Keller on Emergent
I have a great deal of respect for Tim Keller. Honestly, of all of the leaders of the Reformed "resurgence," I like Keller the most. He seems thoughtful, evenhanded, and I know many people who go to his excellent church. I've never met him (though I've tried), and he used to frequent this blog.
But I have a bone to pick. At John Piper's conference here in Minneapolis last week, Keller responded to a Justin Taylor question by stating that Emergent is 1) moving away from orthodoxy, and 2) not starting any churches or institutions.
On point one, I'd like to hear how, exactly, I am moving away from orthodoxy. Seriously. This isn't just a question for Keller, but for all who continue to say this. I can't speak for anyone else in emergent (or Emergent Village), but I can speak for myself. I continue to look at my theology, and to write about it, and I have not strayed from traditional Christian orthodoxy. (I will delete any comments that condemn me for using contemplative prayer practices -- this is not what Keller is referring to. Contemplative prayer has a long and rich history in the church (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant).) My point is, if you're going to accuse someone of leaving orthodoxy, you'd better be able to back it up.
On point two, there are lots of folks starting emergent churches, networks, etc. (Just check my in-box.) It's a lot more amorphous than many networks, and the whole emergent/emerging/missional identifiers are still shaking out, but it cannot be denied that churches are starting, books are being written, events being hosted, and seminaries are approaching many of us with thoughts of partnership. Plus, people are starting local cohorts all over the country.
This may all sound defensive. It's not meant to be. I am just getting tired of unsubstantiated indictments, especially by someone who doesn't even have the time to get together with me so that I can answer his questions and respond to his accusations. I expected better of Tim Keller.
But I have a bone to pick. At John Piper's conference here in Minneapolis last week, Keller responded to a Justin Taylor question by stating that Emergent is 1) moving away from orthodoxy, and 2) not starting any churches or institutions.
On point one, I'd like to hear how, exactly, I am moving away from orthodoxy. Seriously. This isn't just a question for Keller, but for all who continue to say this. I can't speak for anyone else in emergent (or Emergent Village), but I can speak for myself. I continue to look at my theology, and to write about it, and I have not strayed from traditional Christian orthodoxy. (I will delete any comments that condemn me for using contemplative prayer practices -- this is not what Keller is referring to. Contemplative prayer has a long and rich history in the church (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant).) My point is, if you're going to accuse someone of leaving orthodoxy, you'd better be able to back it up.
On point two, there are lots of folks starting emergent churches, networks, etc. (Just check my in-box.) It's a lot more amorphous than many networks, and the whole emergent/emerging/missional identifiers are still shaking out, but it cannot be denied that churches are starting, books are being written, events being hosted, and seminaries are approaching many of us with thoughts of partnership. Plus, people are starting local cohorts all over the country.
This may all sound defensive. It's not meant to be. I am just getting tired of unsubstantiated indictments, especially by someone who doesn't even have the time to get together with me so that I can answer his questions and respond to his accusations. I expected better of Tim Keller.
posted by tony at 4:24 AM
42 Comments:
Tony,
I believe your rhetoric does not match your record. In March 2006 I attended a lecture that you gave to E-Free youth pastors from Iowa and other evangelical pastors in the Des Moines area. You can read a write up on that event here: http://mattproctor.blogspot.com/2006/03/tony.html
In this message you attacked several orthodox and especially evangelical doctrines:
1. The person of the Holy Spirit
2. The inerrancy of Scripture
3. The subsitionary atonement
One key difference between you and Keller-types is your view of orthodoxy is generous. But for most evangelicals, they have stood on the 3 doctrines mentioned above and others you have questioned like the nature of truth (as expressed in your book "Postmodern Youth Ministry), hermenutics (which you also questioned a bit in your book and in the lecture), etc.
spelling error, an expression of human fallibility
*substitutionary
The question posed by Justin Taylor was something like (not a precise quote), "Do you think the emergent conversation has staying power, do you think it will still be a force for evangelicals to reckon with decades from now?"
Keller's comments were in the context of his response to this question. His response was something like (again not a precise quote), "No, for two reasons: (1) Because there is a built-in aversion to institutions and authority structures, which are so necessary if you're going to build functioning organizations, and (2)Because the emergent conversation is not distinctively evangelical, nor is it explicitly committed to evangelical orthodoxy."
I wish he would have said more, and more forcefully, on this last point. When I listen to the emergent podcast, I get the impression that the people in the conversation have just totally untethered themselves from the authority and sufficiency of Scripture by denying its perspicuity - that its meaning is essentially clear and plain.
Tony,
I don't come here with an axe to grind, but I think people in Emergent need to take this seriously. I hope you will receive this as someone who tried a cohort meeting (you were there), read one of McLaren's books and many of his articles, and someone who closely follows Scot McKnight's blog. I don't see myself as classically Reformed and I labor among a church in Uptown designed to reach out to younger singles.
First of all, I think many evangelicals, whether they be Reformed Piper followers or Arminian SBCers, see Emergent drifting towards heterodoxy because of what is being published. For example, Spencer Burke's newest book does not bode well for the idea that recognized leaders of the emerging church (Burke is part of Emergent right?) are holding fast to historic Christianity. The denial of the trinity, incarnation, and the work of the cross make one a heretic if not an apostate. The only "friend of Emergent" I've seen call this out is McKnight.
Second, Emegent and their friends are not seen as very prophetic. Old and New Testament history constantly sees the people of God being lead astray and being called back to God and his standards. The direction, however, of embracing certain cultural mores (like postmodernism) that repudiate the idea of making a statement of faith and allowing anything in to question the core doctrines of Christianity makes for a recipe that the NT warns against (See Paul's admonishments in 1st and 2nd Corinthians).
Third, it seems as though many important doctrines are up for grabs. Hell, atonement, and human sexuality all seem on trial. Certainly, I think there are many topics that are worthy of conversation. I too feel that penal substitution, while it is integral to the gospel, does not tell the whole story. But the fact that it is pooh-poohed as "cosmic child abuse" smacks of blasphemy. I understand how it can be seen as a hard doctrine, but one who dishes out such a sweeping condemnation of it is just as fundamentalistic as those who hold to it as the exclusion of all other theories.
I plea for you to see why many of us in the middle of the Reformed/Emergent divide find this to be frustrating. But there are signs of hope. While I don't agree with everything, I thin the work done by NT Wright and what's been coming out of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia is good.
On point one...at least from my own point of view, I attribute my own leaning back towards orthodoxy to getting connected with Emergent (the writers and the relationships) lest I kept heading over to a postmodern relativism. (Do you get any extra credit from the critique police for testimonies like this?)
One point two...I was invited just yesterday to join a group beginning conversations and visioning about the possibility of an Emergent community in our area. (Wow! Its great to think that we'd be doing something first! Although my hunch is that numerous folks are doing the same and have already done the same for years now.
tony
we (DAWN) are working towards a million new church plants in Europe and i am guessing most of these will be emerging churches in some form or another. i will be interested to hear this comment from tim.
i am listening to his talk from desiring God conference and enjoying his balanced approach.
i feel deeply committed to church planting - and have been planting them for 20 years - and also towards orthodox doctrine
and i also feel centrally located inside the global emerging church
you can imagine my frustration at being pigeonholed like this . ..
i will look out for tim's comment but i have a gut feeling that tim is on our side.
By the way, Tony. I said: 'if you define evangelical orthodoxy using John Stott's evangelical essentials, then emergent is moving away from evangelical orthodoxy.' I don't think that's unkind or inaccurate. That's not the same thing as saying you aren't orthodox Christians.
Tim Keller
Tim, thanks for your helpful comment. That qualifier, indeed, makes all the difference. I grew up in a mainline church, and I've never really had much use for the term "evangelical." I think it's been both watered down to meaningless by journalists and made contentious by insiders. It's not one that I use to describe myself, not because I don't believe we should share the euangelion, but because I think the Americanized term is more problematic than helpful.
But I still wonder why one sits on a stage and questions the orthodoxy -- evangelical or otherwise -- of brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't see how that's helpful in advancing the Kingdom. As you know, Tim, I've tried several times to communicate with you directly, only to be rebuffed by your assistant. I'd very much like to forge a friendship and be open to correction where needed.
Matt, I remember you being a very smart guy. Then you must know that two of the three doctrines you name can in no way be measurements of orthodoxy, historically speaking. Maybe evangelicals can cast one another in or out of bounds based on inerrancy and substitutionary atonement, but neither doctrine is an historical marker of orthodoxy. If you heard me question the personhood of the Holy Spirit, then I misspoke. I have a very high pneumatology -- higher, in fact, than most evangelicals I know.
I would judge historic orthodoxy on the grounds of these beliefs (to name a few): humanity of Jesus, divinity of Jesus, monotheism, trinitarianism, and inspiration of scripture.
Adam, Spencer is in the emerging church, in a broader sense, but he is not in the leadership of Emergent Village. I count him as a friend, but that does not mean that I endorse everything that he says or writes. The same goes for others in emergent. Regarding your other curiosities, I'm on the record on this blog and in other places about my hermeneutic positions.
And to those who think that I never respond to my critics, I'm doing my best here! It's tough to respond to the critique that I'm sliding away from evangelical orthodoxy, when I've never claimed that appellation for myself. Orthodox Christianity, as historically conceived? Yes!
Tony,
I do not want to be a critic that really is not my goal, but is sounds a bit like you are wanting to have it both ways here.
Comments are made addressing where "emergent beliefs" are out of bounds, and then you brush it off by claiming that while spencer is part of the emergent friendship he does not represent all your views. The point being is that you asked for examples of questionable emergent orthodoxy and they were given.
As long as Spencer identifies with the emergent conversation I believe the critiques remain valid. I guess it raises a larger question which so many would like to know and Piper put forth at the conference in his session; Just what exactly unites the emeregent friendship? And can one stray to far in their orthodoxy in this conversation? Bottom line are there any boundaries in this conversation?
I think reading Bob hyatt's latest post on Spencer's book it becomes clear that that he is calling for some boundaries in this conversation and am just curious if you would share that same opinion.
Tony...you hold to the inspiration of Scripture in what sense...and to what effects? Thanks!
In Christ
Noah
Tony,
You define "trinitarianism" as an essential component of "Christian orthodoxy," as well you should.
However, I was visiting your church on Sunday, Sept. 24th, just to become more familiar with what emergents had to say, and I was saddened to hear a member of your congregation give a "historical sketch" in which he named the doctrine of the Trinity as hardly more than Constanine's political power-play. In the least, he severely questioned the Trinity (and the Son's deity). At most, he outright denied it. Now, whether or not you would have agreed with this statement (or question) or not I don't know, but it happened as a planned part of the worship service of which you were a part (after which we continued to sing in worship, as if there was still any thing to sing about), so I can only assume it was the kind of thing you want to be said in the church.
As I said, this occurance both shocked and grieved me.
I truly don't understand how the service could just go on afterward like it was no big deal.
JP
JP,
Ben said nothing of the kind. You obviously weren't listening very well. What he did was provide a historical overview of the Council of Nicaea, and the development of the Nicene Creed. That's called education.
I like Keller too :) It's been my experience that the staff at Redeemer have been cordial and professional, and it took me months of planning to get an in-person meeting together.
With all that is going on, not just in these theological conversations, but in American life in general, it's quite challenging to coordinate schedules to setup a meeting. And with media attention escalating for Emergent, Redeemer,and other kingdom players, all would have to be selective in stewarding meeting times. So, patience is called for all around. :)
It seems to me all the past 16 comments form everyone including tony, are all polarized. I have so far not seen any dialouge on this post that is not 1sided. Not just emergent but the whole body of Christ should be a converstation, a place where we dialouge together to come closer to the truth and truth's about God. While we are attacking and defending this will not be done. This original post was very good but all sixteen responses have been appaling. When did we forget love? When did we forget grace shown towards others in the family of God?
I think the very meaning of "in the family of God" is at stake in this "conversation". I'm afraid my emergent friends have their toes pointed away from evangelical (read: biblical) soteriology, bibliology, and Christology.
I too feel like Keller did not make an unsubstantiated claim when he said Emergent is moving away from orthodoxy. In his talk, he said that Emergent's (which he also called the "post-liberals") emphasis on the here-and-now kingdom and redemption aspect (at the expense of the grace-personal forgiveness aspect) is in a sense a new kind of social action legalism; we are justified by our participation in social action/transformation.
I think Keller and others' criticism have alot to do with Emergent's primary emphasis on interpreting the Bible as "bound by a context" (quote from your last entry). While I think most reformed theology takes cultural background and context seriously, it sees it as informing the meaning of the text, not defining it. I think this also comes from an underlying difference in epistemology in answering the question, what "truth" can we find in the Bible?
I would love to witness a hearty dialogue between yourself, and others in Emergent and people like Keller (and even folks like Piper and Driscoll too!). I would encourage you to download Keller's talks from the conference, if you haven't already.
Tony, Keller expanded his comments about this conversation in response to another blog here: http://www.djchuang.com/2006/10/d1374
Bill, I wasn't trying to sell you anything :) I did share my experience, and I did try to share some fair and reasonable assessment on why a meeting may not have yet happened. I could be wrong, but my (hopeful) understanding is that with this particularly missed oppportunity, it's not so much a patent refusal to meet, but more of a meeting that hasn't yet happened.
Vynette,
Jesus' message wasn't merely "love of God and love of fellow humans" was it? He did say, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel." You can't separate Jesus' life and death. The gospel isn't "Jesus lived a perfect life of love for God and others, and so should you," it's "Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried and rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures." The gospel is his sinless life AND sacrificial death for sins, fulfilling the promises of Scripture.
Tony, I would also love to have clarity on what you mean by "inspiration" of Scripture. Do you mean the "theopneustos" Paul spoke of? I know some argue that he must have been only speaking of the Old Testament, or portions of it, but this may not have been the case. Peter viewed Paul's writings as Scripture. Are you speaking along these same lines? This would be a wonderful common ground to stand on.
To speak to a comment towards the end of the discussion: The gospel is not that Jesus lived a sinless life, and then died for our sins and then was raised, although that is a part of the gospel. The gospel seems to be, at least according to Jesus, "The time has come,"..."The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" The good news, as it is shown here is that the awaited kingdom of God has come near in Christ. The kingdom is thus embodied in the life of the God-man, culminating in the death “for us” and resurrection.
However, Paul seems to assert that the death “for us” is broader than simply the substationary atonement (although that is the central piece of the manifestation of God's condescension in favor of beloved-beleaguered humanity). The gospel is cosmic in scope (Eph 1:10) and leads to redemption of all the created order.
Once again the gospel is the kingdom of God, as manifest in all Jesus did, effectuated in the death and resurrection of behalf of fallen creation (all of it), as the kingdom moves towards culmination in the eschaton.
On a second note. Evangelicals (a group which I consider myself part of) are not outside theological misconceptions. In recent works (read past 10 years) there has begun an increased discussion of the eternal subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father. This was flatly rejected by the early conciliar tradition. Let us not point out specks when we have logs.
Chris,
I appreciate your help. You are right to emphasize the kingdom and the redemption of all created things in Christ. However, I think I disagree with you when you say, "The gospel is not that Christ lived a perfect life, and then died for our sins and then was raised, although that is a part of the gospel."
We could include more information than this (as you have rightly pointed out), but not less. These are the most basic facts of the gospel. I think the Apostle Paul backs me up here:
"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."
(1 Corinthians 15:1-4)
My concern with Vynette's comment is that it seems to exalt the "active obedience" of Christ (his sinless life) and ignore his "passive obedience" (sacrificial death). His sinless life alone is not the gospel. His life and death must be taken together, as in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 above.
I could be wrong but you make distinction where I make none. The sinlessness etc. are part of the kingdom, part of God come to earth. It is part of the gospel.
Chris,
I think we are agreeing that it all hangs together - the sinless life, death, resurrection. The point I want to make to Vynette is that the sinless life makes no sense and has no redemptive value without the sacrificial death. So the sinless life of love, by itself, saves no one. 1 Cor. 15:1-4 is a good articulation of the simple news a person must recieve to be saved. It's the gospel distilled to its essence.
Vynette,
I don't think you're being harsh at all. :) Could you explain further what you mean when you say, "Eternal life is to be found in spirit, not doctrines," and "passive belief in salvation through dead doctrines"? I'm interested in your thoughts.
Vynette,
Passive belief in Jesus' divinity will not bring abuot the Kingdom of God on earth anymore than passionate obedience to a Jesus who is not God will.
Tony writes,
"At John Piper's conference here in Minneapolis last week, Keller responded to a Justin Taylor question by stating that Emergent is 1) moving away from orthodoxy, and 2) not starting any churches or institutions.
On point one, I'd like to hear how, exactly, I am moving away from orthodoxy. "
Did you get that? Tony thinks HE is emergent! The criticism is not with TONY, but with Emergent, but Tony hears it as referring to himself.
Which only further proves my theory that Tony is the Pope of emergent.
your pal,
Norm
Vynette,
What is your understanding of John 3, where we are told that unless a person is born again he or she cannot see the kingdom of God?
another great emergent blog:
http://blogsdosuck.blogspot.com/
Vynette,
I think you misunderstand regeneration. Consider the following passages:
"For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:3-7)
"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:4-9)
You see, regeneration is not something we effect of our own wills. These passages teach that we are made alive (regenerated) by the Holy Spirit and as a result respond to the gospel (again, see 1 Cor. 15) in faith and repentance; on the basis of this faith we are declared just by God. Notice that these passages teach us that regeneration is a work of the Spirit which He initiates. We do not initiate regeneration.
I do not see biblical regeneration or justification in your statement that, "To become 'spiritually re-born', a person must follow in the footsteps of Jesus, through his crucifixion, death and resurrection, in order to become 'children of God'..." I think you are putting sanctification first and making it the basis for regeneration and justification, but perhaps I misunderstand.
It's good fun having a cordial discussion with you!
Interesting point Norm. I would say at best he had a slip of the tongue, at worst, your emergent pontiff thoughts might be spot on.
Vynettte,
You wrote, "There is an indwelling 'spirit' in all those who share the fundamental values of Jesus of Nazareth." What do you ean by the values of Jesus. Ghandi for insance, shared some of the values of Jesus, but He was not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Is this what you are talking about, I hope not, this would be a false proposition and an affront to Jesus. Or do you mean, people who value God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in such a way that their lives are radically transformed in loving obedience to their saviour, King, and God? This would be an accurate understanding. I am wondering where you are in this.
Vynette,
Where do faith and repentance fit in? Or Jesus' atoning work on the cross? Did Jesus not absorb the Father's wrath stored up for sinners so that the Father could justly pardon them?
It sounds as though you are advocating a kind of works righteousness - the basis of acceptance with God being adherence to a moral code modeled by Jesus. If so this is a grievous error and a departure from the true biblical gospel.
The New World of light is not only founded in the teachings of Jesus. For if He is not God, He is a horrible teacher. It is founded on His teaching and deity. Don't get me wrong, there is a wide road of people who love His teaching and are kind, but deny His deity, they simply are not living in a new workd of light as they are an affront to His claim of Godness.
Vynette, I am grieved to say that is heterodoxy. John 831-59 is but one clear reference to Jesus' claim to be God. The reason they picked up stones to stone him was becasue He was claiming to be the Iam. The deity of Christ is clearly foundational orthodoxy. His claim of this is latent throughout the Gospels. You cannot have a passionless belief in this and be a Christian, but also, you cannot passionately believe Jesus is something less than God and truly be a Christian. God the Son, came to redeem creation, morespecifically to redeem us from the Father's wrath against us. This is true whether or not anyone believes it
Also, Jesus, the Gospels speak, was born of a virgin, not a maiden, see Luke 1:33-35.
Now I get it Vynette, you're trying to sell a book. Please come to repentance, or your silver will perish with you.
Vynette,
You said:
"Jesus did not claim to be God."
Jesus said:
"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)
"Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (John 17:5)
"Before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58)
"Your sins are forgiven." (Matt. 9:2, Luke 7:48, etc.)
John the Apostle said:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
I'm afraid you have been a wolf in sheep's clothing. If you do not believe Jesus is God, you cannot be a Christian. I pray that you will embrace Jesus for who he really is, for Jesus himself says, "If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24)
Criticism coming from our evangelical brothers is a good thing coz it shows that even tho they don't really understand, still they care and they do love.
One problem that evangelicals face tho is that many of the stalwarts of the movement do not toe the official line as to what evangelicals "most essentially must believe" as defined in one of the early comments above.
Leaders such as Clark Pinnock, John Stott and C.S. Lewis would be some that have been variously so accused by their own colleagues, but in fact there are many others. Certainly, the diversity of views (on what is essential doctrine) amongst the rank and file of those who consider themselves evangelical is even braoder.
On institutionality, imo one of the areas where the authority of scripture has been least applied by evangelicalism is in the compromise of the gospel by wedding it to institutuionalism.
But, as we are all followers of Jesus and we all have been given the ministry of reconciliation as our mission, let us begin, do, and end in the love of Jesus that binds us in His Body.
If Jesus had only lived a perfect life and died we would still be without Hope--it is His resurrection and ascendance into Heaven which gives us Hope. It is the presence of His Holy Spirit that envigours us and guides us and chides us when we fail to do all those good things we think we ought to do in order to be good Christians. As a Christian I have been aware of more sin in my life than before I was a Christian, thak god He is a forgiving God-a God of Second Chances.
The thing about the OT Characters is that they, the ones venerated as Fathers and Kings of the faith, do seem to represent the passive act of faith in an all powerful generous God who accomplishes His will whether they (or we) agree with Him or not. Individually, it has worked out better for those (us) who listen hear confess and obey.
The only thing I inherited from Adam was death and a gene code.
Orthodxy(Greek, Syrian, Celtic, Colptic) seems to rely on an anathematic contention to Tony, the Oral Tradition of the--I am tempted to say preexisting--Church.
Adam Omelianchuk, thanks fr a very balanced and enlightening comment there :)
I was checking out Keller to see where he stands on the Emergent Church. I was so excited to read your post. Keller is definately the guy for me. Keller=Yes
Emergent=No!
Post a Comment
<< Home