A Biblical Critique of Tim Keller's "Center Church" (pt. 3)

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 power[1], and leave the audience with a presentation that finds its success on the wisdom of man![2] 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 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.

A Biblical Critique of Keller's 'Center Church' (pt. 2)

Evaluation of Center Church

There are three areas where I consider CC to be unbiblical/lacking:

      1) 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

·        2)Common Grace—this immediately shapes our view on the cultural mandate of the church and the goal of the church in the world

·        3) 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 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)

A Biblical Critique of Tim Keller's "Center Church" (pt. 1)

"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. 

Responding to the Social Action Trend in Evangelicalism (pt. 8)

This is part 8 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions" by two veteran missionaries from Africa.

Specific Concerns (to Social Action Trends):

8. A Willful Blindness to How the Early Church Fulfilled Jesus’ Commission(s)

Jesus’ various commissions to the disciples leave no room for making social action an equal partner with gospel proclamation, church planting, and theological training. In fact, Jesus’ instructions to His followers after His resurrection focused exclusively on making disciples through evangelism and teaching. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you . . .” (Matt 28:19–20). “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things” (Luke 24:46–48).

 Realizing that social action is conspicuously absent from the commissions recorded in Matthew and Luke, John Stott draws attention to Jesus’ commission to the disciples in John 20:21, “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”  Stott interprets this statement to mean, “The Father sent Me to evangelize and to heal the sick and help the poor; therefore, I am sending you to do both as well.” Clearly Stott tries too hard to find social action in this text. The Father’s authoritative sending of Jesus (the co-eternal, co-equal Son) into the world is a dominant theme in John’s Gospel (John 3:16–17; 5:24, 30, 36–37; 6:44, 57; 7:28–29; 8:42). In light of this, no complicated explanation of John 20:21 need be sought: as the Father authoritatively sent the Son (and as the Son submissively obeyed), so Jesus now authoritatively sends His disciples.  The issue is authority and obedience, not the content of the mission. (In fact, much of Jesus’ mission—such as His substitutionary death—was irreproducible.) In fact, if Jesus’ commission in John 20:21 was a veiled encouragement to carry out a dual-track mission in the world (evangelism and social justice), then the apostles clearly failed to understand Jesus. Peter summed up his interpretation of Jesus’ commissions this way: “He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). As one untimely born, the apostle Paul received his commission from Christ years later; nonetheless, Jesus’ words to Paul on the road to Damascus (and Paul’s subsequent obedience) are strikingly familiar: “But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness. . . . to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.” “So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:16–20).

The Book of Acts reveals that the apostles and the early church fulfilled Jesus’ instruction with an astonishing single-mindedness of purpose, preaching the Word of God for the salvation of sinners and the edification of the saints. 

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND (pt. 7)

This is part 7 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions"
by two veteran missionaries from Africa.
Specific Biblical Concerns (to the social action trend in evangelicalism)-

7. A Misunderstanding of Jesus’ Ministry and Miracles:

Those who hope to make social action and gospel proclamation two wings of the same bird claim that they are imitating the earthly ministry of Jesus. Jesus, they contend, not only preached repentance, He also focused on relieving the physical needs and the oppression of the economically downtrodden in Palestine. He healed their sicknesses, filled their stomachs, and dropped a coin in the outstretched hands of the poor.

While the Scripture implies that Jesus did express mercy to the poor on a personal level (Matt 26:9; John 13:29), it is clear from the Gospels that Jesus started no orphanages, established no poverty relief funds, no low-cost housing schemes, no well-digging programs, and set no prisoners free (not even John the Baptist). Neither did Jesus instruct or train His disciples to do so. That doesn’t mean that it’s intrinsically wrong for Christians to be involved in such work. But it certainly makes suspect the argument that, based on Jesus’ example, the church should make social action central to her mission. Personal expressions of mercy and church-organized social action programs are not the same thing: Jesus exemplified one, not the other. In fact, the purpose statements of Jesus’ earthly ministry always focused on proclamation and on His substitutionary death for sinners: “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for” (Mark 1:38). “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43).

Lord's Day worship at Lake Country Bible Church (1/28/18)

Sunday's sermon text is Luke 1:46-55. My sermon title is "Psalm 151: The Magnificat!" This is simply one of the great worship texts in all the Scriptures. We are going to make much of God and Christ on Sunday.  We plan on celebrating Communion and will commission our 2nd short term missions trip to India as well. We will also enjoy a fellowship meal before our annual meeting. It's going to be a great Lord's Day!

During the SS hour the adults/youth group will meet in the sanctuary for prayer and will hear a comforting exposition on Psalm 23 from a faithful expositor and pastor/friend- Daron Roberts. 

 In view of all the personal hardships and cancer battles our congregation is going through it seemed like a great passage.

  www.lakecountrybible.org

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICAL MISSIONS (pt. 6)

Is Tim Keller's view on Missions and the Local Church Biblically Sound?

This is part 6 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions" by two veteran missionaries from Africa. It is one of the most thought provoking articles I've read in a long time.

Specific Concerns (with regards to the Social Action Trend in Missions):

6. Defective Hermeneutics

"The arguments used to promote a social justice philosophy of the church and missions are often based on transparently deficient hermeneutics. The result is arguments that are rhetorically compelling, but biblically suspect. Peter Naylor critiques Tim Keller’s handling of key passages by saying, “He approaches the text with a predetermined agenda that distorts his interpretation.” As Richard Holst points out, Keller’s occasionally defective hermeneutics—especially his habit of overworking metaphors and of sliding into allegory—are the source of many of his questionable views (Richard Holst, “Timothy Keller’s Hermeneutic: an Example for the Church to Follow?”, chapter 5 in Engaging With Keller).

This interpretative error seems endemic to the social justice movement. It is not possible to list and respond to every hermeneutical misstep made by the advocates of social action; however, typical mistakes include the following: Passages about mercy within the church are often interpreted as if they were about social action projects outside the church.The biblical word justice is wrongly defined and its meaning is confusingly intermingled with the word generosity.  The words oppression and poverty are equated. For this reason, David Wells calls political correctness “fake piety,” (Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 8).

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICALISM (pt. 5)

T

Is this a Biblical statement?

his is part 5 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions" by two veteran missionaries from Africa. Specific Concerns (regarding the social action trend in missions):

4. The New Pragmatism

One of the defining problems of the evangelical church in our era is “a spiral in loss of confidence in the power of Scripture.” Tragically, evangelicals often openly doubt the attracting and saving power of the gospel, and various forms of pragmatism are the result.

For example, for decades the "church growth gurus" have been telling us that in order to get unbelievers to listen to the gospel we need to attract them first with snazzy entertainment and cultural coolness. Build a bowling alley in your church to attract the unsaved, and then you’ll be able to preach the gospel.

Today, another pressure has been added. After centuries of general acceptance in American and Western European culture, evangelicals today are reeling due to the public scorn being heaped on them by an increasingly hostile world. The radicals of the 1960s have grown up and are now running the culture, and as a result, the Bible’s exclusive and authoritative message is openly detested. Shocked that their fellow citizens are labeling them unloving and intolerant, and naively hoping to regain the cultural acceptance of a generation past, many evangelicals are hitching their wagon to the rising star of social involvement. 

Social action is safe. It avoids the scandal of the gospel. It allows churches to be active and to be accepted by the world.  Unfortunately, a spirit of pragmatism (and a corresponding spirit of doubt about the power of the gospel) appears to lie behind much of the social justice movement.

Unchurched Harry no longer lusts after entertainment. The new Harry is socially conscious; he has embraced the cause of the disenfranchised. Therefore, Las Vegas-style stage shows are passé. Today’s socially conscious unbelievers will be wooed to Christianity by means of highly visible social relief projects—examples of human caring that they can applaud and endorse even as unregenerate people. Once the social justice agenda has made them fond of the church, then they can be nudged toward Christ. It’s the new pragmatism: the gospel needs a lead-in because it will never succeed by itself.

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICAL MISSIONS (pt. 4)

This part 4 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions" by two veteran missionaries from Africa.

Specific Critiques (to the social action trend in missions):

"Having surveyed our concerns, we want to highlight eight biblical problems with the social action model of the church and missions. It is unlikely that any single author or ministry embodies all these problems, but for simplicity’s sake we paint with a broad brush.

1. A Redefinition of the Gospel

Social justice advocates are fond of describing the gospel in terms of human flourishing.  The incarnation, they say, was about Christ bringing shalom or general well-being to the human race.  Many evangelicals (without turning away from substitutionary atonement) have adopted this notion enthusiastically: if the gospel is about human flourishing, then any Christian effort that increases that flourishing is gospel ministry. On that basis, building a hospital or an orphanage is just as much a fulfillment of the Great Commission as church planting.

D. A. Carson notes that this redefinition of the gospel is categorically wrong, since the gospel is “the good news of what God has done, not a description of what [Christians] ought to do in consequence. . . . One cannot too forcefully insist on the distinction between the gospel and its entailments.”   Furthermore, to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ as being about the general betterment of unbelieving society is to misrepresent the gospel. 

John MacArthur writes, "Is social reconstruction even an appropriate way for Christians to spend their energies? I recently mentioned to a friend that I was working on a book dealing with sin and our culture’s declining moral climate. He immediately said, “Be sure you urge Christians to get actively involved in reclaiming society. The main problem is that Christians haven’t acquired enough influence in politics, art, and the entertainment industry to turn things around for good.” That, I acknowledge, is a common view held by many Christians. But I’m afraid I don’t agree.. . . . God’s purpose in this world—and the church’s only legitimate commission—is the proclamation of the message of sin and salvation to individuals, whom God sovereignly redeems and calls out of the world.

2. An Overly Realized Eschatology