the system by which people attained salvation.”

He added, “It cannot be right that the very doctrine which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong at the same table should be used as a way of saying that some, who define the doctrine of justification differently, belong at a different table.” (He wasn’t referencing Galatians 2 here).

Jan Johnson promotes new age meditation and teaches that we must “experience” God through going into a “cloud of uknowing”. This is a teaching that says that in order to really know God the mind has to be shut down (cloud of unknowing) and that God is known (i.e. “experienced”) through mysticism.

Tim Keller endorses and promotes all these people and more (you can see it on the Redeemer.com website).

Redeemer for several years held a class in eastern meditation techniques called “Way of the Monk” which taught students to use a “prayer rope” to help them clear their minds of all thoughts (presumably so they could enter something similar to the “cloud of unknowing”).

Keller approves of all of these endorsements - even when the people he’s endorsing disagree on the most foundational doctrines of our faith. He seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth. Proclaiming orthodox views, then promoting and endorsing those who hold anything but.

[Joel Shaffer] When Tim Keller starts rejecting the basic tenants of the faith, then I will get concerned about the social gospel path.

This is a recipe for your own personal theological and spiritual disaster if it were applied prescriptively with all those calling themselves Teachers. Orthodoxy in belief is one of the most common veneers used to hide deceptive practices. Now, whether Tim Keller is engaging in such is something to debate, I am not speaking to that at this moment but to your formula which you are using for yourself to validate Keller.

But as to Keller I do believe that he and other popular Teachers are given their Orthodox Pass while their practices and engagements are headed in very wrong directions. It is not uncommon to hear CE’s and even Fundies take your approach and feel secure because a man utters orthodoxy. And so to Keller’s naivety about altered states of consciousness as a legitimate spiritual apparatus I am saddened to see so few alarmed.

Keller approves of all of these endorsements - even when the people he’s endorsing disagree on the most foundational doctrines of our faith. He seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth. Proclaiming orthodox views, then promoting and endorsing those who hold anything but.

Brother, you switched topics! If you are in fact the author of this article, you accused Keller of embracing the social gospel. This has nothing to do with the social gospel, but mostly has to do with spiritual contemplative practices.

As for N.T. Wright, One can be vehemently apposed to his view on Justification, but endorse theology that is orthodox (such as his defense of a historical Jesus). Its called discernment. I think we can “eat the chicken, but spit out the bones.”

This is a recipe for your own personal theological and spiritual disaster if it were applied prescriptively with all those calling themselves Teachers. Orthodoxy in belief is one of the most common veneers used to hide deceptive practices. Now, whether Tim Keller is engaging in such is something to debate, I am not speaking to that at this moment but to your formula which you are using for yourself to validate Keller.

But as to Keller I do believe that he and other popular Teachers are given their Orthodox Pass while their practices and engagements are headed in very wrong directions. It is not uncommon to hear CE’s and even Fundies take your approach and feel secure because a man utters orthodoxy. And so to Keller’s naivety about altered states of consciousness as a legitimate spiritual apparatus I am saddened to see so few alarmed.

My problem with people speaking against Tim Keller is label “social gospel” being applied to him, not the other accusations. Fundamentalists throw around this term far too loosely as it was in this article. Alex, can you give me examples of those who have slipped into the social gospel that had nothing to do with compromising and/or rejecting the tenants of the faith?

Wow… Joel - I have to say you’ve exposed your hypocrisy and the disingenuousness of your arguments here. It is now quite clear that you are here to ridicule and demean anyone who goes up against the man you have decided to follow and defend.

In your first post here, you said “when all you have is a hammer in your toolbox, then every problem becomes a nail”. Then you said, “It appears Cousar’s (that’s me) hammer is political socialism.”

LATER you wrote this: “When Tim Keller starts rejecting the basic tenants of the faith, then I will get concerned about the social gospel path.”

So in my response to that I replied not talking about politics or socialism, but about the areas where Keller promotes those who reject the tenets of our faith.

AND WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE? Did you say, “oh wow, I didn’t know that… thank you for sharing that.”

NO! You used my latest reply to demean me again. Now instead of criticizing me for only having a single hammer (i.e. one-topic that I can talk about), when I showed I could talk about more than just politics - you suddenly criticize me for CHANGING THE SUBJECT!

So what is it with you? Am I damned either way? If you were being honest and genuine, it would seem if you were critical of me for only having one tool in my toolbox (politics) you would have then praised me for being able to talk a little bit about theological matters as well. But nope… you used that to bash me over the head as well.

So if I can only talk on one subject you criticized me for that (even though that was a mean and unfair criticism… what made you think I can only discuss one subject?), and then when I showed I actually have one other subject I can discuss - you criticized me saying I changed the subject. (like that’s some kind of moral failing)!

John,

If it came across like I was trying to demean you, then I am really sorry. That was not my motive or intention. But here is where I am coming from. Just because a person may have a more liberal political standpoint does not mean that they embrace the social gospel. In fact, many of my evangelical African-American urban ministry colleagues happen to be pro-life democrats that really believe government should take a bigger role in dealing with social economic issues, but in fact are very evangelistic. I happen to disagree with them, but they are not proponents of the social gospel. Also, if one talks about the “restoration of creation,” or redeeming culture, this does not mean they are social gospel. Living in Grand Rapids among many Christian Reformed people (which is very close to the PCA), I see many of them quite committed to evangelism but who have adopted this Kuyperian view of culture where they believe that part of their mission is to redeem culture.

Now if you want to see a slide towards the social gospel? Look at Mars Hill Bible in Grand Rapids. You will not only see the over-realized kingdom view along with a dumbing down of doctrine (sin, atonement, hell), but you will also see what mission really means to them. It is not church planting. It does not place evangelism and discipleship as a priority. Rather you will see clean water initiatives, mentoring inner-city kids (although the partner group limits the evangelism component), settling refugees, and micro-finance projects in Africa.

I am glad that you mentioned the spiritual contemplative practices. I guess I could have let you know that. That is something I did not know and causes some level of doubt with his discernment. I would find some of the spiritual practices troubling that you mention, but that does not mean a pastor who allows that to happen in his church is not an evangelical. This happens to be one of the differences between fundamentalists and evangelicals. Regrettably, evangelicals will tolerate things of this nature, whereas fundamentalists do not. But you have made an incredibly forceful claim that the “One thing Christians need to know about Tim’s teachings is that they are really anything but what we have come to know as ‘Evangelical’ Christianity.” I still believe that is an overstatement.

Joel:

I’ve been following this some back and forth. I decided it was a waste of time responding to whoever this guy is who after 20 years in Keller’s church suddenly had an epiphany. And where is he now that he has seen the light? Seems he now has you pegged as well.

“Wow… Joel - I have to say you’ve exposed your hypocrisy and the disingenuousness of your arguments here. It is now quite clear that you are here to ridicule and demean anyone who goes up against the man you have decided to follow and defend.”

I read his diatribe against Keller. How easy it is to pull quotes from here and there. Reminds me of something Kostenberger wrote recently. “Increasingly, the mode of research moves from thoughtful, sustained reading to digital scavenger hunts for usable scraps of information.” Use the word “reclaimed” and you’re in the company of “Socialists and Progressives pushing for Communist societies.” And when I read about America the greatest beacon of hope to the world and the most just society I get goose bumps but I don’t know what America he is speaking about. Sounds like a political agenda driving this wagon.

I know that SI includes a wide range of material on its listings but usually they lead to something at least remotely credible, helpful, or informative. But hey, Keller’s an easy target.

Steve