Recently, Tim gave an interview and was asked about his position on gay rights and gay marriage. Among other things, Keller said, “a thoughtful Christian Biblical response doesn’t fit into any of the existing categories out there,” and then went on to describe that while Christians have to grapple with the culture’s vision of sexuality, we also have to love our neighbor and seek justice and fairness.
It was a beautiful, and beautifully nuanced, answer. Of course, not so for other Reformed folks, even those within Keller’s own PCA tribe.
This demonstrates a claim I’ve been making for a while, namely, that Tim Keller is not like the neoReformed rest. In my opinion, he’s better than all the rest, but I wonder how long it’ll take for the greater portion of Piperian Reformed Baptists, Driscollian Reformed Relevants, and even Sprouline PCA’ers to draw lines in the sand against Keller’s writing, speaking, and preaching.
Keller is a great example of someone who is institutionally connected to the new Reformed movement but bears very little resemblance to it. Functionally, his views are distinctly broad and missional; they don’t have the narrow dogmatic tone of the others in his camp. An old pastor of mine who blogs at The Gospel Coalition asked DA Carson what he thought of Keller’s hell chapter in The Reason for God; that old pastor agreed heartily when Carson confided, “It was terrible.” Note well: that’s the President of the Coalition talking about the VP in those terms.
And if Rob Bell is now the litmus test for heresy on such things in the Reformed world, it’s a wonder that a man who quotes Miroslav Volf extensively in his book and hosts NT Wright at his institute is able to somehow stay on the team.
My prediction is that TGC at least will keep Keller around; but not because they like him. They’ll keep him around because he’s respectable.
He’s good PR. And the neoReformed need some of that.
But really, he’s just not one of them.
32 comments
Jim says:
May 12, 2011
Yes, I agree with your opinion on Keller, but you knew that. I think he is uniquely suited and moving closer to some unprecedented engagement/collaboration with both missional and new perspective theologians/scholars and practioners. What a shaking that will bring to the Reformed landscape.
A lot of the time Reformed theology seems primarily concerned with defending Reformed theology. Keller seems to be saying, “Not interested”. This adds credibility to your statement that “Tim Keller is not like the neo-Reformed rest.”
You said, “but I wonder how long it’ll take for the greater portion of Piperian Reformed Baptists, Driscollian Reformed Relevants, and even Sprouline PCA’ers to draw lines in the sand against Keller’s writing, speaking, and preaching.”
In a way, I am hoping that happens for two reasons:
1.This guy is calling his affluent, traditional Presbyterian church to creatively re-engage with a rapidly changing NYC culture by, in part, embracing the marginalized! He is (recently) asking what new way of existing in NYC is necessary for it to be impacted. When much of Reformed theology is insisting that the “story” is a story primarily of personal salvation….Keller is using another word, the ”r” word, “restoration”, to describe mission. I’d hate to see those efforts compromised in any way in order to maintain a Reformed celebrity status.
2.Keller is human and Reformed theology eats away at mission, and even the role of “Reformission” churches often migrates from missional intentionality to “contending publicly for the gospel of Jesus” (which really means contending for a Reformed gospel doctrine). I believe it is happening currently at Mars Hill, Seattle. This in turn reduces mission in a post Christendom context to assert – albeit attempting to do so in a culturally relevant manner – a package of Reformed teachings, undermining a more holistic missional expression. I’d like to see Keller and Redeemer avoid that, but it’s difficult with that tight, constricting Reformed network. However, after inviting N.T.Wright to speak at Redeemer’s Center for Faith and Work (before a packed house of 500 people AND permitting a Wright book table!)
maybe there will be continued cross-pollination with missional and New Perspective theologians.
So, yes, Keller is different and a hero in some ways, David Fitch seems to think so saying, “After we all professed our love and esteem for Tim Keller (and I’m serious here), I argued that Reformed theology, extracted out of Medeival Europe and transplanted to the frontiers of N America, (almost automatically) becomes individualistic.”
It seems, as you said, “….he’s just not one of them.”
Ben Yu says:
Jun 25, 2011
I’m not about to get into discussing “camp positions” as I’m not well-versed enough to know, but just in response to comments you made regarding Keller/Redeemer Pres.’s demeanor towards N.T. Wright, I’ve personally heard D.A. Carson call N.T. Wright a friend and praised Wright’s writing on the Resurrection as better than anything else currently out there. Granted, this was to preface and disclaimer his response to the interviewer that he believed Wright’s Pauline position was outright wrong.
zhoag says:
Jun 25, 2011
Exactly. What Carson would not do, though, is give full approval to have Wright in any of his ecclesial or scholastic settings (not to mention on TGC) because in his view Wright has lost the gospel of justification. Sure, he’d approve of a debate or point-counterpoint with Wright, but not a teaching platform. In this post I was simply venturing a guess that the same treatment may happen to Keller in time.
Tim Bayly says:
May 13, 2011
Excellent summaries of Keller, men. Perfect pitch. Thank you.
bibchr says:
May 13, 2011
If that fits your definition of a “beautiful, and beautifully nuanced, answer,” I’m left wondering what an evasive, waffling, and cowardly answer would look like.
zhoag says:
May 13, 2011
Probably like, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.”
bibchr says:
May 13, 2011
Wow, so you think Jesus gave a cowardly, evasive, waffling response?
Didn’t know you much; now I guess I knew you better.
I’m also wondering whether your answer to me could be subject to the same dichotomy of categorization. Odd how difficult it is to get straight answers out of some people.
Tim Keller: Better Than All the Rest « Johannes Weslianus says:
May 13, 2011
[...] negative evaluations of Tim Keller this week, I thought it would be good to end this week with a positive evaluation: Recently, Tim gave an interview and was asked about his position on gay rights and gay marriage. [...]
zhoag says:
May 13, 2011
Tim B., if I’m reading you correctly, would you want Keller out of the PCA if he didn’t repent of some of these public statements?
Tim Bayly says:
May 13, 2011
>>would you want Keller out of the PCA if he didn’t repent of some of these public statements?
No. He’s the right image for the PCA. Trying to remove him would be akin to trying to remove creosote from a railroad tie.
zhoag says:
May 13, 2011
Ok. So are you tracking with the PCA then? Or are you protesting from within? Sorry if those are annoying questions, just started perusing your blog!
Stephen Baker says:
May 13, 2011
Thing is, creosote preserves railroad ties.
zhoag says:
May 13, 2011
@bibchr – sarcasm, bro. you think Keller’s remark is cowardly and evasive, i think it looks an awful lot like one of Jesus’ answers to pharasaic challenges.
bibchr says:
May 13, 2011
I suppose that could be a thought to pursue, some time.
Here’s what I asked you, though: if that fits your definition of a “beautiful, and beautifully nuanced, answer,” I’m left wondering what an evasive, waffling, and cowardly answer would look like.
Tim Keller on Homosexuality: Good for Human Flourishing Inside the PCA? « Traveling Thru Here says:
May 13, 2011
[...] of all this chatter has resulted in more general discussions of Keller, his role, and the future: here, here and here. Many of the discussions have quoted large portions of Keller’s interviews, but I [...]
eric says:
May 13, 2011
Two men stand together watching the cataclysmic approach of a meteor. One sees eminent danger and attempts to warn everyone. The other sees only the beautiful effulgent glow of an impressively large rock coming ever more into appreciable view and so sees no need to warn but to poeticize the aesthetic moment.
Get real. Don’t be the ‘other’ guy. Seeing Keller’s comments as ‘a beautiful, and beautifully nuanced, answer’ in this one instance *might* be believable if it weren’t for the clear pattern of punting every time this question comes up. Cf. Rev. Bayly’s blog on this. By Keller’s own admission, repeatedly made in sermons, he is a coward, afraid and seemingly morally incapable of approximating the apostle Paul’s clarion call to deal with sexual immorality.
toasty redhead says:
May 14, 2011
I never thought of it that way, well put!
Eric Rasmusen says:
May 14, 2011
Tim Keller said, “a thoughtful Christian Biblical response doesn’t fit into any of the existing categories out there…”
That’s either waffling or incredible arrogance on his part. He has an incredible array of responses to homosexuality to choose from— liberal, Unitarian, Roman Catholic, Calvinist, generic evangelical, simple-folks fundamentalist, Lutheran, etc.— and he doesn’t think any of them are thoughtful? It isn’t even a complicated issue (unlike, say, the Trinity)— it just comes down to saying what behavior is sinful and what isn’t. If he doesn’t have a well-formed opinion on that, either way, especially being a pastor in Manhattan for many years, he shouldn’t be a pastor.
zhoag says:
May 14, 2011
In the very least, all of these comments are proof positive that y’all want Keller to shape up or switch teams.
Andy Naselli says:
May 14, 2011
I’ve been Don Carson’s research assistant for five years, and I’ve worked for The Gospel Coalition for four years.
I corresponded this afternoon with Don Carson and Tim Keller about this post, and they both confirmed that it’s inaccurate.
1. This post inaccurately reports what Don Carson thinks of Tim Keller’s chapter on hell.
Don Carson has never said anything like “It was terrible.” He has spent far more time saying that Tim Keller was basically right on what he said, though he did think that the balance between hell as the place where I lock myself in and hell as God’s judgment was not quite right. But Carson also understands why Keller emphasized that: he’s seeking to evangelize the skeptic.
2. This post inaccurately portrays The Gospel Coalition.
We have observed in recent months that a rising number of people are trying to do things to break up TGC by stirring up resentments they think ought to be there. The main critical narrative about TGC goes like this: TGC is a bunch of very narrow-minded, condemning people. However, the breadth of opinion among TGC on secondary issues and the tolerance they have for each other despite those secondary issues undermines that narrative.
May the Lord preserve us in truth and love.
zhoag says:
May 15, 2011
Hi Andy, it’s obviously quite possible that I was given slightly inaccurate info: it was second hand. But Carson did at least voice his disapproval to my friend, of that I’m sure. And my post was no attempt to “break up TGC” (such would be impossible), only to show that Keller IS in fact markedly different than the majority of others within the neoReformed movement, including TGC. The comments here (mostly from other Presbyterians, I think) prove as much. And Don’s criticism – whether he used the word “terrible” or not – also proves as much.
If we took Keller’s recent statements about gay rights as a case in point, it is patently obvious that he often will not say what other neoReformed folks consider the only faithful response: that homosexuality is out-and-out sin and legal gay unions are an affront to biblical teaching. Even Mark Driscoll will drop that one in the media without hesitation.
I do take issue with TGC, but I actually take issue with precisely the method you’re employing here (which Collin Hansen has taken with me as well): that folks don’t have a right to criticize and therefore should be told to be quiet. This is couched in exhortations to Christian love, etc. For those of us who are critical, however, the shoe is on the other foot; we do see a good degree of theological narrowness & missional shortsightedness in the media and material coming out of the Coalition, the kind that tends towards accusation and criticism of other orthodox believers outside of the Reformed stream (with Bell as exhibit A) and that actually discourages cultural engagement and doing justice (esp. DeYoung/Gilbert).
Keller is your saving grace, however. Love that guy, which is, honestly, the real point of this post.
Jared Wilson says:
May 15, 2011
Keller IS in fact markedly different than the majority of others within the neoReformed movement, including TGC . . . And Don’s criticism – whether he used the word “terrible” or not – also proves as much.
Zach, all due respect, but no it doesn’t. It only proves that fellows within the TGC disagree with each other on some things and don’t think it out of bounds to critique each other.
You guys can’t have it both ways. When the “neoReformed” appear to be lockstep, it is a sign they are a thoughtless, Borgian entity. When they show signs of diversity and intramural debate, it is a sign of weakness, of division, of future fracture. Strange.
zhoag says:
May 15, 2011
Hey man, I don’t think I’m following. It’s precisely the “intramural debate” that I’m highlighting. And I think that Keller’s side in that debate is the minority side. And I think that it could (just venturing a guess) eventually lead to either a squashing of some of Keller’s distinctives (justice emphasis, his answers re: gay rights, apparent theological eclecticism, etc.) or a separation of some kind.
Just a guess, though – could be wrong. I don’t have a horse in the race either way, although I do want to see Keller’s perspective flourish among the Reformed. When I look at churches like Resurrection Presbyterian in NYC it gives me great hope. And other PCA friends of mine do, too. (Not the PCA commenters here, mind you
.
The real question that would settle this: Does Carson think Miroslav Volf is a false teacher? Does Keller?
Jared Wilson says:
May 15, 2011
Was referring to this: “I wonder how long it’ll take for the greater portion of Piperian Reformed Baptists, Driscollian Reformed Relevants, and even Sprouline PCA’ers to draw lines in the sand”
I don’t have a horse in the race either way
Ah, you’d have to talk about the “neoReformed,” etc. a lot less if you really wanted me to believe that.
zhoag says:
May 15, 2011
Yeah yeah the intramural debate that could lead to separation. I was saying that.
I don’t have a horse in the race about TGC or others making that separation, that’s what I meant. If anything, I hope Keller stays strong and continues to influence others.
But I DO have a horse in the race of seeing an alternative theological perspective gain some traction in the US that is able to offset the monolithic neoReformed media movement.
That’s all.
eric says:
May 15, 2011
“I know of no surer way of a people’s perishing than by being led by one who does not speak out straight, and honestly denounce evil. If the minister halts between two opinions, do you wonder that the congregation is undecided? If the preacher trims and twists to please all parties, can you expect his people to be honest? If I wink at your inconsistencies will you not soon be hardened in them?
Like priest, like people. A cowardly preacher suits hardened sinners. Those who are afraid to rebuke sin, or to probe the conscience, will have much to answer for. May God save you from being led into the ditch by a blind guide.
And yet is not a mingle-mangle of Christ and Belial the common religion of the day? Is not worldly piety, or pious worldliness, the current religion of England? They live among godly people, and God chastens them, and they therefore fear him, but not enough to give their hearts to him. They seek out a trimming teacher who is not too precise and plain-spoken, and they settle down comfortably to a mongrel faith, half truth, half error, and a mongrel worship half dead form, and half orthodoxy.
God have mercy upon men, and bring them out from the world; for he will not have a compound of world and grace. “Come ye out from among them,” saith he, “be ye separate: touch not the unclean thing.” “If God be God, serve him: if Baal be God, serve him.” There can be no alliance between the two. Jehovah and Baal can never be friends. “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” “No man can serve two masters.” All attempts at compromise or comprehensiveness in matters of truth and purity are founded on falsehood, and falsehood is all that can come of them. May God save us from such hateful doublemindedness.”
“do you wonder that the congregation is undecided?” – The only thing one need do to be fully persuaded of the soul destructive nature of Keller’s waffling on all matters sexual is spend some time among the Redeemer congregation. The rampant, unchecked incessant immorality, both homosexual and heterosexual, among staff and large portions of the laity alike will provide all the proof you need to know. Redeemer, far more so than any other church in NYC, is known as a place to go get your freak on with a classy guy or girl. It’s almost as if the check of conscience doesn’t even exist in the ethical ethos of that community. And let’s not even attend to the matter of Redeemer members who proactively support same-sex legislation and abortion rights.
Yes folks. Keller’s ‘hateful doublemindedness’ evidently translates into the pew as mushy, morally chaotic seat warmers who know how to skillfully anatomize their heart but not keep their pants on and aren’t even sure if they should do such. Go and see.
Lord have mercy on us all.
zhoag says:
May 15, 2011
Eric, do you live in NYC?
Tim Bayly says:
Aug 21, 2011
Back in San Diego when I worked for Youth Specialties (the Witenburg Door guys), I ended up living with a male prostitute who serviced his johns in the house we shared. Since then, my wife and I have lived in Madison, Boulder, Boston, and (now) Bloomington, Indiana. In each place, the homosexualists are shameless and Biblical shepherds spend their lives caring for those repenting of this sin. We have always had multiple souls repenting of this sin (or falling back into it) in our present congregation, and we are consulted by others for advice concerning this ministry.
So with those credentials of love and service over many years, I say that Tim Keller’s response was abysmal. Perfectly abysmal.
And those who think otherwise either are heartless or completely ignorant. Heartless in not caring that an officer of Christ’s Church equivocates rather than loving those in bondage by calling them to repentance. Ignorant in not being able to listen or read words and sentences and hear their meaning, accurately.
And this has nothing to do with Reformed doctrine. It’s the most basic category of pastoral care and any faithful shepherd, whether Baptist or Methodist or Pentecostal, would turn away blushing to read Tim Keller’s failure. He knows his own heart and how often his response has been as bad, or sometimes even worse.
Love,
zachhoag says:
Aug 22, 2011
Tim, I obviously disagree with the bulk of your sentiments, but I’m just wondering how you can be in the PCA alongside someone you find to be so far off the mark.
Sojourner says:
Oct 20, 2011
Love this article. I’m so glad to see that other people have picked up these subtle nuances, that IMHO separate Keller from the rest of the pack. I don’t want to ramble on too long, because I could on this topic since it interest me, but here are a few of the differences that I have noticed. Keller, in general comes off much more loving and mature in his delivery of the gospel. In other words, he’s not afraid to deviate from that hardline fundamentalist, dogmatic attitude that you may find in a say a Driscoll or Piper. He speak on things like the “tenderness of Christ” and in general preaches a more loving message. I would contrast this with Driscoll’s “macho-man”, bloody warrior MMA Jesus that he himself stated that he would only worship. Because, he can’t worship someone that he can physically beat up. LOL. It’s funny, but not funny IMO, because I will worship any “type” of Jesus whether it’s a “Hippy Jesus” or “GI Joe” Jesus. He’s worthy to be praised regardless of my preconceived notions about who he is in the bible. In the same way, “the never crack a mile or make a joke John Piper” (he’s said that himself), because the gospel is too serious to play around with……. sometimes takes himself a little too serious. Whatever happened to having the joy of the Lord, or freedom in Christ? And, why can’t that fruit of the spirit be put on display as a witness to the power of the Christian life. Is it not religiosity that hinders us from this type of freedom? On that note, this gives some insight as to how Keller even cautiously approaches the type of Pharisaic question mentioned above. Obviously Keller on biblical grounds believes in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman (alone), but he was not going to allow someone to pigeonhole him into saying what the average hardline conservative Reformed, Charismatic, Traditional Baptist, etc. is wanting to “hear”. “We condemn all acts of sexual immorality and hold this to be a more grave sin than the others that also malign many Christians (divorce, gluttony, greed, lack of justice, racism, and the list goes on and on). See you can be a racist southerner and live a good-old southern baked tradition Christian life and never get poked or prodded to move from your place of comfort in many churches. In the same way you can get a divorce and no one will be at the courthouse picketing against your committing adultery. We pick and choose as Christians (sadly) about what we are gong to rail against. It comes down to choosing those things that affect the least number of us. That way, we can stand on our high horse and pray to God out loud in the temple that we are so glad that we are not like the rest of the heathens. Sound familiar. Where’s the total depravity come into play with that? Keller, is aware of the shortcomings of the church and as a result he refuses to ruin his witness to a subset of people who need to hear the gospel just like all the rest of us sinners who are only saved by the grace of God. God hates the sin, and not the sinner. I admit, I’m not Reformed, but obviously enjoy listening to some Reformed teaching. Coming from a spirit-filled Charismatic type of background allows me to really appreciate some one like Keller. Who’s is truly honest enough to even admit that he’s a Calvinist, but that the five points alone are fraught with holes as well as the Armenian stance. I love that type of humility, that from my experience only comes from the power of the Holy Spirit being allowed to lead and guide us individually. This spills over into his love for people of all cultures and backgrounds, etc. Piper and Driscoll, both often wave their “Reformed” flag for all to see, be it on Facebook, or in a sermon (Yes, it’s irritating on many levels, but I digress). I rarely here Keller do that, he’s to humble for that. To close, I would say that I hate to say that he’s “better” than the rest, because that wouldn’t be biblical. Instead, I would say that he’s more mature in the Lord. Just one humble man’s opinion.
zachhoag says:
Oct 21, 2011
Thanks for the thoughts and encouragement. I still think he’s “better”, but I’m also a blogger trying to stir up conversation
. Blessings to ya!
mjluff says:
Oct 21, 2011
Great stuff, Zach – and cracking discussion stream. BWT I agree with you about Keller. The man has a level of integrity that is astounding – but don’t misinterpret his willingness to hold out an olive branch or two as him betraying his neoReformed dogma. In reality, I think he is is genuinely trying to walk a path of grace – somewhere sort of contemporary and post-modernish but not straying too far from the traditional Reformed ‘line in the sand’ – pushing the boundaries I feel in order to see who squeals in the TGC camp. Must admit, I am surprised Driscoll has not been more vocal against some of his views – and where is a good Twitter post from John Piper when you need it