Tim Keller Stepping Down as Redeemer Senior Pastor

The SBC is the only major denomination to reverse its theological slide - the exception which proves the rule. Additionally, as I grew up in the SBC and have many relatives in the SBC, the conservative hold on the SBC is not at all assured. An individual or ministry cannot give up major Biblical teaching such as Genesis 1 & 2 without major consequences eventually. The theological tension cannot last.

There is, as Joel notes, a slippery slope fallacy—the assumption that unrelated actions will flow from the same start—and at the same time there is a slippery slope verity (truth), where other consequences are the logical conclusion of a starting point. With regards to Keller, which is the case will depend on what Keller’s starting point is. If Keller holds to the first fundamental, albeit slightly differently than I, then there is no necessary slippery slope whereby we would assume other consequences. If, on the other hand, Keller’s weakness on Biblical sexuality and creation indeed reflects a weakness in Sola Scriptura and the first fundamental, we would then assume that there will be other consequences.

A broader view of this would indicate that there are churches which start from a position we consider flawed—say the Lutherans or Anglicans—and we find that for four centuries, their theology was largely unchanged. To this day, the LCMS and other conservative synods hold pretty much to the theology of Luther and Melanchthon. It was only when some Lutherans and Anglicans started to adopt liberal form criticism—to walk away from Sola Scriptura—that the theology changed markedly.

So on the whole, until we know for sure that Keller is walking away from Sola Scriptura, we ought to hold back on assuming a slippery slope, even if we have (as Joel notes) anecdotes where others clearly walked away from Sola Scriptura.

(nice to have someone else doing the logic police function, BTW)

Someone can profess to hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura yet in their exegesis hold beliefs that damage the principle. I submit that theistic evolution, progressive creation, and similar views actually ruin Sola Scriptura because, in practice, those who hold those views give more weight to current scientific theory than to the Bible, even while they say they are trying to honor both. I stick to my main point: Someone cannot give up a literal, historical understanding of Genesis 1 & 2 without eventually sliding into other theological error. The error may come from the person himself, or the error may come from those influenced by that person, who are simply taking that person’s beliefs to the next logical step.

(Since these recent posts are getting off the main point of the thread, this will be my last post on this topic here. Perhaps another thread would be better.)

If Paul can rejoice that people are preaching the gospel in a lame attempt to hurt him (Phil. 1:15-18), why can’t we be happy that there is a Presbyterian minister in NYC that is more intentional about outreach to the citizens of New York than most of us and who is presenting the gospel in venues like the NY Times? I don’t know of any SI members that live or work in New York, or who have even been contacted for such an opportunity. I know I haven’t

Did everyone in NYC become a Christian when I wasn’t looking or something?

Are we at the point where we cannot say anything nice about another believer, and we have to mention the areas where Keller gets it wrong if someone dares to mention his name?

Seriously?

Jay wrote: I don’t know of any SI members that live or work in New York

You should be aware that Thomas Overmiller is a SI member and pastors Faith Baptist in NYC.

He is the Senior Pastor of Heritage Baptist Church (@ 490 Hudson Street) in lower Manhattan:

http://www.hbcnyc.org/pastor-recker

http://www.hbcnyc.org/

[Jay] If Paul can rejoice that people are preaching the gospel in a lame attempt to hurt him (Phil. 1:15-18), why can’t we be happy that there is a Presbyterian minister in NYC that is more intentional about outreach to the citizens of New York than most of us and who is presenting the gospel in venues like the NY Times? … Are we at the point where we cannot say anything nice about another believer, and we have to mention the areas where Keller gets it wrong if someone dares to mention his name?

Paul rejoiced but he also mentioned places where they got it wrong. They preached from envy, rivalry, selfish ambition, and not sincerely. Also, if they had compromised the gospel in some fashion, Paul would not have rejoiced in their preaching at all. Part of the discussion here is evaluating if perhaps Keller has done that. I don’t see how any of this is contrary to Phil 1:15-18.

It really comes down these questions:

• Has Keller capitulated on creation?
• If so, how fundamental is this capitulation? Does it amount to a denial of Biblical revelation? Does he have to do obvious harm to God’s word to make it fit with his conception of creation?
• Perform theological triage - how foundational is this capitulation (if, that is, you think it is a capitulation)?
• If you believe Keller’s view on creation is a fundamental betrayal, does his hermeneutic open the doors to other, perhaps even more significant and damaging betrayals in other doctrinal areas?

There is an obvious spectrum in this comment thread, with wide disagreement over these basic questions. One thing we can all likely agree on:

• Keller has been a faithful minister of the Gospel in a very difficult environment
• He seeks to continue in a teaching ministry, and we ought to wish him well
• He is apparently committed to planting churches, not building an empire, and that’s good

Of course there are reasons to be disappointed in Keller - big reasons. But, perhaps we can agree he has used his gifts for the Lord well, and he hopefully still has plenty of time left to do more!

You should be aware that Thomas Overmiller is a SI member and pastors Faith Baptist in NYC.

Oh, great! I did know about Matt Recker - we met for lunch a while ago and should probably do so again sometime soon; I must have left him out of the post when I edited it.

May the tribe of Christians in NYC increase!

….and not just of Tim Keller. Listening to one of the sermons Jay linked (thanks), it strikes me that while I would agree that one’s doctrine of origins will affect one’s other doctrines—they’re connected in the Scriptures by no less than our Lord—at the same time I found that Keller has the good habit of sticking with his text. Sad to say, I’ve heard a lot of fundamental pastors who more or less use the text as a “launching pad” for what they really want to say—and if we do not believe that this affects our adherence to Sola Scriptura, we are quite frankly kidding ourselves. We can say things that are 100% factually correct and end up doing immeasurable harm if we do not observably proceed from the passage we’ve selected.