Tim Keller Stepping Down as Redeemer Senior Pastor

[TylerR]

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.

Keller’s Reason for God is fascinating due to its eclectic style of apologetics, some of which is clearly evidentialist and some which comes across as presuppositional. In his section on “Reasons for Faith,” he presents several clues that point to God’s existence. The first amounts to the cosmological argument (something, most likely God, had to initiate the big bang) and the second is similar to the teleological argument (the universe is designed just perfectly for mankind and the improbability of that happening by chance means that God most likely designed the universe). Both of these follow a more traditional theistic proof methodology that is typical evidentialist. Other clues, though, have a transcendental ring to them. Regarding the regularity of nature, he explains how Hume and Russell both show there is no rational explanation for it given bare naturalism, but how it fits in perfectly with the Christian worldview. He then explains the failure of naturalism to account for the existence of beauty, love, and our longing for God.

Keller is at his best in answering typical objections to Christianity. He challenges the unbeliever to scrutinize the validity of his doubts to the same degree he scrutinizes the Bible. When this is done it is often the case that the objection, when analyzed, actually ends up contradicting and invalidating itself (e.g., if religious belief is only culturally and historically conditioned, then so is your anti-religious belief and how can we trust any position?). His answers, for the most part, are really good, especially on the exclusivity of the gospel, the reality of hell, failures of believers, suffering, and the problem of evil. It is good to have sound answers for these hard questions and Keller is very helpful here.

At times he uses a pretty broad definition of “Christian” that includes orthodox, protestant, and Catholic faiths (see his sections on Injustice and his Intermission). I felt that his approach in these sections was rather weak, as it lent undue legitimacy to these other faiths.

And, of course, he essentially takes a hybrid theistic evolutionary approach in dealing with the controversy over science and the Bible.

All in all, it is certainly a valuable apologetic resource, but I don’t know that I would say it’s the best.

[Don Johnson]

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

You make it sound as if the site is favorable to and promotes “new Calvinism,” however such is defined.

In reality, the site is clearly entirely devoted to denouncing said “new Calvinism.”

Thanks!

He gets a fair amount of flack from the Bayly Brothers (www.baylyblog.com) on his views of sexuality, womens’ roles in the church, and the like. So he’s clearly not quite in “my” camp, but I’m going to stop short of saying he’s completely weak on the Gospel.

Now for a compliment; he’s handing off the reins before he’s completely lost his touch, which gives a younger man (or men) a chance to learn the ropes and continue the ministry. And so I wish Keller, and the men who will come after him, all the best.

[Larry Nelson]

Don Johnson wrote:

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

You make it sound as if the site is favorable to and promotes “new Calvinism,” however such is defined.

In reality, the site is clearly entirely devoted to denouncing said “new Calvinism.”

Fair enough, I stand corrected on that point.

Sounds like Tim Keller is staying at the church in retirement!

I know! The new guy will need LOTS of prayer. I pity the man, whoever he is …

….but while I find no reason to say Tyler is wrong, it strikes me as horrific that a church (universally speaking) where leaders are told to (2. Timothy 2:2) teach others who will be able to teach others….would not be able, so to speak, to have Paul and Timothy worship at the same church. I would posit that some of the reasons would be:

• Old pastor views himself as CEO and not as shepherd
• Old pastor has never taken making disciples seriously to begin with—why start now?
• Old pastor never considered sharing the pulpit while getting paid—it’ll be hard to start now.
• Old Pastor is unregenerate (Jack Hyles, Tyler’s predecessor)
• Old pastor has too extensive a list of doctrinal and stylistic essentials to cooperate.
• Old pastor will be seen as “the” pastor even in retirement.

It’s worth noting that the United Methodist Church requires retiring pastors to go to a different church than the one they served, presumably for similar reasons. But it’s still pretty sad that a church that is mostly apostate would be in many regards indistinguishable from the ones we inhabit.

Bert:

It’s entirely possible the “old Pastor should leave, lest disaster strike” phenomena is more common among single-elder churches. A congregation which already has dual elders, where both the people and the Pastors are used to the elders sharing responsibilities, doesn’t have this problem as often. I wouldn’t know, because I’ve never been in a church which uses that model.

So, it is entirely possible everything will go well. But, it is also possible it may not. Who knows?

Thanks Don for the article and website dealing with Tim Keller. The articles are helpful to me. It is clear that the website is not for new-Calvinism; however, I did not detect an anti-Calvinist sentiment at all in the comments. The authors appear to me to be Calvinistic, but not new-Calvinists, similar to a Peter Masters.

….I just realized that my comment from 4:40 pm today could be interpreted as saying that Jack Hyles was Tyler’s predecessor. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting Tyler is Jack Schaap commenting from prison, but rather that both Hyles and the man who preceded Tyler at his pastorate in Divernon may have been unregenerate.

Laugh at me for this one. I am. Sorry ‘bout that, Tyler.

Perhaps Keller will need to stay close to the church he pastored since the next generation of leaders in that church will most likely take his inconsistencies between the gospel and his views on Genesis much farther than he intended, something many Christian ministries eventually see. It will only take 1 or 2 generations for the denial of Genesis to lead to denials of other doctrines. You won’t see it right away, but it will happen, especially under the pressures of an aggressive anti-Christian culture.

[WallyMorris]

Perhaps Keller will need to stay close to the church he pastored since the next generation of leaders in that church will most likely take his inconsistencies between the gospel and his views on Genesis much farther than he intended, something many Christian ministries eventually see. It will only take 1 or 2 generations for the denial of Genesis to lead to denials of other doctrines. You won’t see it right away, but it will happen, especially under the pressures of an aggressive anti-Christian culture.

Ah…the slippery slope fallacy in action….

Unfortunately, not a fallacy. I’ve seen it play out many times in individuals, churches, and other ministries. Broader Evangelicalism richly illustrates this problem, such as with inerrancy - Look where Fuller Seminary is today. As I said, you won’t see it right away, but it will happen.

[WallyMorris]

Unfortunately, not a fallacy. I’ve seen it play out many times in individuals, churches, and other ministries. Broader Evangelicalism richly illustrates this problem, such as with inerrancy - Look where Fuller Seminary is today. As I said, you won’t see it right away, but it will happen.

So you went from the slippery slope fallacy to the anecdotal fallacy. I could give you just as many experiences where the predicted slippery slope among certain evangelical churches and groups didn’t happen. And while it is true that over time, Fuller Seminary lost its high view of scripture, all you have to do is point to the conservative takeover of the SBC to counter that there are examples where the predicted slippery slope didn’t take place. Sometimes the slippery slope happens and sometimes it doesn’t. Church History is much more uneven and complicated than to assume slippery slopes are an automatic event.