An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church1 Jonathan Anderson Timothy Keller’s recent work, Center Church (CC), is a substantive book on ecclesiology and philosophy of ministry. It has received a lot of attention since it was released last September. With its graphic, glossy hardcover, and double columns throughout, the 395-page volume has the look and feel of a textbook. I believe that is what it was intended to be—a textbook for pastors (particularly the urban ones) to maximize their fruitfulness for the sake of the gospel. Keller’s popularity and acceptance within mainstream evangelicalism have positioned this book to hold significant influence on the American church for some time to come.

After thoughtfully considering this book and weighing it against Scripture, I have a few concerns. In spite of areas of agreement, I found the heart and soul of the book to be biblically off-center. I fear that the theological vision of CC will cause more harm than good in American churches. I don’t regard the differences that I see between CC and the Bible as minor or preferential. In fact, I’m convinced that with nothing but the sufficient Word of God, no one would arrive at this theological vision. Where CC falls short of the biblical ideal will not be of minor consequence. Regardless of what this evaluation may appear to be, my primary reason for writing it is that I’m convinced that this vision is unbiblical. I am sure that Keller wrote this book with sincere motives. I offer this critique with the sincere motive of love for Tim Keller, pastors at large, the people of God, and the unbelievers in every community where they serve. I desire to edify and highlight a biblical vision that must not be lost or else the church will suffer impotence and lose even more influence than it already has. I write out of sincere desire for the church of God to rest firmly on the Word of God, and think discerningly about the way that Christ is building His church. I am convinced that we can’t improve on God’s ways, and I consider it a step backward for the church to go in any direction, theologically and methodologically, except that laid out in Scripture.

If you haven’t read CC, please read the synopsis of the book below. If you have read the book, feel free to skip ahead to the evaluation.

Synopsis of Center Church Keller lays out what he calls a ‘theological vision’ for doing ministry in the city.

His approach is intentionally to go beyond theology and delve into the driving vision that determines how someone accomplishes the ministry. He defines theological vision as “a faithful restatement of the gospel with rich implications for life, ministry, and mission in a type of culture at a moment in history” (p. 19). He doesn’t see theological vision as rooted exclusively a doctrinal expression, however, and admits that “this concept of a theological vision explains how, for example, our conservative Presbyterian denomination, in which all churches share the same detailed doctrinal foundation 1

Timothy Keller, Center Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012). Page numbers from this book will be placed in parentheses within the text.

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

(Westminster Confession of Faith) can be deeply divided over ministry expressions and methods, such as music, preaching style, approach to organization and leadership, forms of outreach, and so on. The reason is that church with the same basic doctrine are shaped by different theological visions because they are answering these questions about culture, tradition, and rationality differently” (pp. 18-19).

Keller then demonstrates for us how he answers questions about culture, tradition and rationality through three sections of the book. All three sections describe spectrums that must be balanced for a church to remain in the center.

First, there is the gospel spectrum (chs. 1-6) with ‘legalism’ and ‘religion’ on the extreme left, and ‘relativism’ and ‘irreligion’ on the extreme right. For the church to be fruitful, it must steer clear of works-based righteousness on one side and antinomianism on the other. In these chapters, Keller highlights how the gospel must always be articulated in contrast to two different errors. There is always the danger of rejecting Christ for irreligion, and rejecting Christ for hypocritical religious performance. It includes chapter titles like “The Gospel Is Not Everything” and “The Gospel Affects Everything.” Here we see how pervasive the implications of the gospel are for everything. Keller explains in these sections how all-encompassing the mandate for the church really is. “We evangelize, telling people about the gospel and preparing them for the judgment. We also help the poor and work for justice, because we know that this is God’s will and that he will ultimately overcome all oppression. We teach Christians to integrate their faith and their work so that they can be culture makers, working for human flourishing—the common good” (p. 47).

Second, the city spectrum (chs. 7-18) refers to the spectrum of how the church regards the world, with ‘underadapted’ and ‘only challenge’ on the extreme left and ‘overadapted’ and ‘only appreciate’ on the extreme right. “We will show that to reach people we must appreciate and adapt to their culture, but we must also challenge and confront it. This is based on the biblical teaching that all cultures have God’s grace and natural revelation in them, yet they are also in rebellious idolatry” (p. 24). In these chapters, we find how to adapt the message of the gospel to a post-Christian, postmodern culture. American culture is not what it was, and without adapting to the changes in the culture, Christians won’t gain a hearing the way we used to. Keller articulates the balance this way: “Because the city has potential for both human flourishing and human idolatry, we minister with balance, using the gospel to both appreciate and challenge the culture to be in accord with God’s truth” (p. 87). Without correctly identifying where the culture is and how it has changed, the church will lose her voice in the world.

Third, the movement spectrum (chs. 19-30) goes from ‘structured organization’ and ‘tradition and authority’ on the left to ‘fluid organism’ and ‘cooperation and unity’ on the right. It is imperative for the church to avoid rigid traditionalism, which can’t get out of its stuffy, narrow denominational constraint in order to have influence on the city.

It is equally important to avoid anti-institutionalism, which would shun all organization.

On this spectrum, however, Keller admits he is much more towards the right side of spectrum. He believes that for a church to remain a ‘movement’ or an ‘organized organism’, and “since churches always migrate toward institutionalism, they often must be brought back toward a movement dynamic” (p. 352). In these chapters, we find how to maintain our own ecclesial traditions and yet work cooperatively with other churches 2

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

for the sake of reaching the city. Keller defines what he sees as a missional church, and how the church can successfully connect people with God, each other, and the culture.

Evaluation of Center Church There are three areas where I consider CC to be explicitly unbiblical: • Contextualization—this immediately shapes our view on the methods of evangelism and equipping, how the church is built, who gets the credit for building the church, and how we evaluate ministry efforts • Common Grace—this immediately shapes our view on the cultural mandate of the church and the goal of the church in the world • The Church—the definition of who makes up the church has an immediate impact on how the gospel is manifested to the world Contextualization Keller promotes a contextualization that takes the transcendent truth of the gospel and adapts it to the culture so that the culture can understand it and find it attractive.

The pursuit of clarity with the gospel is necessary, but the idea that the way the gospel is packaged can make it attractive to the world is theologically aberrant. For Keller, the effectiveness of one’s theological vision is based on how well a church leader adapts himself to culture. This type of contextualization empties the cross of its power (1 Cor. 1:17b) and gives the credit for fruitfulness to the power of man (1 Cor. 2:4-5). The Lord calls His servants to reject the attractive methodology of the world (1 Cor. 1:17a; 2:2) in order that the fruit might be based on divinely-given faith (1 Cor. 2:5).

The American church seems to be going through a mid-life crisis. Instead of being confident in the allure of her bridegroom to woo the world, the church often sounds like a middle-aged wife, perversely adorning herself for other suitors. Let me say it this way—the power of the gospel is entirely and only in the Spirit’s working through the proclamation of Christ and His cross. However, to read CC would make one think that the greatest danger threatening the church is that we would fail to be attractive to unbelievers. For instance, phrases like “The most important way to gain a hearing from postmodern people…” (66), “making this distinction may be the only way to reach them” (66), “They will be turned off if…” (178), “If you care about having an influence on society, evangelism is not enough,” (185), and “New churches… attract and harness many people in the city whose gifts wouldn’t otherwise be used in the body’s ministry,” (360) occur regularly throughout the book.

In fact, for Keller, what is at stake in our ability to impress the world is the very foundation of our being heard. He says, “Yet we could also argue that the greatest problem for the church today is our inability to connect with nonbelievers in a way that they understand” (224). Of course every true Christian is concerned about gospel clarity so that nonbelievers can understand the gospel. However, Keller says we are losing our

3

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

voice with unbelievers, and the solution lies in our ability to adapt to their tastes and preferences. Note the focus on attraction and appeal to the world in the following quotes: Those who lean toward a conservative theology may say (as I would) that while the mission of the church qua church (the institutional church) is to evangelize and make disciples, individual Christians must be well-known for their sacrificial service to the poor and common good if a society is going to give the gospel a hearing. (263, fn. 37) This church’s worship is missional in that it makes sense to nonbelievers in that culture… The members of a missional church also know how to contextualize the gospel, carefully challenging yet also appealing to the baseline cultural narratives of the society around them. (265) If the latter [the church dispersed] does not minister in both word and deed2, no one will listen to the gospel preached by the former [the church gathered]. (274) This striking way of laying out the early church’s social situation forces us to realize that the church must have grown because it was attractive. (285, italics are Keller’s) Excellent aesthetics includes outsiders [nonbelievers3], while mediocre aesthetics excludes. The low level of artistic quality in many churches guarantees that only insiders will continue to come. (305) I am concerned that philanthropy, urban renewal, artistic expression and social justice have become an alternative methodology for presenting the message of the cross.

These functions and projects are highly esteemed and praised by an ungodly American culture. That doesn’t mean that Christians should never take part in something like painting over graffiti in the center of town, but it would be a tragic mistake to believe that the popularity of social work has the power to make the gospel more attractive to unbelievers.

Faithful, Successful, or Fruitful?

2

This is referring to argumentation from a previous work, Generous Justice, as well as argumentation from CC. Keller has been using the word ‘word,’ to refer to teaching the Scripture, discipleship and evangelism. ‘Deed’ refers to the mercy ministries and social work necessary for winning a hearing with the world.

3 “Outsiders” are “nonbelievers” in Keller’s discussion here. This quote comes from a section titled, “Make Worship Comprehensible to Nonbelievers.” There is a fundamental ecclesiological problem here, which I take up in the third section of evaluation on “The Church” (pp. 23ff). Here, I’m pointing out the drive to attract and appeal to nonbelievers as a theological vision.

4

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

The theological vision of CC is consistently built on this principle that ministry can and must be attractive to the culture or it will never have impact and influence. In fact, the very first page of the Introduction Keller evaluates a ministry on the basis of the culture’s attraction to it. Many would evaluate a ministry on the basis of its faithfulness, which means “sound in doctrine, godly in character, and faithful in preaching and pastoring people” (13). Others would evaluate it on the basis of success: “Many say that if your church is growing in conversions, members, and giving, your ministry is effective” (13). However, Keller declares that neither is sufficient. He says, “As I read, reflected, and taught, I came to the conclusion that a more biblical theme for ministerial evaluation than either success or faithfulness is fruitfulness” (13). He bases that conclusion on John 15:8. Examples of fruit would include conversions, godly character, and mercy done to the poor.

However, throughout the book the fruitfulness being discussed seems to shift from those three types to numbers. In fact, on page 14, Keller talks about the increased attention Redeemer Presbyterian Church was receiving because what they were doing was “working so well in Manhattan” and “what we were doing was bearing fruit in city.”

Even more explicitly, he writes, “At Redeemer… we had thousands of the very kind of secular, sophisticated young adults the church was not reaching” (15).4 Quite honestly, I’m not sure how this is any different than evaluating a ministry on success.

Regardless of terms, Paul is very clear on how a ministry is to be evaluated.

Christian laborers will be rewarded, not according to fruit, but according to their labor and quality of their work—“Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor” (1 Cor. 3:8). That reward will come from the evaluation of quality of one’s labor, not the quantity of fruit.

Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. (1 Cor. 3:12-14) Every Christian (let alone every church leader) must give constant and solemn watchfulness to the materials with which they are building. Imagine the irretrievable loss of those who labored passionately in a direction that God never commanded, with methods that He prohibited, and yet produced the ‘fruitfulness’ of thousands of followers.

On that day, their work will ride the conveyer belt through an incinerator in order to be tested by Christ’s holy gaze. The wood, hay, and straw of those who built on the one foundation of Christ (right message) with flammable materials (wrong methodology) will not stand the test. What a tragic loss of potential reward in the next life, and what danger for the church in this one!

4

The examples could be multiplied. For instance on page 89, Keller describes leaders in the Dutch church who had thriving churches in rural areas requesting his help with getting the church in cities to flourish numerically.

5

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

Human Power or Divine Power?

It may be helpful to put Keller’s doctrine of contextualization and its implications into a syllogism.

Premise #1: Theological vision is based, not on doctrinal theology, but on how you approach the question of cultural engagement.5 Premise #2: Theological vision should be evaluated, not on faithfulness, but on fruitfulness (conversions).6 Conclusion: Therefore, fruitfulness is the justifying proof of how effectively a minister brings the gospel to his culture.7 What concerns me most about Keller’s evaluation of ministry effectiveness is that rather than boasting in the power of the gospel, this approach leaves room for boasting in man’s ability. Specifically, man’s ability to adapt truth to the culture determines the fruit.

In other words, the unadorned gospel doesn’t contain the power to produce spiritual fruit, but the culturally savvy pastor who dresses up the gospel carries the true power. Imagine a church that sees conversions, sanctification, and gospel impact through equipped saints, and a church in the next city with identical convictions that doesn’t see the same fruit.

According to Keller’s paradigm, the boast for the church with fruit is not the gospel, but the skill and savvy of that church to approach and adapt to the culture! Both have the gospel, but for Keller, the second church’s lack of visible fruit indicates neglect. I don’t know what is worse—ignoring the fact that the gospel is so magnetically powerful that it always attracts and repels, or promoting a scheme of ministry that allows man to boast in his cultural savvy as the basis for spiritual fruit!

For consider your calling, brethren… God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But

by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-31) The Scriptures attest that the power to effect spiritual fruit comes only from the Lord.8 What compels unbelievers that the gospel is supernatural is the legitimate power 5

He writes: “…churches with the same basic doctrine are shaped by different theological visions because they are answering these questions about culture, tradition, and rationality differently.” (Keller, Center Church, 19; italics mine) This very statement begs the question, “Why describe this vision as ‘theological’ in the first place?”

6 He writes: “…a more biblical theme for ministerial evaluation than either success or faithfulness is fruitfulness… [Paul] spoke of conversions as ‘fruit’ when he desired to preach in Rome… (Rom 1:13).” (Ibid., 13) 7 And again, he writes: “…the quality of the theological vision often determines the vitality of the ministry, particularly in urban settings.” (Ibid., 20-21) 8 John 15:4-8; James 1:18

6

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

of the holiness and purity of the church. After Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying (Acts 5:1-11) while trying to gain notoriety equal to Barnabas (Acts 4:32-37), the unbelievers wouldn’t dare join the church for superficial reasons like having the benevolence of the church which met the needs of insiders.

At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico. But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number.

(Acts 5:12-14) This is entirely opposite to the theological vision of CC. Holiness and purity must be powerfully lived out by the church so that superficial association with the church will be unattractive. Then, and only then, will those who begin to associate with the church be rightly labeled believers, because what is attractive to them is the power and purity of the church. When the church is uncomfortable to unrepentant believers (“those who are perishing,” 1 Cor. 1:18), conversion can only be a work of the God who sovereignly transforms the heart to hunger and thirst for righteousness. The true church can only be built by divine power. The true church can only be harmed by the fruit of human power when it attempts to make herself attractive to an unbelieving culture.

Implications of Keller’s View of Contextualization 1. The contextualization described in CC produces personality cults (Paul, Apollos, Cephas or fill-in-the-blank with your favorite cultural contextualizer—cf. 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:21-23; 4:6).

2. This contextualization undermines God’s power with the wisdom of man. To preach the unchanging message of the gospel with the changing methods that match the culture is to empty the message of its power9, and leave the audience with a presentation that finds its success on the wisdom of man!10 If the church continues to move in this explicitly unbiblical direction, God may sovereignly grant conversion through the message in spite of your method, but you will have no criteria to evaluate whether the faith of the hearer rests in the power of God or on the wisdom of men! I pray no pastor would be willing to go this direction or pay this price.

3. This contextualization will never attract the world. Every previous form of contextualization has earned the laughter of the world when compared with the world’s power to accomplish it. Don’t get me wrong, the world will always appreciate it in the sense that it isn’t offensive or intimidating like the gospel. But, when the church attempts to sound like Coldplay, why would the world listen the copycat when the real band sounds better and doesn’t have the baggage of a message about sin, righteousness and judgment? When the church attempts to produce like Hollywood, why would the world 9

1 Cor. 1:17 1 Cor. 2:4-5

10

7

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

watch with anything more than mild curiosity when the movies are always seven years behind in technology and filled with B-rated actors? For that matter, Oscar winners would add nothing of spiritual power to the production even if more people might pay to see it. So, when contextualization goes the route of cultural renewal, the churches efforts will always pale in comparison to the efforts of the secular government and subsidized secular non-profit organizations. If this is our sales-pitch, we’ll never earn the right to be heard. …and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. (1 Cor. 2:4-5) Common Grace The biblical doctrine of common grace highlights the love of God shown to His enemies. It both extols God’s gracious character and the urgent need of the unbeliever to repent. Common grace, as seen in God’s revelation of Himself through general revelation, the work of the conscience, and undeserved gifts given to the righteous and the unrighteous always point toward God’s desire for repentance, and the lack of excuses for unbelief. CC simply follows Abraham Kuyper’s view of progressive common grace which affirms that God’s common grace can be seen in the increasing progress of human existence in this cursed creation. According to Keller, part of God’s mission for the church is to help promote human flourishing. This view depreciates the value of special grace in the power of conversion, and it distracts the church from the great commission.

Keller’s emphasis on the need for the church to do whatever is for the good of “human flourishing” or for the “common good” or the “good of humanity” or “human thriving”11 is intriguing. I acknowledge that where the gospel is embraced by a society, human beings flourish as God designed. However, I am more concerned that where the church pursues the common good outside the special revelation of the gospel, she is eventually prevented from fulfilling the great commission. This view makes a gospel out of common grace rather than special grace.

Keller has long been indebted to Abraham Kuyper’s influence as a theologian and a cultural thinker. He rightly puts Kuyper in the Transformationist camp on the issue of how the church responds to the culture and admits that he has “a Transformationist slant” (195). Keller expresses appreciation of the Transformationist model and affirms them for “giving guidance to Christians in business or public service—particularly a Christian vision of human flourishing” (200).

Keller is simply following Kuyper here. In 1902, Kuyper articulated common grace in the first volume of his work on common grace called De Gemeene Gratie. After

11

I.e., pp. 24, 47, 89, 170, 195—even modified by “as the Bible defines it”, 199, 200, 201, 202—three times, 210—twice, 227, 235—twice, 236—four times, 238, 246, 253, 339.

8

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

explaining special grace as regeneration and removal of sin from the heart in sanctification, he says, But common grace does nothing of the sort. It keeps down but does not quench. It tames, but does not change the nature. It keeps back and holds in leash, but thus, as soon as the restraint is removed, the evil races forth anew of itself. It trims the wild shoots, but does not heal the root. It leaves the inner impulse of the ego of man to its wickedness, but prevents the full fruition of wickedness. It is a limiting, a restraining, a hindering power, which brakes and brings to a standstill (I, p. 242).12 Here, Kuyper’s definition of common grace is biblical. But, in the second volume of De Gemeene Gratie, Kuyper maintains his previous definition of common grace under the label of constant common grace, adding a new dimension which he calls progressive.

Kuyper states, Yet common grace could not stop at this first and constant operation.

Mere maintenance and control affords no answer to the question as to what end the world is to be preserved and why it has passed throughout a history of ages. If things remain the same why should they remain at all?

If life were merely repetition why should life be continued at all?...

Accordingly there is added to this first constant operation of common grace…another, wholly different, operation…calculated to make human life and the life of the whole world pass through a process and develop itself more fully and richly… (II, p. 601).

The constant [operation] consists in this that God, with many differences of degree, restrains the curse of nature and the sin of the human heart. In contrast with this the progressive [operation] is that other working through which God, with steady progress, equips human life ever more thoroughly against suffering, and internally brings it to richer and fuller development’ (II, p. 602).13 For Kuyper, the difference between constant common grace and progressive common grace is that in the first operation, God works apart from man, but in the latter, man becomes an “‘instrument and colaborer with God’ (II, p. 602).”14 This pursuit of God—to work against suffering and bring humanity into a richer and fuller development—seems to be the same goal that Keller is after in his pursuit of human flourishing. Kuyper and Keller agree that God is doing a work outside of the gospel (as do I), but then Keller’s position affirms two unavoidable implications: 1) that every culture (think of it as a conglomerate of fallen men) always has predispositions toward 12

Translated and quoted by Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace & the Gospel (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972): 15-16.

13 Ibid., 17.

14 Ibid.

9

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

truth and what is good, and 2) what unbelieving man can do for human flourishing must become the goal of the church as well.

Is Any Culture Predisposed to Aspects of the Truth?

Keller believes that God, by virtue of common grace, has instilled in every culture things that are good and pleasing to Him. Because of this common grace, Christianity must also praise the culture appropriately with the gospel where the world promotes human flourishing. Keller says, Because the city has potential for both human flourishing and human idolatry, we minister with balance, using the gospel to both appreciate and challenge the culture to be in accord with God’s truth. (87) This can be seen throughout the three sections of CC, but perhaps never so clearly as the discussion about how to bring offensive gospel doctrines into a culture with the least offense. Allow me to quote Keller at length: To enter a culture, another main task is to discern its dominant worldviews or belief systems, because contextualized worldviews or belief systems, because contextualized gospel ministry should affirm the beliefs of the culture wherever it can be done with integrity. When we enter a culture, we should be looking for two kinds of beliefs. The first are what I call “A” beliefs, which are beliefs people already hold that, because of God’s common grace, roughly correspond to some of the Bible’s teaching (which we may call “A” doctrines). However, we will also find “B” beliefs— what may be called ‘deafeater’ beliefs—beliefs of the culture that lead listeners to find some Christian doctrines implausible or overtly offensive.

“B” beliefs contradict Christian truth directly at points we may call “B” doctrines. (123) Keller goes on to describe the “A” doctrines as logs and “B” doctrines as stones.

In order to get them down the river (his analogy), lash the logs together and float the offensive stones on the logs. So, Keller’s view of common grace is that God has so revealed Himself that there are areas where every unbelieving culture will naturally enjoy and affirm something that agrees roughly with the truth. It is these areas which afford the Christian the place to affirm the unbeliever. According to Keller, finding where we can affirm unbelievers in their unbelief is necessary, or else we will never have power to persuade them of the gospel. He says, In our gospel communication, we enter the culture by pointing people to the overlapping beliefs they can easily affirm (123) … we should take great care to affirm the “A” beliefs and doctrines (124)

10

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

Our criticism of the culture will have no power to persuade unless it is based on something that we can affirm in the beliefs and values of that culture. (124)15 Examples of “A” doctrines and “B” doctrines were love toward your neighbor and prohibitions on sexual immorality. The Manhattan culture is declared to embrace loving the neighbor as an “A” doctrine and to reject sexual purity as a “B” doctrine. A Middle Eastern culture would be exactly the opposite. How any unbeliever in Manhattan loves his neighbor in the biblical sense16—let alone how any unbeliever outside the Manhattan culture has never lusted in the way Jesus prohibits in Matthew 5:27-30—I have no idea.

More than that, appealing to common grace as a basis for affirming the ungodly in their unbelief is a twisted and wicked approach to evangelism.

Paul took the opposite position regarding the affirmation of cultural virtues, practices and customs. 1 Corinthians 1:17 says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.” He continues to mention this sophistic rhetoric throughout this and the next chapter with terms like ‘wisdom’ (verse 22; which contrasts the simple preaching of the gospel because that was viewed as foolishness by those who loved sophistry), ‘superiority of speech’ (2:1), and ‘persuasive words of wisdom’ (2:4). This is a clear statement about Paul’s approach to using pop cultural persuasion and techniques in order to spread the gospel. Notice the parallel between Keller’s appeal to Christians in the publishing houses, art, movies, and music, and that of the Corinthian’s fascination with sophistic rhetoric.17 The rhetoric of Aristotle, Demosthenes, or Cicero would have been entirely accessible to Paul for use if he had so desired. Instead of adopting Corinthian rhetoric—let alone being neutral towards it—Paul rejected the use of it as a threat to the work of God. Instead of promoting the work of God, the appeal to what unbelieving cultures affirm undermines the work of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:2-5) 15

This quote is perhaps the most shocking of the three. I was genuinely surprised to see this sentence inserted in a text box on the same page.

16 A simple-face value reading of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) would indicate that no one loves the way Jesus commands. That is the answer to the question asked in Luke 10:25 about how to enter eternal life. This is certainly not an instruction on social work and mercy ministry, but on the utterly impossibility of sinful people loving others in the necessary and sacrificial way.

17 Verse 22 says, “For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom.” Contrary to what I say here, Keller believes that what was wrong with the Greek love of intellect was “that they were pursuing those things in a self-defeating way. Valuing strength (as the Jews did) was a good thing…

Paul does not simply dismiss a culture’s aspirations; rather, he both affirms and confronts, revealing the inner contradictions in people’s understanding” (124). Unfortunately for Keller, such an interpretation is impossible in light of Paul’s next paragraph (1 Cor. 1:26-31), and to the degree that there is something to affirm is the degree to which a man may boast before God!

11

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

In fact, when the “A” doctrine and “B” doctrine distinction is employed, who knows whether the positive response to the message is due to sinners placing their faith in your wisdom and ability to float stones on logs, or on the power of God? Here is the only justification I found in CC for the idea that common grace makes (let alone ‘requires’) an unbelieving culture praiseworthy: …we see in Romans 1 and 2 that all human beings possess a primordial knowledge of God. In Romans 2:14-15, Paul states that God’s law is written on the heart of every human being. All people have an innate sense of the righteousness of honesty, justice, love, and the Golden rule.

Because we are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), all people know at some deep level that there is a God, that we are his creatures, and that we should serve him and are accountable to him. There is ‘general revelation’ or ‘common grace’—a non-saving knowledge and likeness of God that he grants to all those who bear his image—present in some way in every culture. (108-9; from chapter 9, titled “Biblical Contextualization,” pp. 108-117) The remainder of page 109 is dedicated to explaining that because of common grace we need to respond to the culture with balance between appreciation or “enjoyment” and “appropriate wariness.” Keller uses the realities of common grace, general revelation (Romans 1:18-21) and the human conscience (Romans 2:14-15) to justify his view that common grace is as crucial for opening the doors for the gospel as special grace is powerful.18 Shockingly, this is something that Paul (or any other author of Scripture) never does! Instead of affirming unbelievers, Paul teaches that common grace indicts the sinner’s soul. Paul rebukes the unbeliever precisely because of the general revelation he has rejected. The unbeliever is without excuse. He knows that what he does is wrong, and heartily gives approval to others who sin against God in similar ways (Romans 1:32).

Therefore, the conscience never becomes a basis for affirming the unbeliever. When Paul mentions the accusing and defending motion of the conscience (Romans 2:15), he is proving that Gentiles will know why they are guilty at judgment (Romans 2:12-16).

Additionally, every indictment of another for violating a righteous standard proves the sinner is aware of and accountable to that standard. Paul proves that because of common grace, the sinner has no excuse, with or without Scripture (Romans 2:1; 3:19).

Keller’s appeal to common grace as a justification for affirming culture is very dangerous. Not only does it depreciate God’s special grace which comes to men and women who have no merit before God, it also blurs the essential doctrines of the gospel.

Wherever common grace is viewed as essential to pre-evangelism, God’s special grace is minimized. It makes a virtue of an unbeliever’s contribution to human flourishing, while the gospel exposes hostility to the truth and calls for repentance.

18

“Our criticism of the culture will have no power to persuade unless it is based on something that we can affirm in the beliefs and values of that culture.” (124)

12

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

Why Does Secular Work Glorify God? Due to common grace, the labors and advances of a culture can make the world a better place to live. Keller says, “The Bible teaches that all our work matters to God. The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers believed that ‘secular’ work is as valuable and God honoring as Christian ministry” (331). There are many passages that teach this.19 The question is, “Why does secular work glorify God?” For Keller, the reason is that this secular work increases human flourishing, and serves humanity at large. In other words, it glorifies God because it makes the world a better place to live. He says, When we use our gifts in work—whether by making clothes, building machines or software, practicing law, tilling fields, mending broken bodies, or nurturing children—we are answering God’s call to serve the human community. (331) A robust theology of creation—and of God’s love and care for it—helps us see that even simple tasks such as making a shoe, filling a tooth, and digging a ditch are ways to serve God and build up human community.

Our cultural production rearranges the material world in such a way that honors God and promotes human flourishing. (331) According to Keller, therefore, with the goal of honoring God and promoting human flourishing, unbelievers can please God and honor Him in their work in the same way that believers can. In other words, work glorifies God the same way whether someone possesses the Holy Spirit or not.

Allow me to compare Beethoven and Bach as examples of those who have successfully made this world a better place to live. Many people appreciate their music to one degree or another. However, Beethoven was not a professing believer, and though he wrote some music for the church in Vienna, lived in opposition to God’s gospel. Bach was singularly devoted to writing church music that glorified God, intentionally serving the Christians who worshipped at his church every week. By virtue of common grace, God is glorified by the fact that men can listen to either musician and enjoy the music they have written. However, distinct from Beethoven, Bach glorifies God in a special way when he writes in order to exalt God’s saving work (special grace is involved here).

The same is true when listeners enjoy the significance of Christ’s sufferings as they listen with faith (special grace is also involved here) to the St. John Passion for example. So we can see that human flourishing is not a sufficient test of whether one’s labors are pleasing to the Lord or not.

Additionally, let me highlight the difference between the purpose of common grace for Keller and for the Bible. Keller would see common grace in the fact that Beethoven’s music made the world a better place, and I see common grace in the fact that God sustained Beethoven’s life for decades in spite of his rebellion against God’s righteousness, in hopes of bringing him repentance. Namely, common grace was given 19

Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25.

13

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

to Beethoven in the form of the nature around him (Romans 1:18-20), works of the law written on his heart in the form of a conscience (Romans 2:14-15). Beethoven’s deafness is due to common grace in the Romans 2:4 sense. He should have been snuffed out for his godless life long before, but God showed grace by tampering with what was precious to him, wooing him to repent. Keller would look at Beethoven and see common grace in that the world is a better place because of the 9th Symphony. In Keller’s view, God is using believers and unbelievers alike to increase human flourishing, making it tragic if believers failed to applaud the 9th and miss out on God’s act of redeeming the culture. The real tragedy, in my view, is to ignore how God uses common grace as a testimony of His goodness and as an indictment against the excuse of men for their unbelief.20 Beethoven's deafness was due to common grace just as much as his natural talents. Keller's definition has no category, it would seem, for God tampering with human flourishing in order to bless man eternally. It’s as though Keller's view of common grace can only be grace if there is no eternity!

Instead of viewing work through the lens of human flourishing, the Bible highlights how work can uniquely glorify God. The character and demeanor of the Christian stand out from the pagan, so that the doctrine of God our Savior is adorned as true and powerful in the work of His children. For the Christian, secular labor demonstrates the beauty of God’s eternal salvation, not the temporal welfare of man: Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.

(Titus 2:9-10) CC philosophy confuses the calling of the church to be witnesses for Christ (a ministry of special grace) with the secular vocation of those who make up the church (a benefit of common grace). In this model, vocational training becomes on a par with equipping and evangelism. The confusion of common and special grace introduces a foreign purpose to the church’s mission. Slowly but surely the ministry of special grace becomes eclipsed by the benefits of common grace. After all, how would a pastor tell the proverbial ‘Beethoven’ who sits in on the church’s services that God has so graciously sustained him and tolerated him this long in order to bring him to repentance (the message of special grace), while on the other hand, his achievements in the musical world are actually increasing human flourishing? If the latter is believed to be the Godordained mission of the church, bold preaching of repentance is no longer possible.

Does the Church Have a Social Mandate?

This may sound like a question that should be answered in the third section, dealing with CC’s ecclesiology. However, it truly belongs here, because Keller’s social mandate seems to be rooted in the doctrine of common grace. Throughout large portions of the City section (chs. 7-18) of CC, Keller is evaluating positions and approaches to the 20

See the discussion of Keller’s A-doctrines vs. B-doctrines and Romans 1 at the end of the section above.

14

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

culture. He believes that the mission of the church must be balanced between the great commission and the cultural mandate to advance human flourishing. He says, We teach Christians to integrate their faith and their work so that they can be culture makers, working for human flourishing—the common good.

(47) …numbers do not always equate to influence. Even if 80 percent of the population of a country are Christian believers, they will have almost no cultural influence if the Christians do no live in cultural centers and work in culture-forging fields such as academia, publishing, media, entertainment, and the arts. The assumption that society will improve simply by more Christian believers being present is no longer valid. If you care about having an influence on society, evangelism is not enough.

(185) But effective churches will be so involved in deeds of mercy and justice that outsiders will say, “We cannot do without churches like this. This church is channeling so much value into our community that if it were to leave the neighborhood, we would have to raise taxes.” (305)21 Things like clean water, dental work, changing business, art, music and publishing for the better may certainly be good for humanity in this life. But is this to be the missio Dei (God’s mission) for the church? As good as these things may be, I’m convinced that this is a terrible distraction from the true mission of the church. To clearly understand the mission of the church, let’s look at the early chapters of the book of Acts.

After His resurrection, Christ spent 40 days with the disciples, teaching them about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:1-3). After all the discussion about the kingdom (verse 3), the disciples ask about the presence of the kingdom. Jesus tells them that the timing of the kingdoms arrival is not for them to know. Then, He proceeds to tell them that they need to wait in Jerusalem until the promised Holy Spirit comes (1:4-5). Notice what happens with these two pieces of information in the minds of the disciples: So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, ‘Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.’ (Acts 1:6-8) The mandate is about being witnesses, testifying to the resurrection. The mandate of the church is about testifying to the gospel until He returns (Keller agrees). The mandate of the church is exclusively about testifying and not about establishing ‘shalom’ 21

These are only a few examples. See also pp. 81, 223-24, 236, 331, 334-35.

15

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

or cultural renewal in some sort of kingdom sense (Keller doesn’t agree). After receiving the commission to witness, the apostles remain undistracted. Instead of leading the church into cultural renewal, they point to the only One who can restore the creation.

The apostolic message is repent and believe so that Christ can come and reverse the curse placed on this earth. Peter proclaimed, Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. (Acts 3:1921)22

Peter preached that cultural renewal was a work of Christ by virtue of His imminent return as King. Keller, however, believes that our pursuit of cultural renewal, social justice, mercy ministry, and human betterment are based on the fact that Jesus created and redeemed body and spirit: First, word and deed go together theologically. The resurrection of Jesus shows us that God not only created both body and spirit, but that he will also redeem both body and spirit. The salvation Jesus will eventually bring in its fullness will include liberation from all of the effects of sin— not only the spiritual effects but physical and material ones as well. Jesus himself came both preaching the Word and healing and feeding. The final kingdom will be one of justice for all. Christians can faithfully proclaim the gospel through both words and deeds of compassion and justice, serving the material needs of people around us even as we call them to faith in Jesus. (322) In order to justify the cultural mandate, Keller seems to take passages about the church’s mission to care for the saints and then apply them to the unbelieving poor in society. On the first page of the book, Keller affirms mercy ministry to the poor as ‘fruit’ because of Romans 15:28. However, as the previous two verses show, this ministry wasn’t to unbelievers, but instead for “for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.”

These Gentiles were sharing in their physical possessions for the benefit of Christians they had never met who were undergoing famine conditions.

On page 228, Keller writes that Jesus calls his disciples to renew the culture based on Matthew 5:13. Yet, in Matthew’s context, being a salty Christian doesn’t earn the world’s favor (as in the case of cultural renewal for the common good), but the world’s animosity because of the offense of righteousness (Matt. 5:10) and Christ (Matt. 5:1112). Keller believes the illustration is meat being preserved by salt. However, Jesus tells 22

Consider Romans 8:18-25 in light of the discussion about the church’s mandate to reverse the curse with social work and doing physical kingdom work. The earth was subjected to a curse by God Himself.

The Holy Spirit inside of us is a down-payment of the restoration of the created order and the reverse of the curse. Even in the church-age with the Spirit’s indwelling presence, Paul describes the revelation of the sons of God and setting creation free as an unseen hope for which we eagerly wait.

16

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

us exactly what aspect of salt he is referring to. Jesus isn’t using salt to talk about preservation any more than melting ice on the road. He says that Christians are to be salty, and “if the salt has become tasteless” (5:13) then we have a problem. Christians doing cultural renewal aren’t salty; they taste like philanthropists of all stripes. Christians walking in righteousness (5:6, 10-12, 19-20) are salty, distinctive in flavor among the world.

In chapter 25, Keller gives a systematic defense of mercy and justice ministries to the community outside the church. The texts appealed to include the example of Martha serving a meal in Luke 10:40 (323). Unfortunately for Keller and Martha, Mary was the example to follow and Martha, the example to avoid (Lk. 10:41-42).

On page 323, Keller appeals to Acts 6:2. Here the apostles declare that they cannot neglect the Word and prayer, but the needs of the saints must be met as well.

Notice that the needs were among “the disciples” (Acts 6:1). Specifically, there was some tension between the Hellenistic widows and the Hebrew widows, since the Hellenized widows were being overlooked. As always, the need was in-house, among the people of God. The widows here are declared to be “disciples” in verse 1. In James 1:27, the combination of “orphans and widows” is reminiscent of the OT triad, “orphan, widow, and alien.” These had no means of provision because they had no husband who was working his inherited portion of the promised land. Even an alien, a convert from Egypt, Moab, Phoenicia, etc., would be in the same position. They would only be there because they converted to worship and serve Yahweh, and they we depend on the mercy and care of the fellow faithful Israelites (cf. Deut. 10:18-19; 24:19-22). Furthermore, Paul defines a widow as a woman who “has fixed her hope on God” and is devoted to prayer (1 Tim. 5:5). Widows were only to be cared for by the church when they had an established reputation of godliness, a demonstrable faith, and no one in their own household to care for them (vv. 9-16). Certainly individual Christians will be compassionate towards the lost and must be characterized by good deeds (Gal. 6:10), but I find no biblical evidence for the church’s so-called social mandate.

Christ didn’t ask us to reverse the curse, set the creation free, or cause times of refreshing. Only He can do that. He has asked us to minister to the saints and testify of the resurrection until He returns.

Can Unbelievers Fulfill the Missio Dei? I recently read about some of the homeless in Philadelphia. Two different groups attempted to come alongside a charitable organization to help these people. On the one hand, churches in the greater Philly area raised some money to buy them some things, one of which was microwave popcorn. On the other hand, the mafia showed up and handed out brand new bicycles to kids, a turkey to each family, and gave thousands of dollars to the organization. After considering the fact that these people had no

17

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

microwaves, let alone electricity, the author wrote, “I thought to myself, I guess God can use the mafia, but I would like God to use the church.”23 This raises an important question. Can unbelievers fulfill the purpose of the church and please the Lord? Keller seems to answer yes and no. He would ultimately say no, of course. But he repeatedly affirms the necessary balance of remaining in the center of the Word mandate and the Deed mandate (see the previous and next section).

Yet unbelievers regularly perform the Deed mandate. Keller is burdening the church with a mandate that doesn’t require the Holy Spirit. Not only are these two—Christians and the world—at odds, lacking any harmony or shared passion (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1), but those who don’t have Christ or His Spirit cannot do anything beneficial in the spiritual sense. Jesus said, “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5). Whatever the unbeliever can do—no matter how beneficial it is because of common grace—can’t be called ‘fruit.’ And Paul said, “For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom 8:6-8). Whatever the unbeliever does accomplish, it is never submissive to God’s authority or pleasing to Him. It appears impossible to avoid one of two implications. If the church is called to fulfill a task that unbelievers can and do already you are left with two options. Either a) the church ought to focus on what cannot biblically be called fruit, submission, or anything pleasing to God, or b) unbelievers don’t need the church, the gospel, or Christ’s Spirit to accomplish half of the missio Dei! The former is too preposterous to consider, and the latter leaves you wandering, “Why should the church focus on this so-called social mandate?” Let the spiritually dead take care of that work, because not only can they, but they will be able to do a better job of it. Why wouldn’t we take care of what the church alone can be a part of by God’s special grace—the evangelization of souls?

Are the ‘Word’ and ‘Deed’ Mandate Compatible?

What is very concerning in these quotes is the fact that there is nothing uniquely Christian in the call to influence culture. There is nothing distinctively spiritual about channeling value into the community (331), or the influence on society that goes beyond the gospel because “evangelism is not enough” (185).24 What I mean by that is that, due to a shared Kuyperian view of common grace, natural man has been given the ability to make society better, via music, art, publishing, medicine, politics, etc. Then, this area of 23

Shane Clairbourne, The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006), 63. This anecdote is for illustrative purposes, and not intended to put Clairbourne and Keller in the same camp. They diverge widely in many areas.

24 There are times in the book where Keller affirms that we need to be infusing a Christian worldview into movies and music. In these instances, he explains that without a Christian flavor of culture “pretty soon the most basic concepts of Christianity will be so alien that no one will even understand me when I preach” (185—the “I” here is another pastor, and Keller is referencing this with affirmation).

However, this leads to another set of doctrinal convictions about the sufficiency of the gospel and the transcendence of the gospel’s power to speak to man from above his cultural trappings.

18

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

natural ability called ‘cultural renewal’ or ‘cultural transformation’ is raised up as the missio Dei, the legitimate mandate for the church’s focus in this world. In fact, Keller believes that the cultural mandate and the gospel mandate are equal in importance and can co-exist: Although these factors [evangelism and cultural renewal/social justice] are mutually strengthening, the specialists and proponents of each element will almost always pit them against the others. Thus, evangelists may fear that a social justice emphasis will drain energy, attention, and resources from evangelism. (82) I am arguing that a church can robustly preach and teach the classic evangelical doctrines and still be missional. That is, it can still have a missionary encounter with Western culture and reach and disciple unchurched, nontraditional nonbelievers in our society. (271) Beyond the cultural mandate’s lack of biblical merit, the assertion that both emphases can coexist is quite interesting. They aren’t compatible for one simple reason—the work that Christ is doing in the world makes His servants hated by the world, while the work of cultural betterment is both pursued and praised by the world.

Of course these two can’t coexist. What Christian isn’t going to gravitate toward cultural work, away from bold and unaccepted evangelism, when God is equally pleased by cultural work (according to CC’s theological vision) that is applauded by the world?

Keller’s theological vision seems to be at odds with foundational Christianity.

Christ never teaches that following His word will make us attractive to the world, but rather that we will be hated by the world.

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.

If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. (John 15:18-21) Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. (2 Tim. 3:12) [Paul was] strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” (Acts 14:22) The true mission of the church, and truly following Christ will never be popular, attractive, or accepted by the world. However, social work that relieves a city’s tax expense is not only accepted and praised by the world, but it is also pursued by the 19

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

unbelieving philanthropists in all walks of life. Certainly such a popular endeavor is not compatible with a fidelity to Christ that will always be despised by the world.

Compromising the great commission by addition comes with a terrible cost.

A pastor in South Africa recently commented that he hasn’t heard of a single missionary from the States who has come there to do church planting in the last five years. Each missionary has been focused on mercy ministry. Of course, it sounds plausible that these two goals (‘word’ and ‘deed’) could coexist, but that plausibility is denied by the texts above.

The Implications of Keller’s View of Common Grace I believe that the following are necessary implications of Keller’s view of common grace. Although Keller may not agree that these are necessary implications, I don’t see how they can be avoided with his theological foundation.

1. This view distracts the church from Gospel work. I don’t see any biblical warrant for the social mandate being added to the great commission. Besides, no church can possibly be faithful to both word and deed mandates when the word mandate promises persecution, and the deed mandate promises appreciation. These two mandates are entirely of a different spirit.

2. This view ends up depreciating special grace. If you believe that to promote human flourishing is half of the great commission for the church, then you must admit that not only are many unbelievers accomplishing God’s will for the world, but so are the cults. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing a fine work of making the world a better place, as well as apostate religions like Roman Catholicism. Furthermore, “A theory of common grace based on a natural theology is destructive of all grace, common or special.”25 The world accomplishes the social mandate by virtue of common grace.

When added to the great commission, the reality of common grace dilutes the message of special grace. According to CC, the compelling power of the gospel is seen in a function that relates to common grace—the world appreciates a church that does the same social work that they do. According to the Bible, the compelling power of the gospel is seen in a function that relates to special grace—power over sin and practical holiness of those in the church.

The Church The Church is the body of Christ composed of repentant believers in the gospel.

Those in the church have separated themselves from the perverse generation of the culture around them and devote themselves to the life of the church and the apostles teaching (Acts 2:38-42). The composition of the church reflects the gospel’s work in the lives of sinners. When a professing Christian lives like the world in unrepentance, they are to be disciplined out of the church (Matt. 16:19; 18:15-20; Jn. 20:23; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Th. 3:14-15; Tit. 3:9-11). The biblical aims of church discipline are, 1) restoration of a 25

Van Til, Common Grace & the Gospel, 145.

20

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

sinning brother (Mt. 18:15b; 2 Cor. 2:5-11), 2) protection of other believers (1 Cor. 5:611), and 3) protection of the gospel manifested to the world by the lives of individuals in the church (Acts 5:13-14, after Ananias and Sapphira in vv. 1-11; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 5:2526; 1 Pet. 2:11-12). These goals are undermined if the church includes nonbelievers in makeup, let alone allows their participation in visible, up-front ministry.

Who Belongs to the Church? Christians or Nonbelievers?

CC articulates the need for the church to embrace the contributions of unbelievers in the corporate gathering as a means of continuing to attract other outsiders. Of course Keller affirms that evangelism is not to be discarded, but it isn’t enough. Let me begin by quoting Keller at length: To reach this growing post-Christendom society in the West will obviously take more than what we ordinarily call an evangelistic church; it will take a missional church. This church’s worship is missional in that it makes sense to nonbelievers in that culture, even while it challenges and shapes Christians with the gospel. Its people are missional in that they are so outwardly focused, so involved in addressing the needs of the local community, that the church is well-known for its compassion. The members of a missional church also know how to contextualize the gospel, carefully challenging yet also appealing to the baseline cultural narratives of the society around them. Finally, because of the attractiveness of its people’s character and lives, a missional church will always have some outsiders who are drawn into its community to incubate and explore the Christian faith in its midst.

So the idea that ‘to be missional is to be evangelistic’ is too narrow. A missional church is not less than an evangelistic church, but it is more.

(265) In the CC perspective, the church must also take its cues from what it learns from the unbelievers. Keller says, And if incarnational can be defined as a church that listens to its community to learn what its needs are, speaks and interacts with its community with respect, equips and sends its people out to love and serve—then all missional churches should be incarnational. (265, italics his) According to Keller, the church must take its directives from nonbelievers as to its approach. What is more, it must also include them in most of the church’s ministry!

Notice the inclusive terminology in the following quotes: A missional church must be, in a sense, ‘porous.’ That is, it should expect nonbelievers, inquirers, and seekers to be involved in most aspects of the 21

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

church’s life and ministry—in worship, small and midsize groups, and service projects in the neighborhood. (274) The church must itself be contextualized and should expect nonbelievers, inquirers, and seekers to be involved in most aspects of the church’s life and ministry. (274) The power of good art draws people [unbelievers/outsiders] to behold it.

(305) Excellent aesthetics includes outsiders, while mediocre aesthetics excludes. The low level of artistic quality in many churches guarantees that only insiders will continue to come… For the non-Christian, the attraction of good art will play a major role in drawing them in. (305) In other words, Keller believers that as unbelievers contribute, serve and add flavor to the art, music, and social ministries, outsiders are drawn into the church due to the excellent aesthetics. CC is calling for the focus of the corporate gathering to be turned away from the in-depth teaching of the Word and Christian edification toward attracting those who don’t love the truth. The Bible is clear—those who make up the church are saints, called by God for holiness and blamelessness, so that they will manifest the difference between the saving grace of God and man’s natural enslavement to sin.26 To begin to erase the distinction between believer and unbeliever has crucial implications for the clarity of the gospel manifested in the lives of that congregation. Keller’s focus on “evangelistic worship” (307) depreciates the priority of doctrinal teaching, regardless of the offense. In a section titled, ‘WHAT ABOUT DEEPER, MEATIER TEACHING?’, Keller writes: But why should we spend a lot of time preaching about these distinctives [‘deeper, meatier types of teaching,’ ‘logical distinctives,’ and ‘how the church’s view of certain doctrinal issues differs from that of other churches and denominations’] when many people present in the service do not believe in (or live as if they do not believe in) the authority of the Bible or the deity of Christ? (307) Keller answers his own question on the following page: So our counsel to people asking the questions [such as ‘Why don’t we go deeper in the Word?’] is, ‘Go deeper and learn the details and distinctions in classes, small groups, and in individual relationships with pastors and other Christians’ (the lay ministry dynamic at work). (308) According to CC philosophy, the pastors are responsible to engineer the attraction and pander to the unbelieving constituency of the ‘church’ from the pulpit, while the lay 26

Matt. 5:16; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Eph. 1:4; Col. 3:12; Tit. 2:10-14; 1 Pet. 1:13-21.

22

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

people raise the congregation’s biblical discernment throughout the week. This is the very opposite of God’s purpose for giving the church pastors and teachers in Ephesians 4:11-13. Besides, the lay people who are faithfully ministering in their occupations and families will only be able to equip at the level to which they are equipped or trained by their own pastors. Eventually, lay people will live at the level of their leadership. They won’t equip anyone at a deeper level than the pragmatic methods practiced by their pastors. This approach cuts the legs out from under the true equipping of the saints. The whole counsel of God is not taught. Since it is profitable for souls,27 the true saints in the church are ultimately the losers in this approach.

Finally, this methodology for the church introduces confusion about the definition of Christian community. Keller begins chapter 24, “Connecting People to One Another,” with these words: “The gospel creates community” (311). But, Keller defines community as more than a fellowship or sharing in the person of Christ and the benefits of His cross work. For Keller, “Community is one of the main ways we do outreach and discipleship, and even experience communion with God” (311). Keller says that community needs to be understood in a union that transcends ‘fellowship’ and embodies a counterculture. For example, notice how Keller’s horizontal union that embraces those whose sexual patterns differ from us: As we have often seen in this volume, to be faithful and effective, the church must go beyond ‘fellowship’ to embody a counterculture, giving the world an opportunity to see people united in love who could never have been brought together otherwise, and showing the world how sex, money, and power can be used in life-giving ways: Sex. We avoid both secular society’s idolization of sex and traditional society’s fear of sex. We also exhibit love rather than hostility or fear toward those whose sexual life patterns are different from ours. (311-312) Keller’s words are shocking when we consider that he said them in the context of defining Christian community. This is confusing for many reasons, but let me mention two: 1) Regarding love, Christians must love those with different sexual lifestyles. But what does that love look like? Biblical love sacrificially serves and speaks the truth of the gospel. For a Christian to hate an immoral person would be wicked and selfrighteousness. Keller, on the other hand, believes that we are united together in community in spite of different sexual patterns. But how would this be a demonstration of biblical Christian love? Indeed, instead of showing them their greatest need—to repent and receive the pardon that Christ purchased—I would actually be affirming them in their sin. This is the most unloving thing I could do as a Christian.

2) Regarding unity and community, embracing alternative sexual conduct is not merely going “beyond ‘fellowship’” as Keller says. On the contrary, it destroys the biblical definition of fellowship. True unity exists because of the gospel. The unity Keller talks about is a disguise for the tolerance of destructive sexual conduct. There are times when Keller’s discussion of unity tracks along biblical lines. He goes on to talk about unity in spite of economic and racial differences. This is absolutely biblical. Our 27

Compare the parallel and synonymous statements of Paul in Acts 20:20 and verse 27.

23

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

church rejoices at seeing the gospel bring a young, black, ex-Muslim into fellowship with a white, middle-aged father of four from the Bible belt—all because of a profound and shared love for Jesus Christ and His grace! However, to speak of unity as tolerating alternative sexual life patterns as equal with unity in spite of racial, economic, or age distinctions is contradictory to Scripture. Any sexual ethic condemned by Scripture is a sin for which Christ suffered. Christ didn’t die on the cross to save us from our financial status or ethnicity. Therefore, redefining who makes up the church has massive and dangerous implications for the gospel.

Who is Responsible for the Cultural Mandate? The Church Organized or Organic?

For a book devoted to ecclesiology, one of CC’s greatest weaknesses was its inconsistency about the church’s mission. While Keller affirms that there is a cultural mandate, the million dollar ecclesiological question is whether the cultural mandate belongs to the church organized (the corporate, gathered body) or organic (the individuals who make up the church as they scatter into the world). How does Keller answer the question? It depends on which page you read. For example, from the following quotes Keller teaches that the cultural mandate is exclusively the function of individual Christians as they live godly lives in the work place, school, and neighborhood: …it is important to remind ourselves of the critical distinction between the ‘church institutional’ and the ‘church organic.’ Abraham Kuyper taught that the church institutional was the gathered church, organized under its officers and ministers. It is called to do ‘Word and sacrament’—to preach the gospel, baptize, and make disciples. This he distinguished from the church organic, referring to all Christians living in the world who have been discipled and equipped to bring the gospel to bear on all of life. (24041) …it is best to think of the organized church’s primary function as evangelizing and equipping people to be disciples and then sending the ‘organic church’—Christians at work in the world—to engage culture, do justice, and restore God’s shalom. In many expositions of the missional church, this distinction virtually disappears. (268) So we hold that the institutional church should give priority to Word ministry, but we also teach that Christians must do both word and deed ministry in the world—and the church should equip them to do so. (32425) On the other hand, there are other paragraphs where Keller records that the institutional church has a theological obligation to meet the social mandate and fulfill mercy ministries.

24

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

…engaging on all of these fronts [evangelism, church growth, church planting, fellowship, community, the poor, social justice, culture, and the arts] is required by the nature of the gospel... What’s more, engaging on all these fronts is required by the nature of our culture. … It is only as we do all of these ministries at once that any of them will be most effective.

Success on any one front depends on success in the other fronts of ministry. (291) …effective churches will be so involved in deeds of mercy and justice that outsiders will say, “We cannot do without churches like this. This church is channeling so much value into our community that if it were to leave the neighborhood, we would have to raise taxes.” (305) But even if we agree these are all essential pursuits for Christians (and they are!), we have not yet answered the question of how the institutional church should be involved. For both theological and practical reasons, I believe the local church should concentrate on the first level of assistance (relief28) and to some degree the second (development29). At the second and third levels, in the domains of community development, social reform, and addressing social structures, I think it is generally best for believers to work through associations and organizations rather than directly through the local church. (326) Keller answers the cultural mandate question with his feet, it seems, firmly planted in mid-air. Some portions affirm that this is the responsibility of “the Church organic,” while others answer, “the Church organized.” Therefore, it does seem strange that a book written fundamentally about ecclesiology would waffle so severely on such a fundamental question.

Almost 200 years ago, James Bannerman astutely observed the dangers of elevating the church to the level of a surrogate Christ in his absence.30 The Roman Catholic Church views the church as a surrogate Savior and Head, distributing out pardon for money and works. The social gospel views church as a surrogate King, reversing the curse, and making the world a better place to live. Let’s be honest—it is just as insulting to Christ for the church to imagine it can forgive sins without the Savior’s merit as it is for the church to imagine it can reverse the curse on creation without the King’s presence.

Yet Christ didn’t ask us to reverse the curse, set the creation free, or cause times of refreshing. Only He can do that. He has asked us to testify and witness to the resurrection until He returns.

28

He describes relief as “giving direct aid to meet physical, material, and social needs. Common ways of providing relief are such things as temporary shelters for the homeless, food and clothing service for people in need, medical services and crisis counseling.” (325-6) 29 Development is described as “bringing a person or community to self-sufficiency… for an individual [it] can include education, job creation, and training. But development for a neighborhood or community means reinvesting social and financial capital into a social system—housing development and home ownership, as well as other capital investments.” (326) 30 James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 2 vols., (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 1:87.

25

An Evaluation of Timothy Keller’s Center Church

I believe it is time to get back to the missio Dei as given to the church by Jesus in Acts 1. Although we aren’t eyewitnesses like the apostles, our responsibility to establish the kingdom on earth is no different than theirs. Jesus told them that the establishment of the kingdom to Israel (shalom, social justice, eradication of the curse as a man, Jesus Christ, finally shows dominion over a cursed creation—cf. Acts 3:19-21) wasn’t now— “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:7). Instead, the missio Dei for the church consists of testimony— Spirit-empowered proclamation that Jesus rose from the dead and will return the way He left (vv. 5, 8, 11). Our job is not to pretend that we have the power to reverse the curse— Christ will do that when He returns and brings times of refreshing to earth. We have no right to squander the mandate to testify and proclaim the gospel31 with supposed illusion of doing kingdom work of the temporal variety now. Is it no wonder that Christ never commanded the church to establish hospitals, orphanages, or welfare societies in Jerusalem or Rome? How ashamed would the church be if Christ returned and established His kingdom while were we distracted from the only mission God gave the church? How doubly embarrassing when He reverses the curse on creation and shows our attempts to do kingdom work to be nothing more than what the world can do through philanthropy and government aid. Let us proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

A Plea to Church Leaders I’m very concerned about the future of the church in America. There is more at stake for the body of Christ than losing popularity. If we follow CC methodology, we go down a path that empties the gospel of divine power. We cannot package the divine message of the gospel in the man-made methodology of a culturally savvy appeal. When we adapt the message to make the gospel attractive, the gospel is diluted and the fruit is superficial. Moreover, Keller’s model allows for us to take credit for the fruit and become enticed by the lure of power and popularity. The gamble of Keller’s contextualization risks power for popularity. In this wager, the gospel always loses.

It is my trust in the very words of Scripture that compels me to write this evaluation. This is no personal attack—I’m sure that Tim Keller is equally convinced of the biblical nature of his position in the same way I am. Many of you have no doubt benefitted from Timothy Keller in other areas. However, I am asking you to consider the biblical merit of the philosophy found in Center Church and weigh it against the face value meaning of the words Scripture. I’m convinced that this approach won’t stand up to 1 Cor. 1-3. If the church sows this seed it will reap the same factions and weakness that Corinth suffered. I’m grieved at the view of common grace which goes beyond Scripture and contradicts its use in Romans 1-2. I’m burdened at the eclipsing of the missio Dei as defined in Acts and the epistles. On every spectrum pertaining to the church, the gospel, and the world, I am convinced that the Biblical side of the spectrum is better than Keller’s compromising “center.” Only Christ, the true Head of the church, can give us balance and keep us centered. Don’t be ashamed of Christ or His words so that the believers in your care might enjoy every spiritual benefit for their souls.

31

Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:3-11.

26