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 religions like Roman
Catholicism. Furthermore, “A theory of
common grace based on a natural theology is destructive of all grace, common or
special.”[1] 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 sinning brother (Mt. 18:15b; 2 Cor. 2:5-11), 2) protection
of other believers (1 Cor. 5:6-11), 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. 5:25-26; 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 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.[2] 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 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,[3]
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 self-righteousness. 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 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. TO BE CONTINUED
Article written by Pastor Jon Anderson. Jon is a pastor at Grace Immanuel Bible Church and a PhD student at Southern Seminary. His forthcoming dissertation will be on presuppositional hermeneutics.
For a complete understanding of this multi-layered issue note the Social Action Trend in Evangelicalism series that was posted on this blog in January. The redeemed of God are called to love their neighbor which will no doubt include acts of mercy and charity.
For a complete understanding of this multi-layered issue note the Social Action Trend in Evangelicalism series that was posted on this blog in January. The redeemed of God are called to love their neighbor which will no doubt include acts of mercy and charity.
[1] Van Til, Common
Grace & the Gospel, 145.
[2] 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.
[3] Compare the parallel and synonymous statements of
Paul in Acts 20:20 and verse 27.
