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)
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)[1]
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 sense[2]—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.[3]
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)
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.[4]
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.
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.[5]
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 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.[6] 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 God-ordained mission of the church, bold preaching of repentance is
no longer possible. 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 future dissertation will be on presuppositional hermeneutics.
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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!
[4] “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)
[5] Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25.
[6] See the discussion of Keller’s A-doctrines vs.
B-doctrines and Romans 1 at the end of the section above.
