"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."

Steve,

there is a good chance that in this engagement, I am wasting my time. However, for the sake of clarification, I felt I should at least respond to his accusations, especially if he thought that I was trying to demean him when all I was trying to do was focus on the theological issue of social gospel, the political issue of socialism, and the overstatement. And I felt if he wanted to know what I thought of the spiritual contemplative issue with Keller, I’d let him know. There are some here on SI that I know I have to over-communicate with and as long as it does not interfere with my work, I’ll have the patience to do so….

especially on the social gospel issue because of the fundamentalist misnomer that I often see among those on SI, exemplified in “A Promise Unfulfilled” that a different kingdom view than the traditional/historical dispy view inevitably leads to the social gospel.

Two questions/thoughts to Joel (or Steve):

Is there a chance that, having listened to Keller for twenty years, this guy has some understanding and nuance that others don’t have who have not been exposed to as much? It is totally out of the question that his positions/beliefs/ideas may lead to the social gospel?

Are you fairly characterizing “A Promise Unfulfilled” by suggesting that it promoted the view that any other view of the Kingdom leads “inevitably” to the social gospel? I will admit to only reading “Promise Unfulfilled” twice, and only having had Dr. McCune for 7 or 8 classes, but I never picked that up from him. I would imagine the point is rather that other views of the kingdom open the door to the social gospel, but they do not lead inevitably there.

Larry, I’m for listening to someone with that much first-hand experience, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find problems in Keller’s church. Some members of the PCA have questioned aspects of the ministry. It is a pretty large leap, though, from having problems to being “anything but” evangelical. Such an accusation indicts not only Keller, but also the elders of his church, who are charged with its peace and purity, and the PCA, which disciplines churches for failing to hold to evangelical distinctives.

Since men who work with Keller quite closely, including those at the Gospel Coalition, those at the seminaries in which he teaches, and those in the NY Metro Presbytery, have never challenged his evangelical credentials, I have to presume that in this regard, the OP is seriously misrepresenting the situation.

How ironic that out of a discussion of Generous Justice, there is a lack of generosity and kindness expressed toward Jonathan Cousar, or “whoever this guy is” in the words of Mr. Davis. He has been mocked as carrying a hammer and being a political junkie by Mr. Shaffer, and the very presence of his article on this web site is not “remotely credible” says Mr. Davis again. All ungenerous statements. Let me say that Jonathan would never have left Redeemer unless there were serious compromises of the Gospel there. I know it because he walked into a church I pastor, and he did not really even want to come or come back once he came! In this world where everyone can find fault with Baptist Fundamentalism, there are actually people like Jonathan who see doctrinal deviancy in neo-evangelical churches that are fawned over by those so disgruntled with those who seek to practice Biblical separation.

At Redeemer, Jonathan saw Bible study leaders who doubted Jesus was the only way of salvation. He saw Mr. Keller associating with and speaking with men like Rick Warren (who for the sake of PEACE aligns himself with Syrian terrorists, homosexuals, and Muslims). He saw lecturerers who taught Adam was a metaphorical hominid. (What kind of Gospel can one embrace if Adam was a hominid?) He saw theistic evolution embraced. He saw comtemplative prayer practices promoted through Way of the Monk or the writings of men like Henri Nouwen. May I add that encouraging meditative practices that arise out of eastern mysticism is not a minor deviation from the Gospel and truth of Scripture! (I recommend you read Faith Undone by Roger Oakland). This path of contemplative prayer is a dangerous path to theological liberalism as practiced by Robert Schuller or the notorious James Pike in San Francisco. And recently Tim Keller said that Jesus was like Mother Theresa (in an interview with Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe)! That one hurts my soul, I confess. All of these things, plus others I am sure I am not mentioning, add credence to the statement that is driving this discussion, “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.” If one can say that someone who tolerates the above is “evangelical” then that word has been pulverized and utterly dumbed down. Jonathan Cousar does not say that everything Tim teaches is wrong, and that he never gives the Gospel, but what he tolerates is dangerous and that it conflicts with Scripture. Jonathan has listened carefully to Tim Keller through the years and has heard Mr. Keller say that “cultural renewal” is the “primary purpose of salvation.” I agree with Jonathan: that is not a conservative Christian belief.

MRecker,

To imply that I mocked Jonathon is way over the top. His article primarily focused on Keller’s social agenda from a more conservative political perspective. To imply that I was mocking using the maslow’s hammer illustration comes across as reading into my motives for doing so. You may be right about some of these other issues that Jonathon and you bring up. But I vehemetly disagree with the notion that individual salvation has gotten lost in the process with his emphasis on cultural renewal/restoration of creation…….

Is a classic example of a new evangelical mind vs. a fundamentalist mind.

The new evangelical sees a brother whose aberrations he must tolerate.

The fundamentalist sees a brother who must be kept at a distance.

Well said Don! I think you hit on the crux of all this. And Matthew thank you for mentioning all those other things. Indeed, my article was written from a perspective of intimate knowledge of many other things going on around Redeemer that I didn’t touch on there. It would be impossible to touch on everything and keep it to a decent length.

Joel, Maslow’s Hammer aside… your last sentence of your last post really is where we disagree most. “Cultural renewal” has totally gotten in the way of individual salvation at Redeemer. Tim Keller speaks with such disdain in the quote I provided near the beginning of my article - of Christians who “suppose” that individual salvation is of much importance. And then he actually mocks what he calls “conservative” Christians (what you might just call Christians) for their desire to “increase their tribe.” That’s a very condescending and mocking thing to say.

Now he may be like you and say that we shouldn’t read into his motives. And in fact elders and other pastors at Redeemer have told me “that’s not really what Tim means”. And as long as I went on believing that he was actually saying things that he didn’t really mean - I continued to be a huge supporter.

But one day (after months of study and consideration) I decided we must take the man at his word. And the minute you do that - you see that what he SAYS is completely different from what many Christians believe he must mean. And this is the best example, the quote I gave on his view of the primary purpose of salvation. You’ll note that he did NOT say the primary purpose of salvation… is salvation of the individual. No, he said it is “cultural renewal.”

So Joel, for you to say individual salvation hasn’t gotten lost in this process - you’re actually doing the same thing I did for many years. You’re giving him the benefit of the doubt, you’re assuming he must mean something other than what he says and you’re all around being very kind. And that’s admirable.

But I’m speaking from personal first-hand experience about what is happening inside Tim Keller’s church. So many people there have so much confusion on the basic doctrines of our faith. So many people confused about sin and their need for a redeemer. So many people believe what we need to do is get out and show the world what good people we are, and then they’ll want to hear about Jesus. But the Jesus they’ll hear about is the one who will make the culture even better still!

Anyway, I don’t fault you for defending him because you do think - as I thought for so many years - that he was on the whole doing good for the body of Christ - that he was calling people to repentance and preaching the true gospel of faith alone in Christ alone.

One thing you might want to take a look at is Redeemer’s “Core Values” page. They don’t have a traditional “what we believe” page… instead they have “Core Values”.

http://www.redeemer.com/about_us/vision_and_values/core_values.html

Just read that a few times. I had to read it a few times to realize it wasn’t really saying what I first thought it was. Especially Core Value #1. Read that one, then read the rest… and then read that one again in light of the rest. And see if you come away keenly aware of the importance of sin and repentance and personal redemption, or do you come away thinking “Gee the city is a great place and we must act to make it even better”?

Is a classic example of a new evangelical mind vs. a fundamentalist mind.

The new evangelical sees a brother whose aberrations he must tolerate.

The fundamentalist sees a brother who must be kept at a distance.

Don, are you accusing me of this when I just explained a form of this difference here?

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.

Sigh…..I guess that is why I have to over explain things. Maybe you were right, Steve.

It is really hard for me to believe the mocking part from Tim Keller. You even thought that Tim Keller was mocking Christians with the quote sign for born again, which could have been interpreted a variety of ways and you thought I was demeaning you and your pastor thought I was mocking you about the Maslow comment which was so far from the truth. If you wrongly interpret these things, why should I believe you about Tim Keller “mocking” those who believe in an individual salvation?

Jonathan and Matt, there are two items to consider. First, the identification of Keller’s beliefs, and second, the evaluation of those beliefs. Both of these require sound judgment, something that I have not seen from the original article or from your posts on this thread.

Regarding the first item, I find the choice of evidence puzzling, even misleading. What a community group leader or a guest lecturer says is not necessarily what Keller says, and there is a difference between endorsing some things about a person and endorsing them in their entirety. Keller clearly opposes Wright’s doctrine of justification, for instance.

You show a willingness to interpret statements in the worst light. Why should a comparison between Jesus and Mother Theresa be proof of unorthodoxy? Can no such comparison be made? Your main statement, that cultural renewal is the “primary purpose” of salvation, is not unorthodox at all. Perhaps the most common description of the Scriptural narrative in evangelical theology is the CFR or CFRC (Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation) rubric. It’s quite common to connect individual salvation to God’s greater purpose, the renewal of creation. I wouldn’t use the word “primary,” but he is talking about salvation’s purpose, not how it occurs (justification by faith alone). In fact, construing the purpose of salvation in terms of service to one’s community was pioneered by Luther himself (see The Freedom of a Christian); is he “anything but” evangelical?

What I see hear is someone who disagrees with Keller’s ideas about how Christians ought to interact with their communities. That’s fine, but it’s not even close to putting him outside the evangelical pale. I am not trying to give Keller the benefit of the doubt; I think that his major emphases and the great bulk of his statements are beyond reasonable doubt. For example, what about this from his GC message:

Keller explained his preaching as a fourfold trajectory often: 1) What you should do (as evidenced by this OT text); 2) You can’t do this (due to your sinfulness); 3) Christ has done it for you (i.e. the Gospel applied); 4) Until you rest in what He’s done, you can’t do it (living the gospel life).

Also,

Keller ended his session by offering a gospel presentation as he indicated that in a crowd of that size, there were probably some who had never trusted in Christ’s righteousness. It was quite moving.

Sounds like a “Marxist in drag” who really cares about social welfare, doesn’t it?

Now to Larry’s questions:

Is there a chance that, having listened to Keller for twenty years, this guy has some understanding and nuance that others don’t have who have not been exposed to as much? It is totally out of the question that his positions/beliefs/ideas may lead to the social gospel?

Are you fairly characterizing “A Promise Unfulfilled” by suggesting that it promoted the view that any other view of the Kingdom leads “inevitably” to the social gospel? I will admit to only reading “Promise Unfulfilled” twice, and only having had Dr. McCune for 7 or 8 classes, but I never picked that up from him. I would imagine the point is rather that other views of the kingdom open the door to the social gospel, but they do not lead inevitably there.

The way that people who listen to his positions/ideas which might lead to the social gospel depends on a few different factors. First, do they really believe that the poor (and everyone else) have a sin problem that is an offense to a holy God? Those with a weak theology of sin tend to overlook total depravity and original sin among the poor. By the way, some of my evangelical colleagues think I am too judgmental towards the poor. They would rather me focus only on the sins of the rich, but I happen to be an equal opportunity offender. Second, do they really believe that sin’s remedy is through the penal-substitutionary atonement work of Christ on the cross? And third, do they really believe that there is a final judgment of heaven and hell? And fourth, do these beliefs translate into them sharing the good news of Jesus Christ? I know hundreds of urban evangelicals leaders who are committed to minister to the poor. Those who really take these doctrines to heart are the ones who are evangelizing and discpling the poor as they help them with their needs. Those who overlook these doctrines inevitably lead to the social gospel. Its been heartbreaking to see, for example, Mars Hill Bible go down that road. I remember when Mars Hill Bible were adopting “unreached people groups” to spread the gospel in Morocco. I remember when Rob Bell preached through the book of Leviticus when he believed in substitutionary atonement. Sigh………

As for A Promise Unfulfilled, let me give you a quote on page 272. ” Arthur Johnston with its near-prescience said Stott’s new theology of the church’s purpose “has dethroned evangelism as the only historical aim of mission.” But blame cannot begin with Stott, however; he did not start the downgrade toward the social gospel among evangelicals. The slide began in the 1940’s with Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism.” From page 232 until 272, McCune develops this idea with the historical development of social activism and then he caps it off with this statement.

[Don Johnson] Is a classic example of a new evangelical mind vs. a fundamentalist mind.

The new evangelical sees a brother whose aberrations he must tolerate.

The fundamentalist sees a brother who must be kept at a distance.

Not really, Don. The OP directly questions his salvation. Keller’s dubiously evangelical in his view.

Then again, maybe this is the difference. Fundamentalists are quick to judge others as non-evangelical….

Thanks Joel,

It sounds like the answer to the first question is that one’s propensity to the social gospel is largely dependent on his theological underpinnings, and I agree. But I think there is, in Keller’s writing, some room for those who do not share these theological underpinnings to find some common ground and appropriate Keller’s arguments for themselves. I personally find Keller’s arguments about social justice and the gospel to be unconvincing, but that’s another issue. But those who find them convincing or helpful may not find them tied tightly enough to the gospel itself.

With respect to Dr. McCune, my question was largely about the word “inevitably.” Perhaps we have a different view of “inevitable,” but I think (I am not sure) that Dr. McCune would say that there are people who differ from his kingdom view who do not have the social gospel view, and therefore it is not inevitable. Perhaps I am wrong … I certainly think that the kingdom view sows the seeds or provides the soil from which the social gospel arises. I think that section on social activism is one that needs some interaction and consideration, though.

[Bob Hayton]

[Don Johnson] Is a classic example of a new evangelical mind vs. a fundamentalist mind.

The new evangelical sees a brother whose aberrations he must tolerate.

The fundamentalist sees a brother who must be kept at a distance.

Not really, Don. The OP directly questions his salvation. Keller’s dubiously evangelical in his view.

Then again, maybe this is the difference. Fundamentalists are quick to judge others as non-evangelical….

I think you demonstrate my point once again. Please note: I didn’t say “non-evangelical”, you did. I didn’t say that the man is or is not a brother. I said “sees a brother who must be kept at a distance.”

Yet again, your inner new evangelical speaks.

Don,

I’m not saying you said he’s not evangelical. The author of the post linked to openly questioned Keller’s salvation and claimed his theology was not evangelical. So your statement that fundamentalists see a BROTHER to be kept at distance doesn’t apply in this case. Some are questioning that he’s even a brother. That’s why many here are saying this is not right. Questioning Keller’s theology is one thing, questioning his salvation and claim to be evangelical is quite another.

[Joel Shaffer] Steve,

there is a good chance that in this engagement, I am wasting my time. However, for the sake of clarification, I felt I should at least respond to his accusations, especially if he thought that I was trying to demean him when all I was trying to do was focus on the theological issue of social gospel, the political issue of socialism, and the overstatement. And I felt if he wanted to know what I thought of the spiritual contemplative issue with Keller, I’d let him know. There are some here on SI that I know I have to over-communicate with and as long as it does not interfere with my work, I’ll have the patience to do so….

especially on the social gospel issue because of the fundamentalist misnomer that I often see among those on SI, exemplified in “A Promise Unfulfilled” that a different kingdom view than the traditional/historical dispy view inevitably leads to the social gospel.

Joel:

I should’ve said “my time.” Go to it. I’m glad you have the time and patience for it and in the end it should be profitable. Looks like others are wading in :-)

Steve