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. (240-41)
…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. (324-25)
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.
…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 (relief[1])
and to some degree the second (development[2]). 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.[3] 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.
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 gospel[4]
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 Corinthians 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.
Article written by Pastor Jon Anderson.
To understand the complete picture concerning mercy ministries, the Great Commission, and Social Action trends within evangelicalism please read the related articles that have been posted here at "PTL." Note this and this
To understand the complete picture concerning mercy ministries, the Great Commission, and Social Action trends within evangelicalism please read the related articles that have been posted here at "PTL." Note this and this
[1] 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)
[2] 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)
[4] Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:3-11.
