Tim Keller Stepping Down as Redeemer Senior Pastor

I was surprised to hear this, as I thought Keller was younger. He is an able apologist for the Gospel in a city where there are few solid churches that do so. I particularly enjoyed his back and forth with Nicholas Kristoff of the NYT from a few weeks back, and gave that article to someone who is seeking a church (I haven’t been able to give her the gospel yet).

Four months doesn’t seem like a very long time, but if he’s staying on to help with the leadership and seminary, then I guess he doesn’t need to give a year’s notice or whatever. I will pray that the next pastor at RPC will be solid and faithful to the Gospel.

The new Pastor will need a lot of prayer - particularly because Keller is staying there. I haven’t read anything by Keller, but have seen a few interviews he’s done. I plan on reading something from him one day.

Although his books can be helpful, I don’t think Keller is as good an “apologist for the gospel” as many believe. He is a theistic evolutionist who denies the historical, literal reading of Genesis 1 & 2. That’s not much of an “apologist” to me.

Although his books can be helpful, I don’t think Keller is as good an “apologist for the gospel” as many believe. He is a theistic evolutionist who denies the historical, literal reading of Genesis 1 & 2.

Yeah, his embrace of theistic evolution is a massive problem, but when I referenced the gospel above, I was referring to sola fide. I’m a literal six day / 24 hour YE creationist, so I know Keller and I completely disagree there.

I heard Carson call this book “the best apologetic since Lewis’ Mere Christianity.” That’s a big compliment. I wonder if it’s really true. Haven’t read it yet.

For those who wish to revisit the issue, Pastor Matt Recker did a series on Keller’s view of creation a while back. You can find it in this list.

http://www.timothykeller.com/books/the-prodigal-god

http://www.timothykeller.com/books/counterfeit-gods

[Jay]

Although his books can be helpful, I don’t think Keller is as good an “apologist for the gospel” as many believe. He is a theistic evolutionist who denies the historical, literal reading of Genesis 1 & 2.

Yeah, his embrace of theistic evolution is a massive problem, but when I referenced the gospel above, I was referring to sola fide. I’m a literal six day / 24 hour YE creationist, so I know Keller and I completely disagree there.

According to NeoCalvinist.com, Keller is not that stellar in his defense of the gospel.

EXCERPT: “After the publication of The Reason for God, Newsweek hailed Tim Keller as “a C.S. Lewis for the twenty-first century.” That is a lofty comparison and one I’m sure must make Keller quite uncomfortable. Yet at some level the comparisons are becoming undeniable. Keller’s ability to communicate to believers and unbelievers alike and to do so on an intellectual level clearly parallels that of Lewis. Where Keller’s first book offered an explanation as to why we should believe in God, his second, The Prodigal God, focuses on Jesus’ best-known parable (and arguably the best-known and most-loved story of all-time) to challenge both believers and skeptics.”

http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/book-review-the-prodigal-god-by-tim-keller‌

I had a feeling that this would turn into a discussion about whether or not Keller was “good on the gospel”, and if not, where he goes wrong. So let me invite you to read what is written on their website:

In particular, the gospel is the message that we are saved from our sins by sheer, free grace through faith in the finished work of Christ, not through our efforts and works. Redeemer believes that this gospel message of hope for the world and grace for the sinner is not merely a body of truth, but the very power of God which grows, changes, and shapes everything with which it has contact—hearts and identities, relationships, practices in every area of public and private life, and whole societies. So the gospel is “central,” first, because it is not merely one department of belief, but it is a power that affects every area of life when its implications are felt and thought out. But secondly, the gospel is “central” because it is neither legalism on the one hand nor relativism on the other.

Listen to a sermon about Redeemer’s core value, Gospel:

Who is this Jesus?
Lord of the Wine
Born of the Gospel

2. CHANGED LIVES

It is common to think the gospel is a message mainly to be shared with non-believers to bring them salvation, after which they grow through following Biblical principles. But at Redeemer we believe the gospel is a message for believers also—that believing, understanding, rejoicing in and practicing the gospel more deeply is the main way believers overcome flaws and problems and grow into Christ-likeness. Our sinful behavior is rooted in idols of the heart—alternative ‘salvations’—and deeper knowledge of and experience of God’s grace in Christ can change them. We know that long-term life change also requires formative practices of individual and communal prayer, instruction, and worship (see Gospel Community), but without a gospel-changed and changing heart, church practices will produce nominal believers. The gospel changes us from the inside out, freeing us from both self-righteousness and self-condemnation, enabling us to welcome people we excluded, including those who don’t share our beliefs. Bringing the gospel to bear on life is therefore the essence of what we do in preaching, pastoral care, counseling, and education. The gospel can change anyone at all, and we take special delight in testimonies of its powerful work.

Listen to a sermon about Redeemer’s core value, Changed Lives:

Changed Lives
Inside-Out Living
How to Change

I’ve read “The Prodigal God” by Keller, which was excellent and very similar to MacArthur’s book on the same parable (it’s the parable of the Prodigal Son). I picked up a copy of Keller’s book “Counterfeit Gods” a couple of days ago, which is also excellent so far. If someone is worried that Keller doesn’t know what the gospel is, then they need to listen to Keller himself or research it.

There’s also this section, which is covered on that same website:

7. OUTWARD FACE

Redeemer has always been especially concerned to welcome the secular, non-believing Manhattanite. Most churches have an ethos within that is confusing or offensive to everyone but evangelicals. Redeemer has always sought to be a place where doubters felt their questions were noticed and taken seriously. This is one of the reasons why we have always avoided typical Christian piety-jargon that makes outsiders immediately feel unnecessarily alien. Sermons should be preached, and public events (even most small groups) conducted as if non-Christians were present, over-hearing what we are saying. We must constantly keep in mind what is like to not believe. If we maintain such an environment, then evangelism shall happen the right way—not so much through programs but organically through the witness of Redeemer believers. It is crucial that a large percentage of Christians come into Redeemer and think, “I wish my non-Christian friend could hear this.” While Redeemer will always grow by attracting already-Christians in, that is not our intended way to grow, and a strong outward face will guarantee that newly arrived Christians are mobilized to reach out to the city.

None of the quoted statements deal with the points raised in the article I linked. Nor did you say anything yourself that dealt with the criticisms raised. Simply saying, “I’ve read the book, it’s good.” doesn’t solve anything.

I found it interesting that the criticism came from a new Calvinist site.

Jay:

I appreciate this excerpt you posted from Redeemer’s website:

Redeemer has always sought to be a place where doubters felt their questions were noticed and taken seriously. This is one of the reasons why we have always avoided typical Christian piety-jargon that makes outsiders immediately feel unnecessarily alien. Sermons should be preached, and public events (even most small groups) conducted as if non-Christians were present, over-hearing what we are saying. We must constantly keep in mind what is like to not believe. If we maintain such an environment, then evangelism shall happen the right way—not so much through programs but organically through the witness of Redeemer believers

What a good reminder. Be aware of churchy language, and alter it appropriately. Will an unbeliever understand what you’re saying? No? Then, maybe you can explain it differently, more simply, more plainly? We don’t want to be people who always use insider language. This doesn’t mean we drop theological terms (e.g justification, redemption, adoption, etc.). But, it does mean we should strive to be clear (e.g. don’t say, “ask Jesus into your heart”).

Thanks, Jay.