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)
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)
