Engaging With Tim Keller on the Importance of Ecclesiology

Welcome to the Conversation Design Matter Project. I'm your host John Ferris for a short episode that will complete, yay, our series

Engaging with Keller. Now, someone asked me earlier this week, John, are you going to have a playlist for all the episodes you did on this book and then maybe beyond?

The other episodes you've done on Tim Keller, and I said yes. So go to the info section for this video if you're interested in that and you will find hours of me talking about Tim Keller's views, theology, critiquing them, the ones that are problematic and not biblical or not orthodox or unwise.

And there's quite a few of those. That's why a book like this was written. And it's why I thought that it was necessary for me to do this because I just didn't think that there were great critiques out there.

There's some, but not very comprehensive. And so I wanted to give comprehensive, a comprehensive critique.

And hopefully that's what I've done. Hopefully that's what I brought to you. This particular book, Engaging with Keller, is out of print.

If you can find one, it's a great book. It doesn't cover everything because it was written, I think, in part in 2014, but it covers some of the major issues.

They haven't changed. And probably the shortest chapter, and if it's not the shortest, maybe the one that would, when

I whittle it down into the bare components, become the shortest, becomes the shortest, is the chapter we're going to do today, which is the last chapter in this book, in Engaging with Keller.

And it is all about Tim Keller's ecclesiology. Now this means more, I think, to a

Presbyterian than it does to someone like myself. I'm not Presbyterian. I'm not in the PCA. But Tim Keller has affected many more than just those in the

PCA, which maybe proves the point that D .G. Hart, who is the one critiquing Keller in this, is trying to make.

There's a reason that someone like myself, who's not Presbyterian, is making videos, putting material together, so people know not to be hoodwinked into some of Keller's more problematic views.

Well why would I have to do that? I'm not Presbyterian. How has he affected my life, or the areas in which

I've been involved? Well, when I was at Southeastern, a Southern Baptist institution, people loved Tim Keller. Tim Keller was very influential, and I would wager that he's influential beyond just Southern Baptist.

It's the Evangelical Free Church, it's the Dutch Reformed, it's all the denominations,

I think, in Evangelicalism, to some extent, are influenced by Tim Keller, and his views.

And through him now, the Keller Center, and the views being propagated by the Keller Center that's,

I think there's an affiliation with the Gospel Coalition in the Keller Center, but the Gospel Coalition.

And there's the city -to -city network now, for church planning, and urban, it's a bit of an urban renewal, or an urban contextualized approach.

And this stuff is becoming popular. So, I thought it would be helpful to put this all together, and we're ending it today.

And we'll be talking about more Tim Keller stuff, I'm sure, in the future. In fact, I'll probably be critiquing, in the not -so -distant future, the book

Biblical Critical Theory by Watkins, which is featured at the Keller Center, but this will wrap up,

I think, the comprehensive look at Keller's ministry, or teaching, which

I've wanted to do. And so I'm gonna, because I'm not Presbyterian, I'm gonna focus on things that I think are of interest to everyone, but I want to let

Presbyterians know there's more to this, that I'm leaving out, that I might hint at, that you may want to check out.

I don't know if D .G. Hart has his essay available somewhere else, maybe he does, maybe you could just email him, he works at Hillsdale College, but he has a lot to say, and I think it's worth hearing, especially if you're in the

PCA. Let's start here. Redeemer Presbyterian Church has a vision. Their vision, in part, is to plant churches, and they say, we have no illusions that our single church, or our

Presbyterian tradition, is sufficient, hmm, to renew all of New York.

So, right out of the gate, Tim Keller doesn't believe that the denomination he's part of has a sufficient tradition.

Now that's interesting, that's telling. And part of D .G. Hart's problem is that this seems to betray the oaths that Keller took to the denomination, or to the theology,

I should say, that the denomination believes. If he doesn't really believe that their tradition, their theology, which would,

I don't know how else you take this, is sufficient, and this is on the website now, by the way, some of the quotes aren't anymore, this one still is, then why be part of the

PCA? But Keller thinks that it's good for them, I guess, but it's not good for everyone, and so it's not going to renew all of New York City.

We are therefore committed to planting and helping others plant hundreds of new churches, while at the same time working for renewal of gospel vitality in all the congregations of the city.

So, he's cooperating outside of his denomination, he's joining hands with others, he's partnering to accomplish this mission in New York City, and I believe there's certainly room on Essentials to partner,

I've done that, with those who don't share my convictions in every area, but we do agree on the core teachings that one must agree to to be a

Christian. We can participate in some evangelism, but we can't go to church together. What do you do when you have to cross certain bridges that are diametrically opposed?

So, anyway, Keller here, and let me give you an example, just because for those,

I should probably give an example and flesh this out a little too, I'm talking about things like, I don't know, you go to church and it's time, let's say someone else, a

Pentecostal person, believes that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, and once you're saved, there's another event that happens after salvation called the baptism of the

Holy Spirit, and we're supposed to seek for it, right? Earnestly desire the greater gifts, and so that's what they teach, and I disagree with that,

I say no, I don't believe that, I believe that the Holy Spirit imparts a gift to you, or gifts, upon conversion, and that's not the sign.

One particular gift is not the sign of whether or not one has a filling of the Holy Spirit.

That's going to cause a problem. Now, can I, with someone who believes that, cooperate in other areas?

Yeah, I can. We can, in fact, both of us, if we have the true gospel, we can share that. We can even be part of an effort together to do that.

But, and some would draw, there's fundamentalists out there that are quaking right now, just with rage from me even saying that, perhaps,

I don't know, but I think you have to be careful. I think you have to be very careful, and the point of D .G.

Hart is that Keller's not careful, and Keller seems to indicate that there's something lacking in his own denomination, where he could cooperate, where he could, where there is mechanisms for missions and church planning, but he forms his own networks, like the

City to City Network, the Gospel Coalition. He's involved with all these people who might not even be

Reformed, some of them, but at the very least, they're not Presbyterian. Rather than letting Presbyterian procedure and practice set the agenda for redeeming a

Presbyterian church, the city, in need for community and spiritual renewal, takes precedence, says

D .J. Hart. Now, this is something I've noticed for a while. I saw this at Southeastern, so it's happening in other places, but things like creation, your view of that, your view of soteriology, your view of continuationism or charismatic theology, there's a bunch of things, eschatology, all these things were secondary to whether or not one believed in certain tenets of social justice.

Now, they would never say this, it was always unspoken, but it was there, it was true, it was a new orthodoxy, it was a new standard.

And what D .G. Hart is saying is that this new standard is present at redeeming a Presbyterian church.

Tim Keller sees things like the need for community and spiritual renewal as the new barometers by which to measure whether or not one cooperates with another person.

It's no longer much more core theological things. I'm sure

Keller does have some core theological things that factor into this, but not in regards to things that are distinctively

Presbyterian. That's the point. He'll partner with a Reformed Baptist who sees the city and the need for community and spiritual renewal perhaps more than he would a

Presbyterian who doesn't see it in the same way he does, is the point. So these become greater priorities, and it is all based on man's need, if you are paying attention.

Now, Keller writes that in a village you might win one or two lawyers, but if you wanted to win the legal profession to Christ, you need to go to the city where you have law schools and law journals.

Now, as a church planner, I guess that would make some sense to some degree. If you have a big vision and you're trying to do social, political things maybe as well, you want to change a lot of things.

Keller's a pastor, though, and as a pastor you have a particular flock. If you're in a rural area, that's your flock.

God has given you a directive. He's outlined the boundaries under which your ministry functions.

It's ironic here because Keller criticizes the religious right for wanting power, and yet right here you see he wants influence.

Keller wants influence. Now, you could say that's a good thing. It's not bad. It's not bad to want that.

But should that become the driving force, then, of your ministry as a pastor is the question, and the answer is no. In fact, one of the pastors that I would contrast with Keller is

John MacArthur. There was a brilliant thread I saw on Facebook today about John MacArthur, and the fact is that John MacArthur is irreplaceable.

He's a populist figure, that's true, whether he knows it or not. He's in a major blue city. He's got a mega church.

He has a lot of influence. He's not viewed in the same way as Keller, for some reason, even though he also has a lot of these same characteristics.

But John MacArthur tries to let the Word of God and right theology direct his ministry, and what he does.

And so they're not trying to get on a fad or do anything to make sure they're really in tune with the current needs of the city so they can form another ministry to meet those needs or something.

He's just looking at the universal application that God has given us, the universal principles, universal commands, and he's applying them to his context.

Whereas Keller starts in a different area, D. G. Hart is trying to tell us. He starts with, what are the needs, and then how does the church meet them, to some extent.

So there's a pragmatic element to this, and that element has a goal of somehow influencing, gaining influence.

And I would say just leave that to God. Do what the Lord said and then leave it to Him. He'll build His church. If that's what's on your heart, that's great.

But that's not universal, that you have to go to the city to do this. If someone's called to that, we need that. But that's not everyone, and that's not a greater priority, and you're not more important if you're in the city than if someone who's in the country.

I'm sorry. In fact, we need rural pastors now more than ever so that there's a place to escape to. Keep those areas as friendly to Christianity as they are.

For Keller, the determining factor is not what Scripture teaches about the oversight of churches and ministry by elders, and the unity of the

Church through connectional ties and graded assemblies, but what is most effective for evangelism and mission. And so, what

D. G. Hart is saying is, Keller doesn't care about Presbyterian ecclesiology all that much. He's not...the

elders that lead the Church, the Presbyteries, that whole structure, that form of government that he says that he believes in, that he's signed his name to, he doesn't seem to prioritize it that much, because they have mechanisms for doing these things, and Keller's off doing it with other people, like Baptists and others.

So, Harvey Kahn is the one that D. G. Hart says influenced

Keller along these lines. He wrote a book in 1979 with Roger Greenway called Discipling the

City, and in that particular book, Kahn begins to develop a theology of the city that sees urban centers as crucial to God's sovereign plan for redemption.

He describes the duties of urban Christians and congregations along the lines of the now common phrase, word and deed ministry.

On the one hand, Christians have a covenant task of heralding God's shalom, peace, that is, calling the nations to repentance and faith.

On the other hand, the evangelistic aim is never isolated from the needs of the city. Israel's responsibilities involve bringing justice to the city, ending oppression, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked.

The new Israel, according to Kahn, has the same task. And if we fail to execute it as the

Church, urban injustice becomes prevalent. Those who fail are apostates.

It becomes apostasy, the rejection of the poor and the rejection of God. The whole city, Kahn added, by the way, of a quotation from Greenway, from top to bottom, must be called to repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ.

Now, there's some good there. There's a lot of bad, though. And it's subtle, but what

Kahn is trying to communicate to us is that under this banner of ministry, that the

Church itself, as an ecclesiastical body, should be engaged in, is what eventually, and today, is called social justice to some extent.

They're supposed to bring justice to the city. And if we fail in that, then we're apostates.

I mean, that's a pretty stiff charge. And this is the person who educated Keller, and was Keller's thesis director.

And Keller's first book, which is quoted extensively in the chapter D .G. Hart has, reflects a lot of these themes.

So, that's Harvey Kahn. Tim Keller, here's some quotes from D .G.

Hart and Tim Keller. Instead of explaining what distinguishes the Church as Presbyterian congregations,

Redeemer Presbyterian Church's values reveal the Church to be an urban institution with a burden to build community among city dwellers.

I'd say that's accurate, yeah, that's their value, that's what they're looking for. So they're more interested in affiliating with those in their city that they can cooperate with than Presbyterians.

Using the term every -member ministry blurs the historic distinction between special office and general

Church membership. Keller believes that all Christians must have their own ministry of mercy. Now, D .G.

Hart is concerned about this, I think. The first one is because of the oath, essentially, Keller took.

And maybe I should just read that to you, I didn't include it here. But for those who aren't Presbyterian, you're wondering, why am I even talking about this, who cares?

Well, some of this stuff does matter. In the case of the

Presbyterian Church in America, ordination vows include the following. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the

Presbyterian Church in America in conformity with the general principles of biblical polity? Do you promise a subjection to your brethren in the

Lord, not only do these vows have constitutional standing within the PCA, but the subject of vows and oaths take up an entire chapter in the

Confession of Faith, the Westminster Confession being one of the only Reformed creeds to devote such attention to this solemn part of the

Church life. According to the PCA's Confession of Faith, whoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of the solemn, of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded in truth, and it goes on.

So vows are important, and Tim Keller took a vow during his ordination to approve of the form of government and discipline of the

Presbyterian Church in America. And so this is the thing that I think D .G. Hart is concerned about, is you're taking this oath, and yet when it comes to practically doing ministry, you don't care what the polity is, the ecclesiology, of some of these places you're partnering with.

Should that matter? Shouldn't it? So I would think it should, even though I don't necessarily hold to that polity.

So using, again, the next part, using the term every member ministry, which

Keller uses, every member ministry, blurs the historic distinction between special office, ordination, and general Church membership.

Keller believes that all Christians must have their own ministry of mercy. And I think D .G. Hart's concerned that this is eroding boundaries between leadership and those who are being led, the sheep, and perhaps deacons as well in there, if everyone's just equally responsible for ministries of mercy.

There's a special mechanism the Church has for providing for its own. Keller argued that both word and deed were equally commanded and necessary for a genuine

Church. He also asserted that word and deed functioned as independent means in establishing the kingdom of God.

If the kingdom came through more than simply winning people to Christ, it is also working for the healing of persons, families, relationships, and nations, doing deeds of mercy and seeking justice.

So you can hear Harvey Kahn in that. Keller exhorts believers to be part of a dynamic counterculture as a particular kind of community, an alternative, city to city, within every earthly city.

So in the context of New York City, Redeemer Presbyterian Church functions as its own thing, as well its own alternative city.

This is the winsome community, the compelling community, that the world looks at and says, I want to be more like that, and this becomes a focus of missions, and a means by which missions is propagated, which

I don't believe is the biblical way to propagate missions. I mean, God can work on people's hearts, but that's not the strategy that we employ.

We proclaim the gospel, that's the strategy. It's preaching of the Word. Anyway, bringing

Shalom to an earthly... or seeking the welfare of the city, which is what Keller quotes a lot,

Jeremiah 29, was part of an exile punishing Israel for unfaithfulness, though not an evangelistic strategy.

So this is a hermeneutical problem. This wasn't an evangelistic strategy. This wasn't a prescriptive element of Scripture for the

Church. This was a punishment of Israel that they had disobeyed, and now that they are in disobedience, what's one of the things that they can do to where they are at, under judgment, to please the

Lord and to seek a better environment for themselves? Well, seek the welfare of the city. And there's nothing wrong with that, but don't make that an evangelistic strategy that is incumbent on the

Church. Bringing Shalom to an earthly city meant the future restoration of all things, not a plan of earthly justice,

D .G. Hart says. So it's not about the ratio of women to men on the police force, or how much is being redistributed, or even the right kinds of justice that we can employ right now on the earth.

Not social justice, I'm talking about equality before the law and rightly punishing criminals, etc. Bringing Shalom is the declaration of the peace that comes with God.

It's a spiritual peace, knowing that in the future there's going to be a restoration of all things. That's very...that's,

again, not a prescription for go and change all the social relationships in your community.

And then integrating faith and work is part of this strategy, and Keller writes about this in Generous Judge, or actually

Every Good Endeavor, that's the one, where he writes about this. And there's some truth to this in the sense that we are

Christians no matter where we are. But there's also sacred and profane or common things. I am worshiping the

Lord more, in a greater fashion at least, with the saints on Sunday morning than I am when

I'm brushing my teeth. Now, what's happened lately, and Keller's part of this, is the erosion of that boundary between sacred and common.

And so I think D .G. Hart is concerned about this as well. City to city is a cross -denominational, on the basis of shared commitment more to urban renewal, spiritual growth, class, and race reconciliation, education, health, care, etc.,

than Presbyterian distinctives. So, Kim Keller cares more about those things.

Are we going to foster racial reconciliation than he does, do you share the same kind of ecclesiology with me?

The BCA already has domestic and foreign missions agencies, D .G. Hart says. This reveals Keller's fluid and pragmatic ecclesiology.

So the question is, why don't you use what you have? We already have mechanisms for this. Why not use those?

So I think it's a fair point. I think it's a good take,

I think, and it's probably more beneficial for Presbyterians than others, but I think it's also beneficial for us.

There is a tendency for organizations like the Gospel Coalition and many others now,

Acts 29 Network perhaps, to function in the ways denominations used to function. And in so doing, what's happened is the priorities have shifted from things that made denominations distinct, theological considerations, to more general things like whether or not you have an effective ministry plan or whether or not you have a broad consensus on, let's say, reformed theology, but the other things don't seem to matter as long as you're engaged in cultural engagement and social justice or being winsome.

Those become the things that are the barriers for fellowship or the basis for fellowship.

And what's happened is people's identities have changed. People used to identify as certain denominations.

I'm a Presbyterian, I'm a Methodist, I'm a Baptist, I'm Anglican. And that is going away. People are more...

In fact, the funny thing is Keller will criticize tribal thinking, and yet he's one of the big architects of this, of this more tribalism and this more having an allegiance to a particular person and brand than to a theological system and those who share in that.

So Keller has really... I see hypocrisy in this.

Keller has eroded a lot of these things. Some would think he's a good force for the PCA. I would say he's probably not, and he's doing damage.

And I don't know, there's not much more to say about that, but this is a new orthodoxy, a new prioritization of concerns that is making its way to the surface at warp speed, and Keller has been part of this.

So I would just say in closing, right now Shepard's Conference is going on. John MacArthur didn't look so good.

He looked kind of frail. He said he felt better, but I would say that what's happening right now is, with MacArthur getting older,

Tim Keller having cancer and also getting older, even though I think he's a little younger than MacArthur, there are two big models here.

Of course, Keller, Presbyterian, MacArthur, more fundamentalist, Reformed -ish, different traditions, but we know both in that Reformed theology circle, if you will, that T4G kind of...

that crowd. And you have an option here. Which model are you going to follow? Are you going to follow the model that says, whatever the

Word of God teaches, I'm going to do it, and I'll leave the results up to God, or are you going to follow the model that is more pragmatic, and it seeks to be more compelling, and bases what one does on the needs of others instead of on the directives that God has given, and instead views those directives as necessary boxes to check off, but not the driving force.

And, you know, I think MacArthur is irreplaceable, I'm hoping, and I'm praying, and I'm thinking that the

Lord's going to raise up people to fill that gap when he goes, because there are already, as the

Keller Center proves, many rising up that are disciples of Keller to fill his place, but Keller's place is a much more popular place to be in.

You can ingratiate yourself more to the worldly leaders, you can have people, political diversity at your church.

MacArthur doesn't have that luxury. MacArthur is not liked by the world in those ways. Keller is either liked, or at least they don't bother him as much as they would a

MacArthur. And I think that's what's compelling for a lot of people. They'd love to be loved by the world, and they'd love to survive the coming persecution that, or at least pressure, that is being brought to bear against the church.

In the info section, you can find the particular playlist for all the videos on Tim Keller, and all of that.

I appreciate the support, I appreciate the patrons, I appreciate everyone who prayed for me, etc.

Before I go, I do want to make one final announcement to you, and I neglected,

I actually forgot to do this, but it is going to be, and I'll put the link in the info section for those who are interested in this, but on March, this month,

March, the 24th, Zach Garris is coming to my church, Grace Bible Church in Wappingers Falls, New York, to present on masculine

Christianity, and we're having a game dinner. And it's for men. Bring your sons, bring your friends. We'd love to have you.

It's a good outreach opportunity, but that's not the primary focus here. The primary focus is teaching what the

Bible has to say about men, and about our responsibility. And so it's very much a teaching ministry, and that is on Friday, the 24th, 6 .30

p .m., in Wappingers Falls, New York, info in the info section. And I wanted to also announce one more thing.

One of the sponsors for this podcast is Equipping the Persecuted. Equipping the Persecuted is an organization that serves the people, the

Christians, actually, of Nigeria, with the gospel, with good teaching, with some theological education, but also they are providing for the needs of our brothers and sisters.

And that is one of the things you'll find in Scripture. You'll find examples of this, of the one and others, of providing for those who are believers.

And they need it. They are being attacked in ways that we can't even fathom. Their persecution against them is incredible.

They could use help. They need bulletproof vests, walkie -talkies, orphanages. Equipping the

Persecuted has put up a building for an orphanage. They need more. They need food.

They need all kinds of things and support. And so if you would be so kind as to consider them, if you've been supporting other ministries that have gone woke, if you're supporting, let's say,

World Vision, cut it out. If you're supporting Cru, why? Why not go and support a ministry that's not woke and is doing some very tangible and very practical, without wasting resources for the kingdom of God?

All right. That is all for this episode. God bless. More coming. Bye now.