September 9, 2011

Keller and the Exclusivity of Christ

by Mike Riccardi

Earlier this week Justin Taylor posted a 2008 interview of Pastor Tim Keller by Martin Bashir at Columbia University. The interview was spring-boarded by his then-newly released book, The Reason for God. During the interview, which was designed to ask the hardest questions about Christianity, Bashir asked Keller about the eternal destiny of those who don’t believe in Jesus Christ. You can watch part of his answer in this video, with the relevant portion being from about 13:20 to about 15:10. I’ve also transcribed that portion below:

- – - – - – - – - – -

Bashir: So where does that leave the millions of Muslims, Sikhs and Jews? Are they sadly and completely deluded?

Keller: People who never heard about Jesus, or never really got a hearing about Jesus…

Bashir: I’m not talking about them, because some of those people have heard (about Jesus). I’m talking about the millions of Muslims, Sikhs and Jews who have heard about Jesus. Where does your thesis leave them?

Keller: Where they are right now, it means that if there’s never any change, they don’t get Jesus. If he is who he says he is, then, long term, they don’t have God. If on the other hand…all I can always say about this is God gives me, even as a minister with the Scripture, a lot of information on a need-to-know basis. And a need-to-know basis means, “Here’s all I can tell you: unless you get Jesus Christ who created you to start with, unless you are reunited with him sometime, there is no eternal future of thriving.” It just makes sense. Again, I’m trying to go back to this idea that, that, if he is who he says he is, you’ve got to have him. If right now a person doesn’t have him, he or she needs to get him. If they die and they’ve never, if they die and they don’t have Jesus Christ, I don’t know. In other words, I have a need-to-know basis, the only thing I know is you need Jesus. I certainly know that God is wiser than me, more merciful than me, and I do know that when I finally find out how God is dealing with every individual soul, I won’t have any questions about it. …

[at 16:35:] People in other religions, unless they find Christ, I don’t know any other way; but I also get information on a need-to-know basis so if there’s some , if there’s some trapdoor or something like that, I haven’t been told about it.

- – - – - – - – - – -

Now at the outset, I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to pick a fight here. I consider Tim Keller to be a fellow laborer in the Gospel. His involvement with The Gospel Coalition and his partnership with men whom I deeply respect testify to his credibility. But it does greatly surprise and concern me that a man of such stature and credibility, to whom many in my generation look as a mentor, has handled these questions in the way that he has. Further, it has been equally disconcerting to read and hear how some of his defenders are responding to this issue. And so my goal is twofold: (1) I want to respectfully—and hopefully, humbly—voice some serious concerns with how Keller handled this question; and (2) I want to demonstrate the unhelpfulness of how some of his defenders are responding.

First Things First

“If they die and they don’t have Jesus Christ, I don’t know.”

I gotta be honest, I still scratch my head when I read that statement. I don’t want to accuse Keller of being dishonest, but I have a hard time believing that he doesn’t know the answer to that question. For one thing, this statement from his church, though it doesn’t address this specific question, seems out of sync with this rather agnostic response. In fact, if given another opportunity, I tend to think that Keller would answer differently.

But what makes this really puzzling is that Scripture answers that question as clear as day: “This is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:11–12). And again, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). “I don’t know,” is not an acceptable response.

So, what can we learn from this? How should we respond?

1. A Pass Costs More than Five Points

Well for one thing, we shouldn’t brush this aside because we and Keller stand “together for the Gospel.” John MacArthur has continued to say that in today’s evangelicalism, it seems all you need to do is get the doctrine of justification right, and no matter what else you get wrong, you get a free pass. Some of the responses I’ve heard to Keller’s statement have definitely proven MacArthur correct. It seems a man can be all over the map in every other area of theology, but if he believes in the Five Points (that is, at least on paper), today’s younger evangelicals are willing to look the other way.

Now, I get that the things “of first importance” are of first importance. The Gospel is the biggest deal when it comes to defining ourselves as Christians and discerning whom we can embrace and partner with and commend to others, and whom we cannot. But as it’s recently been pointed out in slightly different contexts (here, and here), “first importance” does not and cannot mean “only importance.” There are plenty of people who get the Gospel right, whom I can recognize as brothers in Christ, yet who are desperately and egregiously wrong on other very important matters.

And friends, we have to come to terms with the fact that there’s nothing wrong with warning against those errors, particularly if they have the potential to confuse and do harm to other Christians. And the chorus of voices who would accuse me of division and disunity, I believe, misunderstands the biblical concept of unity. I’m not arguing that unity is uniformity. But neither is it to simply “agree to disagree.” Unity is based upon a common commitment to the truth. Not just to the main truth. Not just to the most important truths. But to all of the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness (1Tim 6:3), and to the pattern of sound words passed down from the Apostles as recorded in Scripture (2Tim 1:13).

So when one of our brothers, esteemed though he may be, departs from any point of that teaching, that departure is the cause of disunity. And those who take seriously the charge to guard the treasure which has been entrusted to them (2Tim 1:14) will address that. They are those who are interested in the advancement of true unity among God’s people. A faithful servant of the truth won’t pretend certain doctrinal issues don’t matter in order to save face for one of his heroes.

2. Celebrities Don’t Eat Free

And that brings me to another inappropriate response I’ve seen and heard: the digging in of the heels among devoted fans. The celebrity culture that characterizes much of the YRR movement has compelled some to just want to plug their ears. They don’t want to hear anything negative about their heroes.

Now, I’m all for esteeming our elders highly in love because of their faithfulness to Scripture and their work for the cause of Christ. But your loyalty to a man is based upon that very faithfulness. So if he abandons Scripture’s clear teaching—whatever the reason—your loyalty to the truth must supersede your loyalty to the man. If it doesn’t, you’ve turned a father in the faith into a popish idol.

3. Missional Missteps

Some people are suggesting that Keller’s gaffe is to be explained away by the fact that he was simply adapting his message to suit his particular audience. In other words, don’t get your blood pressure up: he was only contextualizing. He was in a hostile environment, among people who were just looking for an excuse to tune him out and lump him with the rest of us knuckle-dragging, intolerant, fundamentalist Christians. And so if he was going to gain a hearing, he had to respond this way.

If this was the reasoning behind Keller’s response, I believe that kind of thinking is seriously misguided. Dear brothers and sisters: We have not been commissioned to gain a hearing with unbelieving culture. It is not our job to repackage the message in just such a way that it will be attractive to the world. It will never be attractive to the world. If it is, it’s not the message we’ve received. The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (1Cor 1:18). We are heralds, not orators; our commission is simply to deliver the message we’ve received. Because that very same word that is foolishness to the perishing is the power of God unto salvation for those who are being saved (1Cor 1:18, 24). If we believe in the total depravity of man, and that by the preaching of the foolish word of the cross (Jas 1:18; Rom 10:17) the Holy Spirit effectually calls to salvation those whom the Father has unconditionally elected in eternity past (Eph 1:4), and that Christ will lose none whom the Father has given Him (John 6:39; 10:28–29), contextualization makes absolutely no sense. Unbelievers do not get saved because the message is made more acceptable to them in their fallen nature. They get saved when God sovereignly grants them a new nature by means of His preached Word (1Pet 1:23–25).

Now, I know that advocates of contextualization stress that we must adapt our methods, and not our message. But if this video proves anything, it’s that our message and our methods are not as distinct as our missional friends would like to think. The difference between the accommodation of our methods and the accommodation of our message is a difference of degree, not kind.

Keller has not simply adapted his methodology here. He wasn’t merely being careful in how he worded the truth about what Jesus said regarding the fate of those who perish without faith in Him, which he certainly could have done. He actually altered the message. It is simply not true that we don’t know the destiny of those who perish without faith in Christ. “This is the testimony,” says the Apostle John, “that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:11–12). There is no room there for a “trap door.” This is not a matter of a “need-to-know basis.”

We either believe that or we don’t. And if we believe that, we must preach it to everyone who will listen, whether they’re blue collar laborers or Ivy League collegians. We must beg them on behalf of Christ to be reconciled to God (2Cor 5:20). But if they don’t want to listen, we are not to adapt the method or the message; we’re to shake the dust off our feet and go on preaching the message we’ve received. It is neither beneficial to the lost nor faithful to the Savior to do otherwise.

4. Don’t Write Him Off

Having said all that, I do think it would be a mistake to write Keller off entirely. I can see how that would be quite tempting for some, because, frankly, it’s just easier and a lot less messy to cast him aside. But that honestly would not be the brotherly thing to do. Keller is a brother in Christ, and he is genuinely committed to the proclamation of the Gospel. Our goal here is not to cast shame unnecessarily upon a fellow Christian, but to see the truth vindicated. I hope and pray for a response from Keller that acknowledges this as a moment of weakness, and that reaffirms the biblical teaching on hell and unbelief.

The fact of the matter is that even mature, godly leaders are human. That doesn’t excuse this kind of wishy-washy response; to whom much is given, much is required. But this blunder does not by itself warrant a wholesale dismissal of Keller.

5. Take Heed Lest You Fall

Finally, it would be a huge mistake to mockingly lob grenades at him, or just roll our eyes in disgust. Rather, we should learn humility from his error. It’s easy to think from the sidelines that we would have been the paragon of steadfastness in such a situation. I really hope that’s true. I really hope, given even such a pressure-filled environment as Keller was in, that I would have stood steadfastly on the Word of God without compromise. But the reality is that none of us is above squandering an opportunity for the Gospel. How many times I’ve mourned over not taking an opportunity to evangelize! After all, who makes me to differ? I certainly don’t. What do I have that I haven’t received? Absolutely nothing. By the grace of God I am what I am.

So let this be a lesson to all of us: let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall (1Cor 10:12). Take this as a challenge to know and love the Truth so well—so inside and out—that if the occasion should come that you are asked to explain what God’s Word says on any subject, you will answer faithfully by God’s great grace.

Conclusion

So where does that leave us? I think we should disagree strongly and resolutely with both the way Tim Keller handled this question and with what he said. We do, in fact, know what happens to those who leave this life without faith in Christ. We shouldn’t naively brush this aside because he gets the Gospel right or because we’re a big fan of his. We shouldn’t try to explain it away by appealing to some misguided notion of contextualization; rather, we should take this as a case-in-point of the logical end (what I might say is the logical failure) of contextualization. And I think that this is significant enough of a failure that it calls for a heightened sense of discernment when evaluating Keller’s teachings.

Yet neither should we dismiss the entirety of his ministry, nor hold ourselves out as his judge while foolishly presuming that we would have done better. In all of this, even while disagreeing strongly and resolutely, we should do so respectfully, seeking the benefit and edification of all involved.

We should hope, pray, and call for repentance on Keller’s part. But in the meantime we should believe the best about the situation, even if we believe him to have been sincerely wrong. And in all things, our main goal should be that God’s glory be magnified in the vindication of the Truth of His Word.

****
Disclaimer: I’d be very appreciative if we could leave the uninvited guests at home today.

UPDATE: The folks at The Gospel Coalition have posted a response by Tim Keller regarding this issue. This is extremely encouraging. As I said in the post, my aim was the benefit and edification of all involved, a retraction/clarification, and God’s glory magnified in the vindication of the truth of His word. I believe that’s happened. This kind of clarification and reconciliation is exactly the kind of outcome we should all hope for in situations like these. I am thankful to Tim Keller for his gracious response.

in Evangelicalism with 139 Comments

About Mike Riccardi: Mike is the Local Outreach Pastor at Grace Community Church in Los Angeles.

All Posts by Mike Riccardi | Website | Facebook | Share By Email

http://twitter.com/EvangelTheology Gareth Palmer

heard the interview, I was so sad for Tim Keller thanks for the post
Riaanboer

Hi thanks Mike, I think you did a great job in this post it is filled with sincerity, grace, reproof, and written in an uncompromising and loving manner. Thanks for helping us think through this issue and cautioning us against running to any extremes but rather to be sober and godly in our thinking and response. I appreciate the hard work and what has been modeled for us here!
Judy Lynn

Thanks Mike. I love Tim Keller’s writings on the whole and you say, “And I think that this is significant enough of a failure that it calls for a heightened sense of discernment when evaluating Keller’s teachings.” I agree with your conclusions and I am disappointed with this interview.
Blake

I was one of the crew who felt troubled by the earlier Driscol post for how it did not exhibit an “eagerness to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”, but I think this article is very sensitively and graciously written and very consistent with Eph 4:3. Well done. It helps encourage me and prepare me for when I might be in similar shoes as Keller was.
Robert Sakovich

I agree with this post and am very happy with how you have addressed your concerns. I don’t doubt Keller’s salvation and I think he does much good in his ministry. There are several things, though, that I have concerns with and it all goes in this same direction of trying to adapt things to the world. My problem with that is that God is working to conform us (the elect) to the image of Jesus (Romans 8:29). We should have that goal in mind and not make compromises for the sake of not causing offense…the Word causes offense, not us. And really the offense is caused because people love the darkness and not the light.
Marie Peterson

How sad! One of very first truths I had to defend as a new Christian was the exclusivity of Christ. Generally, I would go to Acts 4:12 or John 14:6 (as of course I still do!)

But thinking about this just now in light of a sermon my pastor just preached, Here’s another that I’ll probably employ in the future!

If the Jews need Jesus to be saved, how much the Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. need Him too.
If those God made a covenant with in the past, those who the Gospel comes to first in priority, need Jesus, how much more those peoples with which God never made a covenant.

“What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God”- Rom. 3:1-2

“I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen[a] according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.” Romans 9:1-5
Pingback: Tim Keller pulls a Joel Osteen | Thinking about Christianity | Scoop.it
Kyle K

I wonder if there isn’t a coherent hermeneutical argument behind Keller’s point. First off, I don’t think he’d simply say, “those passages got it wrong” and I don’t think he’d find his view inconsistent with the Scriptures. I wonder if he isn’t using the hermeneutical method of “minding the gap” between what the Scriptures tell us and what they don’t. I think his point is that the Scriptures don’t spend much time speculating on exactly how God in his infinite mercy and justice will deal with unbelievers upon death. Rather, they seem to focus on the present, here and now (no doubt with eschatological implications), arguing that Jesus is the only way, that God’s wrath is upon the wicked, his love upon his people. I think Keller affirms this, but wants to give himself the freedom to not claim more than the Scriptures on this point. It might seem like a cop out, but again, it’s possible that this isn’t merely contextualization but a coherent approach to the Scriptures.

Noah

Kyle K,
I think I am understanding your point to be that the Bible does not speculate about what happens just after death for those who do not believe, but saying there is a dichotomy between those who have life now because of trusting Christ and those who do not.

Something to consider is that the Scriptures don’t speculate, whatsoever, about what will happen to unbelievers. Mike spent time addressing that. What God has blessed us with in his revelation does give us a finality on the eternal destiny of those who do not place their trust in Christ. If not, what is the Lake of Fire about? If I am understanding your point correctly, I believe the speculation you are talking about and the excuse you are making for Keller cannot be a coherent approach to the Scriptures since the Bible does give us more than enough ground to stand upon in order to say there will be eternal punishment for sin for those who do not believe. To say otherwise would be misleading to those who are perishing and unfaithful to God’s testimony which we have received by his grace and mercy.
Truthstands

What made this so odd is Keller had multiple opportunities to answer the question. His logic was this, “I’m given information on a need-to-know basis, and so I don’t know.” The explicit reason for “I don’t know” that he gave in the interview is that Scripture does not tell us. Unfortunately that was wrong. And for someone so clear headed other times, this was shocking.

http://hereiblog.com/ Mark

Thanks for this graceful critique.
http://hereiblog.com/ Mark

Kyle, if we take a look at Scripture on John 3 where it states:

[16] “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18 ESV)

If Keller’s approach is to not claim more than Scriptures then I’d ask what does John 3:18 mean that those who do not believe are condemned? This verse is contrasted with the believers in verse 16 who have eternal life. If we were to go the route your suggesting it seems we could not understand what it is to either have eternal life or to be condemned.
Tyler Dobbs

I agree basically with everything this post says. And I only want to say that in my opinion this is a preeminent example of “how” one should write a response of this nature -firm but gracious- I’m almost always unhappy with posts like this for they are either argumentative, ungracious, extreme, uninformed, or redundant (like the last 800 Rob Bell posts) but this one was excellent. The only thing I would add is: Yes Keller gave an unsatisfactory and wrong answer to a pivotal question but the rest of his ministry (for all that entails) attests to his faithfulness and love of the Gospel. I would not even want to give the impression that writing him off is a good idea nor that we should suspect to find other “wrong” teachings in his ministry; that is not to say there are not any but we should have discernment when listening to anyone’s teachings not just now Kellers’.
Craig Turnbull

Concerning, but I’d rather give grace on this one. Where else does he misstep like this? Keller’s ministry speaks for itself, and I can’t imagine how intense an hour long interview with Bashir would be.
Anonymous

I love Tim Keller. He greatly shaped me. But I knew I didn’t agree with everything he says. He’s a theistic evolution person (at least was at the time of writing The Reason for God). But here’s two things I would say:
1. I don’t think he believes what he said there. I think he misspoke, gave in to temptation, got tongue-tied, whatever. He certainly needs to clarify, but like you’ve said, we’ve all done it a million times. He sat at the taping for the Bible study of The Reason for God with non-believers and proclaimed the exclusivity of Christ.
2. This interview is from 3 years ago. Was there a reason you felt to bring it up now? Of all the things needing to be done in this world for the kingdom of God, I can’t imagine how combing through old interviews to find where evangelicals have misspoken is an urgent matter.

Anyway, may be people find, despite our deficiencies in proclaiming it sometimes, that Christ is the only way to life and may God be greatly glorified in that.

Andy

Mike didn’t bring it up, Justin Taylor linked to the interview, which led to a dispute in the comments over there, which is why it’s a current issue. The issue is not the 3-yr-old debate itself, but rather, the attitudes *today* of some of Keller’s “fans”.

Anonymous

Yeah, I still don’t think blogosphere wars are worth it, either. But seriously, that’s just me. I’m becoming less and less involved and probably will remove myself. Not sure all of this is vital/helpful to the Kingdom.

Larry

I really tire of these high-profile pastors waffling on this question. Its almost become a cliche, with a few notable exceptions, such as John MacArthur.

Jules

I have to agree with, Larry, but i would add that waffling is not exclusive to high-profile pastors.

Bob

I really appreciate points 2 and 4. They are very important to remember when our “heroes” wrongly interpret Scripture. Protestantism has no pope… Yet, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Anonymous

I know Justin Taylor brought it up, I’m just saying we don’t have to go along with what others are bringing up.

Andy

Again, the issue is not the 3-yr-old interview, but rather, the actions of some of our beloved brothers this very week.

It seems maybe you have in mind some alternate topics the c-gate could be addressing instead? I’m curious what they are.

Greg

Considering that Martin Bashir has said in a radio interview that he goes to Tim Keller’s church, it’s even more astonishing. It’s not like he had someone asking him that was a ‘foe’ (presumably). Bashir’s attendance came out after his interview of Rob Bell caught attention on the net (which he rightly picked apart what Bell was attempting to do with ‘Love Wins’). Praying that Tim Keller stands firm in the faith. Thanks for the good article, Mike.
Andy

I like Keller a lot, but it’s important to remember that he’s just a man, and where he’s wrong, he’s wrong. I do think he has a tendency to hold back truths that he thinks may offend his particular audience. At any rate, he should not have phrased it this way, and I’m sure that given another opportunity, he would leave out the “I don’t know”.

Anyways, doesn’t Bashir (the interviewer) attend Keller’s church?
Suzanne

Very gracefully treated, Mike..well said.
http://twitter.com/JacobRiggs Jacob Riggs

Excellent, Mike! Thank you!
http://danielattaway.wordpress.com Daniel Attaway

I agree with the analysis of this interview but let’s look at Keller’s entire body of work—of course he claims the exclusivity of Christ. The Reason for God, his sermons and other articles hammer that point. I also liked what Kyle K said.

I am also a fellow blogger so I am not trying to knock the blogging world, but it is really easy to critique what a person says on a nationally televised interview. You might believe that Christ is absolutely exclusive and those who die without him will suffer for eternity, but I would think it gets difficult to do that knowing that there are possibly millions of people watching you who are going to misinterpret what you say. I’m not saying Keller is right and I’m not saying we shouldn’t critique interviews like this, but that is a difficult position to be in.
Steven Mitchell

What I find troubling is those who swing in the other direction in some of the comments below. While I am a member of Redeemer Pres, I’m by no means a Keller apologist. But I do think it imprudent to take this example as necessarily indicative of deeper problems or as confirmation of already held fears about Keller’s credentials of orthodoxy.

We can be disappointed by the response, and it can serve as warning that the testimony of even the most revered figureheads can falter. But as someone who has sat under Keller’s teaching for a number of years now, I can assure readers that these statements are out of accord with his preaching. That is, this is not an indicative of a pattern.

Please don’t misread me: I’m not excusing the statement. It was misleading at best and dishonest at worst. But I do suggest that it be taken in the context of Keller’s ministry and statements. One of the most helpful statements in Mike’s post here is his admission that all of us are suspect to have compromised our witness in exactly the same way, were we to have been in Keller’s place.

So this does present an opportunity to correct Keller’s statements and to instead preach the truth. But we throw the baby out with the bathwater if we read into the statement reason to suspect the speaker of unorthodoxy or tendency towards such. Preachers are sinners too and are as prone to compromise their witness as lay Christians are.
Riaanboer

Hi Mike, I commented earlier on the gracious manner in which you wrote this article, and after listening to the Keller interview, it’s only now put into perspective just how gracious and respectful you are in this post. Which brings me to a question, are there any other answers that Keller gave which disappointed you, or seemed very weak and shallow and even that lacked a robust biblical perspective? I’m asking because I picked a few answers that left me thinking, surely he could’ve responded better, or took a more biblical stance. I’m just left to think about a few weak responses, especially on the homosexuality issue and the suffering & evil question, that he gave and I’m thinking why didn’t he do better? I’m not sure if me asking such questions are appropriate, but if you decide to take the liberty to answer, I would be very keen on hearing what you have to say.
Anonymous

I am reminded of Pastor MacArthur who has said many times that no matter what the question was, he would find a way to put the Gospel in the answer. That was his goal, he didn’t care about the rest. (JM talking about his many appearances at Larry King’s show).

There are a lot of reasons, at least in my view, that I think this was a wasted opportunity to speak truth. Furthermore, it was disappointing, I mean, we look up to these men, we imitate them (isn’t it the job of the shepherd to lead their flock?). It is not like Tim Keller has just started as a shepherd. It’s not like he didn’t know the topic of the interview.

My husband likes soccer (as any good Brazilian does). One thing that gets him really upset while watching soccer games is to see seasoned soccer players, with years of experience, to get right in front of the goal, face to face with only the goalie, and miss the goal! I mean, the whole purpose of all those hours spent training, day in day out, is to hit that ball and make a goal, and it’s not everyday that a player gets such a perfect opportunity to be right there, all by himself! Yet, he misses it.

Thanks Mike for your post! This below has made my day:

“We have not been commissioned to gain a hearing with unbelieving culture. It is not our job to repackage the message in just such a way that it will be attractive to the world. It will never be attractive to the world. If it is, it’s not the message we’ve received. The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (1Cor 1:18). We are heralds, not orators; our commission is simply to deliver the message we’ve received. Because that very same word that is foolishness to the perishing is the power of God unto salvation for those who are being saved (1Cor 1:18, 24).”

Grace and peace,
E.

Tim

Elaine, your reference to John MacArthur’s appearances on the Larry King Show reminds me of the time Billy Graham appeared on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In. He interrupted jokes (“Now I must point out that the Bible clearly states “Tou shalt not steal!’”), asked rhetorically (“Sock it to me?”), and then at the end where Dan Rowan and Dick Martin usually did a short bit of silly dialog to close the show they instead invited Graham to join them. He looked straight at the camera and told the audience that God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son and that everyone needed to turn to Jesus and trust him as their Savior, with Dick Martin smiling and nodding in agreement the whole time and then Dan Rowan thanking Graham for joining them.

Of course, Graham had plenty of time to prepare his remarks and even read the script ahead of time. Still, he knew what he was getting into and made sure to use the opportunity wisely. I hope I would do the same if the opportunity arose, but I fear that like Tim Keller I may ended up fumbling my way through it. Mike’s post and your comment are good reminders to always be prepared to give a gentle and respectful answer for the hope I have in Jesus (1 Peter 3:13-17) and to be prepared to do so whether it is in season or not (2 Timothy 4:2).

Cheers,
Tim

Pingback: » Friday Round Up Effectual Grace
Denise

2Jo 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

How much error does Keller have to make before you guys realize he’s a false teacher? He, as a “mature” “pastor” (not a novice) can’t answer a basic question about who goes to heaven. He denies the Genesis account of a literal 6 day Creation. He promotes a false social gospel and has an anti-biblical ecclesiology and is full of pragamatism. He endorsed a book by Eastern Mystic feminist Adele Calhoun’s “Spiritual Disciplines Handbook” book. His church has women teachers who teach men and women Eastern Mysticism (“The Way of the Monk”) And yes, I’ve actually done research over the years on Keller.

So, please reconsider your position on this false teacher. He should not be tolerated on any level.

Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

Mary Elizabeth Tyler

Thanks, Denise. I was not aware of these things. We all need to do our homework before endorsing a particular pastor.

Noah

Thank you, Mike, for this post. All five points were excellent, but personally I believe points 4 and 5 are the most significant for me since my knee-jerk reaction is to do a write-off. More than that, the “Take Heed” point needs to be hammered home again and again in my life and mind. How easy it is for me to believe the same wouldn’t happen to me.

I’m also seeing a common point made in some of the comments from those who are defending Keller and I think it has to do with not taking Mike seriously in points 1, 2, and 4 and his conclusion (or possibly evidence that the post was not read thoroughly). I pray that I am speaking for most of the regulars here when I say that most of us are not writing Keller off, so please don’t assume that we are. You don’t need to defend him, his work and ministry stands for itself. Most of us can and do affirm that he is a brother in Christ and holds to the gospel firmly. But he took a hit here and it’s good that it’s pointed out, especially in this manner. It’s also good for us to remember that nobody is immune to falling to temptation and that those we look up to fall short from time-to-time. More importantly, when these things do happen, it ought to make us long for Christ who does not bend on his word and pray for the Spirit to give us a steadfastness on these matters with the view that we will give an account of our lives to him and that if we confess him before men, hostile or not, he will confess us before the angels of God (Luke 12:8-9).

Tim

Good points, Noah. I take this post more as an opportunity for all of us to examine ourselves, rather than as a criticism of Tim Keller’s unfortunate misstep. We’ve all misstepped and I’m reminded that there’s a plank in my eye that is in sore need of removal.

Cheers,
Tim

Frank Turk

Isn’t it funny how the best and brightest TeamPyro readers turn out to be great bloggers in their own right?
Tim

Mike, this is a great line: “Unbelievers do not get saved because the message is made more acceptable to them in their fallen nature.” Salvation belongs to God (Revelation 7:10) and is not ours to give, and you have ably pointed out that it is up to God to deliver that salvation throught the work of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know how many times I have tried to explain this to fellow believers who are either ridden with guilt because they have not saved anyone lately (or ever), or are overwhelmed with feelings of inadequacy because they don’t know the “right” way to talk to a particularly person about God.

And here’a another great line: “We are heralds, not orators; our commission is simply to deliver the message we’ve received.” One time an older man at my church, a man who loves Christ and the Bible and the fellowship of believers, took me to task on this issue. I was telling him about a younger man whom my wife and I had known for years, going back to his High School days when he was in my wife’s Young Life group. He asked if the young man was a believer, and I said he was not. Then came the question, “Well, why haven’t you converted him yet?” Knowing that the young man had heard the Gospel message many times over the years (one can’t help but hear it at Young LIfe meetings and camps) I merely replied, “Because I don’t do the Holy Spirit’s job for him.”

Thanks for a thought provoking post Mike.

Cheers,
Tim
http://thenationalsoul.wordpress.com/ Dave

I wonder if he was putting forward inclusivism (as opposed to universalism (“everyone can come”)), i.e. “Christ is the only way (exclusively Christ), but not everyone will be consciously aware that they’re saved (not exclusively Christians)” , e.g. Mat 25:37 Then the righteous will answer him, 35 ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 25:38 When 36 did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? 25:39 When 37 did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

Maybe he’s saying that its possible, seeing that truly righteous behaviour can only be an outgrowth of belief in Christ, that a Hindu (or whatever) can respond to a belief that Christ has placed in him/her and truly love/serve another person (not for personal gain) without consciously knowing at that time the author of that righteous act. If that’s what Keller had in mind, then his response would make sense. (I haven’t listened to the interview though so I may be completely out to lunch)

Noah

His response would make some sense if that was his intention, but that doesn’t mean that that intention would be anymore faithful to what the Bible teaches since faith in Christ explicitly is necessary for salvation. In other words, the Bible doesn’t teach that someone can trust in Christ for salvation without knowing who Christ is explicitly.

Tim

Right, Noah. Otherwise Paul’s got a lot of explaining to do with Romans 10:9-13.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Cheers,
Tim

http://thenationalsoul.wordpress.com/ Dave

That scripture doesn’t exclude inclusivism, it just says that Christians (people who believe in Christ and declare it) are saved. There are all sorts of scriptural definitions of what counts for salvation. If they were meant to be “if and not if not” statements then we’d have to say you have to be baptized to be saved (we’re commanded to be baptized but I don’t think anyone’s going to Hell for not being baptized)

Tim

Interesting points, Dave, and I know there are some strong Christian thinkers who agree with them (C.S. Lewis readily comes to mind). As to the baptism issue, though, the Bible provides a noteworthy example of someone who went to be with Christ after death despite not being baptized: the thief on the cross. So the instructions on baptism are certainly to be understood in light of that event. On the other hand, I can’t think of an example of someone from the New Testament period onward who – so far as we have been told – has been saved without knowing Christ explicitly.

Cheers,
Tim
http://thenationalsoul.wordpress.com/ Dave

I agree that there are no examples (that I’ve found – haven’t really looked for them) of this in the new testament, and that the emphasis is on greater and greater glorification of God (and you can’t do that as well if you’re not consciously aware of Christ), but I think the concept is not excluded and an OT example would be Rahab. I think she was saved because she acted righteously and the author of that righteous action was Christ – the only one who saves.
http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

Dave, Hebrews 11:31 tells us that Rahab was saved by faith, and that her action of welcoming the spies was an outgrowth of her faith.

In any case, we’re far afield from the topic of the post. So this will be the last comment on inclusivism / baptism / Rahab / etc.
Noah

The Bible does teach that you must put your trust in Christ explicitly, though, and those who don’t will suffer eternal punishment. Inclusivism doesn’t stand under the weight of the biblical testimony
Graham martin veale

1) What about infants?
2) What about the Old Testament saints?
3) Rahab was not saved by explicit faith in Christ or the Covenant. Her faith was in God! A God she barely knew! (Compare Genesis 15 to Joshua 2). Rahab knows only of the Israelite victories; nothing about God’s salvific promises to Abraham!
3) What about those who are mentally disabled?
4) To deny “you must put your trust in Christ explicitly” does not mean that you are an inclusivist!

Please tell me that we are not criticising Mr Keller before we actually know what the words mean!?!!

JP79

All excellent questions and things to consider. Another good question to ask? Ask Keller to clarify what he believes. This interview took place nearly four years ago. Why all of a sudden is this being brought into discussion?

Noah

See the interaction between Andy and Jim above and the first paragraph of the post for an answer to your last question.

Noah

Sorry, not Jim, Jay.
JP79

Neither of those things, or Taylor’s without-comment blog post, answer why this is being brought up nearly four years after the fact.
Are you referring to Andy’s comment? “Again, the issue is not the 3-yr-old interview, but rather, the actions of some of our beloved brothers this very week.”
I don’t know what he’s referring to. So, as an objective observer based solely on this blog post and Justin Taylor’s post, I still have no answer. And if it’s buried here in the comments section, I don’t really have time to search for something that should be addressed in the main article.
JP79

Neither of those things, or Taylor’s without-comment blog post, answer why this is being brought up nearly four years after the fact.
Are you referring to Andy’s comment? “Again, the issue is not the 3-yr-old interview, but rather, the actions of some of our beloved brothers this very week.”
I don’t know what he’s referring to. So, as an objective observer based solely on this blog post and Justin Taylor’s post, I still have no answer. And if it’s buried here in the comments section, I don’t really have time to search for something that should be addressed in the main article.

http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

JP79, Andy’s comment that Noah referred to answers why I brought this up. If you’d like to know what JT’s reasoning was for bringing it up, you’ll have to ask him.

http://twitter.com/modernpuritan Erik Martin

Great Response! Thank you for being gracious but not backing away from what scripture says.
Mary Elizabeth Tyler

I’ll be honest, like Elaine was; I’m scratching my head like the little toe-headed boy in the picture you have displayed. This isn’t the first time, and will probably not be the last, either. I do not follow Tim Keller, so I am not familiar with his theology. But the little toe-headed boy gets it, OR, does he? And that’s the real puzzler with comments like this. We are left scratching our heads, too, and wondering if what we just heard or witnessed REALLY took place, or was it just a ghostly apparition that appeared for a short time, then vanished into thin air. It’s like, did I just hear that from a pastor, or did I just see that? We cannot process these statements biblically, fast enough, because they seem more like a hit and run disaster, or like a streeker, whose only apparel (tennis shoes) made him faster than a speeding bullet. And were left in the wake of wondering, which way did he go?

Categorically, we don’t know what to do with comments like this from a seasoned pastor. He is no fledgling, btw, but should be a man who let’s his yes be yes, and his no be no. We all should, right? Stand firm lest we all fall, like Peter who denied Christ three times. So I think much grace is appropriate here, as well, with a hefty, hefty dose of watchfulness. But, should a seasoned pastor be the author of confusion?

We’re all left wondering, if we are at all honest with ourselves, if people like this are slip sliding away? So for now at least, I will file these comments away, along with the “wideness of mercy” comment by Billy Graham, in the scratch-head often, ghostly apparition, yet to be explained, file. They make no sense to me from pastors who should no better, and are leading a flock away from ruin and mayhem, not directly into the eye of the tornado.

Nice way to handle it, Mike, using great caution but an element of grace.

Elaine, I loved your comments and specifically the one by John MacArthur.
Brad

Thanks for the post Mike!

Point #1 was difficult for me. Would it be fair to say that MacArthur is all over the place when it comes to theology? I only say that because he seems to believe in an odd mix of doctrines. For example, he is dispensational, reformed in soteriology but not in ecclesiology, teaches the pretribulation rapture, and kind of a fundamentalist. From what I have observed, most theologians would find those beliefs inconsistent with each other.

All that to say, I continue to find it really difficult to determine which teaching of doctrine is right and which one is wrong in the evangelical world! So many bright minds, so many interpretations, so many arguments that make sense to me even when they are contradictory!!

Brad

http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

Hey Brad. Thanks for bringing up the “all over the map” comment. When I wrote that, I actually wasn’t trying to imply that Keller himself is all over the map. I see how it could be taken that way, and I actually thought quite a bit (in vain) about how to re-word it. I was trying to say that for some younger evangelicals — represented by “Jim” — a guy can disagree with Jim on virtually every other doctrine of Christianity (i.e., be “all over the map” in relation to what Jim believes), and yet Jim will adopt an entirely uncritical stance toward this man because they share a common commitment to the doctrines of grace.

So in point 1, I’m disagreeing with those people who respond to this whole situation (and situations like it) by saying we should never critique other people if they are believers in Christ. Hope that helps.

Brad

Got it! Thanks Mike.

Maybe in the future you could do a post about essential doctrines and what to do when Christian leaders are so strong in their opinions about what is important. This is hard for me because the more I study both sides of some issues, I can see how each side has strong biblical support.

Peace,
Brad

Anonymous

What does the bible teaches? … It appears to me that you are trying to figure out truth by what people teach, and not truth by what the bible says. You know, the bible does have the last word on what truth is.

What you see as inconsistency in MacArthur’s theology is that you are trying to fit him in a category, and that only works in general terms. Truth is not bound by categories. If “most theologians” have a problem with that, guess what, God does not.

Brad

Hi Elainebitt,

Thanks for your comment! I agree that the Bible has the last word of truth. But I also learn a lot from people who are older, wiser, smarter, and better trained than me and I think it is interesting when they show me different views that make sense biblically.

I’m not really sure of what you are trying to say in your second paragraph. Maybe you could elaborate a little more.

I think I agree with your third paragraph; perhaps he was being too careful about what he was saying and how he was saying it. But overall, I have to give Keller a pass because he did say that you have to have Jesus to be saved and his body of work/ministry over 30 years is rock solid, and biblical. Plus, he was really arguing hard for the exclusivity of Christ in the interview. Plus, this was just 2 minutes of him answering a question in a tough interview. Plus, I think Keller has really helped a lot of people by listening to what they are actually asking, and then answering the questions of the heart from the Bible in ways that are understandable and penetrating.

Brad

dumbroker

What is more concerning is the tone of this post.Truth matters!!And when you have someone such as Keller speaking of some of the basics of the gospel,and fails terribly,.At the very least Keller knew exactly what he was saying and how it would be interpreted,To say that “I would hope that he would answer differently” wow.Is the author of this blog not reading the writings of this man.He has been purposely getting off track for some time now,Where is his solid rebuke of these behaviors?Not here,here you get a “kinda rebuke,but we know him and he is still our brother” really.Either your readers are more informed of this mans errors or you agree with him.Truth does indeed matter,and what Keller said attacked the beautiful redeeming gospel .Cheapens Christ dying on the cross,the ressurection ect.Where am I missing it here?This man promotes the “social gospel”.His errors would be evident if read.Come on!!!Some research needs to be done here.The contradictions in this blog are ridiculous.He said,but he is our brother,he said,but,he said ,but.Where is the clarity or the steadfastness?Maybe Keller does not see his errors because his “christian brothers ” don’t care to tell him he is wrong!!
Pingback: Things to Click (4): the mish-mash edition | peedypostings
http://profiles.google.com/rastarke Rachael Starke

Really well said Mike. I’m another that was….disappointed. The contrast between his approach here, vs. his impassioned preaching on Christ and the Exodus at TGC last April is just….interesting? Disconcerting? No one who preaches like he did that night could ever be accused of being a Warren-esque chameleon. But it was still disappointing.

But to turn the tables just slightly, it’s interesting that Bashir didn’t push him. Both as a Christian and a journalist, that was a FAIL in my book. If he didn’t because he’s a member of Kellers’ church and didn’t want to make his pastor look bad, that’s a similar kind of fear to Keller’s, IMHO.
Michael

great post. I was glad to see how you approached it; calling a spade a spade, but also recognizing human weakness in a spirit of humility. Truth and love.

Grace and peace be yours to the fullest, brother

Michael
http://dozierdon.blogspot.com/ Don

Excellent post, Mike, well written, respectful, but quite necessary. I too was deeply concerned by the Martin Bashir interview with Keller. I also enjoy and am blessed by Keller’s mp3 downloads from Redeemer and have grown from his teachings, but have recently been troubled by his endorsements of authors involved in centering prayer, contemplative, mysticism, etc.. To my surprise, Keller’s not alone in the reformed guys in “dabbling with” mysticism. I too will not write him off, but will continue to read and listen with caution. I interact a lot with many Y.R.R. guys who defend Driscoll and the rest, but I continue to believe and tell them that besides Sola Scriptura, they ought to listen to and read more from John MacArthur, Begg, Sproul, etc… I line up theologically with MacArthur more than any of the rest of the “Reformed” guys out there, including Piper (although many of the guys I interact with call themselves Piperites”) I happened across your blog for the first time today from a link on challies.com., but plan to visit it regularly, and link it as a favorite on my blog. Blessings, my brother, and keep exercising spiritual discernment.
Cynde

Thank you Denise for telling it like it is. He as well as so many others are going down the slippery slope by mixing chocalate brownies with kitty litter. Spiritual Formation is being used and taught at his church. The same pattern that we have seen in so many others follow into utter progressive theology. Kellers teachings and his books are being used at my former church that is now focused on Social Justice, Dominionism, and Spiritual Formation. The words Hell, Sin and Heaven are no longer used. When are the true literal bible teaching men and churches going to wake up and see this for what it is?
Oneyellowdoor

Beautifully succint and wise
Paul

I’ve really been blessed by Tim Keller and being able to listen to his podcasts whenever they’re posted. I’m also currently working my way through The Reason for God. I have to say, though, that I was really taken back by his responses to Bashir’s questions that were really indirect. Thanks for taking the time to put together a carefully-worded and articulate post about this whole situation and communicating some wisdom to myself and others about it. I agree with everything that you said and will continue to listen to Keller when I have the opportunity.

I also caught your disclaimer at the end, which led me to your post about the “uninvited guests,” which then led me to a post regarding Mark Driscoll’s comments on cessationism. I think his comments were out of line and were not supported by enough evidence upon which to warrant them, however, I think the pastor that posted that scathing response to Driscoll’s comments went way too far and seemed to take every possible shot that he could possibly take in order to sufficiently crucify Driscoll for some unwise comments. I think he should be called out for saying things that are unwise and hopefully he’ll continue to mature to a point where he’s a little slower to speak, but he also needs grace like the rest of us do and that was not demonstrated in the slightest in that responsive post. Don’t give Driscoll a break, but take caution in going too far in criticism and critique. One thing I really appreciated about this post was that you acknowledged the good about Keller while not excusing the bad. The response to Driscoll was in no way reflective of any good qualities about him and that is not right.

Thanks for this post!
Denise

This year Keller also hemmed and hawed, unable to clearly and boldly state that homosexuality is a sin. http://5ptsalt.com/2011/05/14/tim-keller-it-is-very-misleading-to-say-homosexuality-is-a-sin/ More wavering on what is clearly taught in Scripture.

Graham martin veale

He said the act was a sin, the orientation wasn’t. And he wanted to clarify what “sin” meant.
Now either you did not understand Keller’s points, or you are bearing false witness. This is simply wrong, and it needs to stop.

Graham martin veale

Whoa!
1)
This is a transcript of an interview. It is not a written response – and the “I don’t know” might have no more significance than a nervous cough!
It might mean “I don’t know how best to phrase this.”
It might mean “I don’t believe in post-mortem evangelisation, but I can’t rule it out. So I won’t be dogmatic”
It might mean “Some people might repent in the last few seconds. It seems as unlikely as post-mortem evangelisation, but I can’t rule it out”.

What did Keller mean by “I don’t know”? I don’t know. And neither do you.

2)
Inclusivists do not deny the sufficiency of Christ. Usually they argue that Christ can be the ontological grounds of our salvation, even when we do not have a knowledge of the Gospel. Keller is not an inclusivist; I am not an inclusivist. But to suggest that Keller is denying the exclusivity of Christ suggests that we are not getting to grips with the issues here.

But
3) I wholeheartedly agree with this statement:

“It seems a man can be all over the map in every other area of theology, but if he believes in the Five Points (that is, at least on paper), today’s younger evangelicals are willing to look the other way.”

Tim Keller’s doesn’t concern me at all. However, I am very worried that there are leaders connected to the Gospel Coalition who can make outrageous statements, and claim a Pastoral authority that Paul explicitly warns against, yet escape all censure from the leaders in the coalition.

Graham Veale

Noah

Graham,
Watch and listen to the link at the beginning of the post. You may get some more insight into how Keller uses “I don’t know.”

Graham martin veale

Noah
My goodness, Keller was tongue tied! He actually seems clearer in the transript! That was a confused and garbled reply. He certainly lost his own train of thought; I don’t think that it gives us any insight into Keller’s theology.

Keep in mind – Bashir’s style is to trip the interviewee up. It’s the interview as competition, and Bashir won this exchange.I don’t think that Keller answered the question that Bashir was asking – or rather he tried to turn the question that Bashir was asking into a different question. The tactic didn’t work
Bashir was asking “what about the Muslim who hears the Gospel, understands it, rejects it, and remains a convinced Muslim?” Keller answered that with “they don’t get Jesus. If he is who he says he is, then, long term, they don’t have God.”
He then tried to smuggle in an answer to “what about those who’ve never heard?”, which Bashir didn’t ask. So Bashir was clear, Keller wasn’t, 1-0 to Bashir.
It makes me question the value of this type of exercise; although it’s a relief that even “big names” can lose their cool under the spotlight!

Graham martin veale

My point stands, however. We don’t know what he meant by “I don’t know”. He was tongue tied, so he might have been seeking to slow his train of thought, and gain a few seconds with a dramatic pause. He might have meant any of the other possibilities that I have outlined.

This might call the use of “combative” interviews into question; as yet, I see no evidence that Keller was heretical. Put the pitchforks away for another day guys (-;

Noah

Thanks, Graham.
It looked and sounded to me like he was in control, though he was grasping for words to explain in another way what he didn’t want to say explicitly. That’s my opinion but I’m not willing to die on that hill.
And I think most of us agree with you that Keller is not a heretic, just human, hence the reason for point #5.

Pingback: Responding to Keller on the Exclusivity of Christ | Gospel Powered Living
Anonymous

A review of poster Denise’s comments is pertinent. I completely agree with her. When will someone call Keller out as a false teacher. He does not believe in 6 day creation and advocates mysticism. Here’s a comment of his,
” Dr. Timothy Keller
10/05/1998

Psalm 1 gives us a key to deeper fulfillment in every dimension of our being: meditation. Its essence is reading and reminding ourselves of the truths of God while dwelling in his presence.As we dwell on him with our minds, our other dimensions ignite, affecting our lives and relationships, infusing them with wisdom, stability, and delight. This talk was given during a leadership training session at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.”
http://sermons2.redeemer.com/category/sermon-tags/meditative-prayer

This is Brother Lawrence language. Keller speaks about “different levels of prayer” and “going for deeper into the presence and reality of God”

More mysticism: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=18312

What about his “Way of the Monk” classes? Check here and you can view them:
http://solasisters.blogspot.com/2010/09/way-of-monk-tim-kellers-redeemer.html

and another quote:

Keller endorsing the Spiritual Disciplines Handbook (SDH) by Adele Calhoun:

“I have long profited from Adele Ahlberg Calhoun’s gifts in the field of spiritual development, and I am delighted that she has compiled her experience with spiritual disciplines into book form. I highly recommend it and I look forward to using it as a resource at our church.”
—Dr. Timothy Keller, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NYC

and Contemplative Spirituality proponent; Pete Scazzero. Under Community Formation in their Small Group Ministries one of the “Recommended Resources” is The Emotionally Healthy Church (EMC) by Scazzero.

“This book unmasks a “super-spirituality” in many churches that cannot deal honestly with the depths of our spiritual and emotional brokenness. Pete Scazzero shows us how the gospel frees us to admit our brokenness and then gives us many practical ways to move forward. I recommend this book for pastors and church leaders.
Tim Keller, Senior Pastor
Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York City”

Is this post an attack on “a brethren”? Nope.. this is a firmly pointing out that what Keller affirms is Unscriptural (including his view on creation)

What does it take to call out what is false?

Quoting MacArthur at Truth Matters Conference in regard to Contemplative Spirituality/Spiritual Formation, “It is BUNK!”

Do we go on ignoring pastors who add to scripture with adding mystic prayer practices to God’s Word and also twisting scripture? (6 day creation) Do we keep turning a blind eye and call just about anyone who “uses” the name of Christ a “brother in the Lord”?
Steven Mitchell

It seems that the Manichaean approach to American politics has leaked its way into the church, which truly saddens me. It honestly grieves me greatly. The posts by Denise, Cynde, and dumbroker above are examples of this.

Christians need to learn the difference between heterodoxy and ‘theology with which I disagree’. As someone who takes no exception to the Westminster Confession of Faith, there are a great number of evangelicals with whom I disagree vehemently on various issues (soteriology, ecclesiology, providence, spirituality). But just because I disagree with them, it does not make them a false teacher, heretic, or even heterodox.

I can disagree with someone about how they interpret the account of creation in Genesis, but a disagreement there does not make them a heretic. I can disagree with someone about their use of contemplative spirituality, but their position does not make them heterodox. I can even disagree with a person’s position on social justice, but their position does not make them a false teacher.

In this day and age it’s easy to hide behind the Internet’s veil of anonymity and sling mud at a public figure. Even before the Internet it was fairly easy to slander a remote someone in your local community. But real, actual false teachers need to be dealt with seriously. Churches have methods of disciplining and censuring false teachers. If you honestly believe someone is a false teacher, you should be actively pursuing disciplinary measures; nay, it is your responsibility. Not simply sitting smugly in front of your computer monitor chatting out of the corner of your mouth on remote corners of the blogosphere.

Graham martin veale

I’m also a bit worried that some people are criticising some evangelical celebrities because they disagree with their favourite celebrity!
There are serious points in Mike’s post. If you think that Keller is wrong on the creation days, you are well within your rights to openly criticise him. The fact that he is a public figure makes it more profitable to critcise him than, say, me. We’re meant to evaluate our leaders critically.
However, we don’t have the right to demonise them, and to bear false witness, by carelessly accusing them of heresy. It seems to me that Mike got the balance about right. Holding people to account, asking them to clarify, is good and helpful for the Church.

Romabella50

Keller teaches that Adam was an ape man. He teaches theistic evolution which is heretical. He follows C.S. Lewis, who was, well we don’t know, but he was not close to orthodox and detested the Old Testament. Keller following the reformer torturing and murdering Ignatius Loyola is horrific also. He is to be avoided, open your eyes people!

Graham martin veale

Can we also just be clear: Keller might – might – be accused of sounding like an inclusivist.
But he did not come within one million miles of hinting that Jesus’ atonement was not necessary for anyone’s salvation. We need to be very clear on our terms here. Mike is asking if Keller is flirting with inclusivism. Now Keller is a CS Lewis fan, so it’s not a bad question.

No one is suggesting that Keller is flirting with pluralism or works righteousness!

Graham

http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

Graham,

I don’t think Keller is an inclusivist, because, like I said in the post, I don’t think he really doesn’t know what happens to people who die outside of Christ. But there’s no getting around the fact that by saying he doesn’t know, he casts doubt upon whether those who die outside of Christ go to hell. That does sound inclusivistic, even though I know he’s not one. And even sounding that way is not a Scriptural option.

Some of the commenters here are taking the statements from this video and adding them to some of the other positions that Keller takes which are troubling, and they’re questioning his soundness. I think they’re within their right to do that and come to their own conclusions. Where they fall off the ladder is, as Steven Mitchell said, when they automatically equate bad doctrine with heresy.

Anonymous

Mike, I am very sad about all this. Have you asked Keller to clarify or recant his statement? Still hoping & waiting & praying he will.
Anonymous

Quote: “I can disagree with someone about how they interpret the account of creation in Genesis, but a disagreement there does not make them a heretic. I can disagree with someone about their use of contemplative spirituality, but their position does not make them heterodox. I can even disagree with a person’s position on social justice, but their position does not make them a false teacher.”

Is not adding to or changing God’s Word heresy? Of course it is. Why would Keller even recommend apostates?

“You shall NOT add to the Word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it.” Deut.4:2

“..faith ONCE delivered to the saints” Jude 3 Final, complete, inerrant,Infallible, and authoritative.

Again- who will call out what is clearly offensive to Sola Scriptura and cease the defense of tampering men and their misleading ideas?

Anonymous

I used to be a fan of Keller; he has a gift for communicating that I can relate to. I have also listened to some fine teaching from Keller in the past. However, it seems that every time I turn around (I’m exaggerating for effect) he says some very controversial things that are not in keeping with Scripture. Believing in: Theistic Evolution, Contemplative Spirituality (and endorsing some of its advocates) and now this issue, are examples of why I do not consider myself a fan of his anymore.
I don’t want to go too far and say that Keller isn’t a brother in Christ, mainly because I simply do not know for sure. However, I cannot recommend Keller to anyone (his books included), simply because of the mixed message he portrays.
That doesn’t mean that I expect perfection, seeing no one is. But, I simply can’t endorse someone who I consider to be all over the map.
Steven Mitchell

If that’s what you think ‘sola scriptura’ means, then you need to start re-reading the Reformers. ‘Cause you’re waaaaay off-base.

Furthermore your initial question is a leading one. A rhetorically powerful one, but an argumentatively vacuous one.

As I said above, if you sincerely believe Keller is a heretic, then treat him like one and seriously lay out your case and take it before the authorities of the church. But if you’re just going to suggest by innuendo in the comments section of a backwater blog without taking the time to actually spell out how his beliefs are in conflict with Scripture — and by that I don’t merely mean ‘your interpretation of Scripture’ — then your accusations aren’t worth the bits used to store and display them.

Charles Whitemoon

Type your comment here.Well Mr. Mitchell: “argumentatively vacuous?” Hardly. By the way, what are you doing hanging out in this “backwater blog?” Putting aside for now Adam the Ape as an issue, the whole Contemplative Christianity/Christian mysticism widespread cancer that Keller is increasingly embracing and promoting speaks volumes.

We can (thru Christ) go boldly to the throne of Grace in prayer (Hebrews) and we have the unspeakable riches of the written word of God speaking to us in Holy Scripture to teach and guide us with important specifics and applicable guidelines.

But, whether stated as much (or not) as a direct slap at the sufficiency of scripture, the whole contemplative “spiritual disciplines” thing isn’t satisfied with the rich resource God has provided, but emphasizes the endless quest to get “even closer to God” via inward searching of self. If done consistently and relentlessly (which Willard likens to perhaps growing a huge spiritual biceps), and with Foster’s methods of empty headed long, one word rhythmic chants, we’ll finally find within SELF God talking directly to us!! And, with all this obsessive inward self focus, we can become so mightily spiritually developed that we can more or less have a conversation with God on demand! ( “Avoid vain Repetitions” – Paul) Can you spell E X T R A R E V E L A T I O N? I knew you could.

Maybe you can explain why one who embraces, highlights and promotes this dangerous BUNK is NOT a heretic, a willing conduit of dangerous stuff misleading droves and droves. Whatever happened to guarding the flock?
If you can’t, then your specious hauteur isn’t worth the silicon used in parading it.

Mary Elizabeth Tyler

If Mr. Keller is promoting CP, which I am now just being made aware of, then it is buyer beware. This is dangerous stuff. We have to be so careful who we promote and blindly follow as teachers, and know what their beliefs really are.

Timscootz

Keep your focus on our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ and stop depending on man.
Tim Keller woosed-out and basically denied Christ on national t.v. when he had a grand opportunity to proclaim Jesus and the Kingdom of God. There’s a reason Jesus taught that ‘the gate was narrow’, and many like Keller prove that the ‘higher’ you get, the harder it is to trust fully in Jesus.

Romabella50

He is ashamed of the Gospel and fears man, not God, sickening!

http://sanctificationofseth.tumblr.com Charles S Rima

It seems that many of the commenters have not taken Mike’s perceptive advice in #4 ( I believe…too lazy to scroll back up). If we truly believe all of these things that are saying about Tim Keller, we should bring comments to him for the purposes of his and our edification. We should not, however, spend our time “lobbing grenades” with a complete lack of humility. It is one thing to be honest, and another to come off as if we enjoy tearing these leaders of the church down. Truthful statements? I am all for them. Let’s not bite our tongues on matters of eternal import, but is there a way to convey these statements in a humble and life-giving way? The way that may bring about honest repentance and gospel reconciliation? YES!

Let’s get into the Word people, and not just the doctrinal sections, but the relational ones!!

Pingback: The latest controversy – Tim Keller « Insomniac memos
Romabella50

Keller teaches the heresy of theistic evolution and teaches the contempletive prayer technique of Ignatius Loyola who tortured and murdered reformers. Keller is out of bounds and needs to repent. He is not fit.
Nick Olivar

I believe Tim Keller has been completely misunderstood in this Q&A. Of course, there could have been a better way of responding to Bashir’s question, but that’s where the real problem lies, namely speaking and writing clearly in an age of exactness. When Keller said, “I don’t know.” He should have said, “Outside the Christian Worldview and apart from Christ Himself I don’t know where they will go. Since Christ is the only way!” I would say Keller may have been exercising the use of sarcasm in his comment.
Nick Olivar

Additionally we live in an age of ambiguity, but that doesn’t completely remove Keller from his comment. As Christians we need to define what we mean and be consistent with our definitions. This is especially important when the media greatly enjoys to edit and misconstrue what is actually said. Keller had the opportunity to answer Bashir in such a way in order to silence the critics of Christianity. Regardless of his language “flub,” Keller will always be considered a man who seeks to be a fellow worker of the Gospel and partaker in the act of redeeming our fallen world and culture.
Charles Whitemoon

I appreciate Mike Riccardi’s posting and agree with most of his analysis.

I especially applaud Denise, dumbroker, Cynde, and SolaD for their incisive and discerning comments.

A seemingly energetic pastor with years invested gets a rare opportunity to share the gospel distinctives with no less than ABC news, and suddenly can’t (or won’t) affirm a vital basic of the Christian Faith, and it’s just “a bad day,” because we “know” what he “really believes?” Really?

If Jack Nicklaus opened the final round of the Masters with a 290 yard hook into thick rough, it would rightfully be termed a bad start to what might be a bad day, But if he topped it 4 inches off the tee, it would be accurate to seriously conclude he was no longer a pro golfer.

With this monumental inability (or unwillingness) to clearly hold to a basic biblical truth, and knowing of the rapidly growing listing of other harmful stuff he’s teaching or promoting, seems to me he’s already a work in “evolution,” just a few hundred miles behind on the Rob Bell/Brian McLaren highway to … ?

Don’t write him off? Well, how about not even on the roster , on easy trade waivers?
Anonymous

Mike,

One thing, which may be contributing to Dr. Keller’s spiritual views, began at least as far back as 1998. Encouraging pratices of contemplative spirituality.

He absolutely does recommend pastrix Adele Calhoun’s book teaching contemplative spirituality. Keller’s the first endorser, just above contemplative teacher Ruth Haley Barton.

This is from the IVP website itself: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/review/code=3330

I also personally have Dr. Keller’s 6 part audio series on Meditation and transcribed the sections myself, which I quote in the link to follow. I offer, it’s worth considering.

The evidence of his teaching contemplative practices and recommending in 1998-1999 that–at least his leadership–read Roman Catholic mystics is absolutely irrefutable:

http://apprising.org/2011/01/27/tim-keller-recommending-roman-catholic-mysticism/

Cynde

When one has spent years stepping back and watching what is going on in the church today..and does research into how this ‘transformation” is being brought about and Satans ploy to deceive..the mixing of truth and lies jumps out at you. It is a masterful plan by the Evil one. Wake up and do your research into how these formerly truth teaching pastors have been deceived and how they are deceiving…it is the great falling away..

Anonymous

Cynde,

Gently, and with all due respect, I don’t think what you said applies to me. I’ve dedicated a large part of my labor in the Lord to put out honest research.

Dr. Keller is certainly not the enemy; that said, he does give every impression of drifting, which is sad. Therefore, we must try and lovingly restore him.

If he doesn;t listen, that’s an entirely different matter. However, I’d say this piece I did yesterday comes from one who is awake: http://apprising.org/2011/09/10/contemplative-spirituality-and-tim-keller/

cynde

Ken, I was not calling it out on you. I am sorry if you perceived that I was. I am just a frustrated Christian who sees what is happening in the church today. I stumbled upon this blog and could not help myself from chiming in. I have been following the pattern that happens with churches that get into this. There is such a big picture as I know you know. in this paradym shift.Satan is so crafty. In my opinion..the worst is the mixing of truth with lies to deceive and the downplaying of the literal Word of God including the whole council of God. I no longer read supposed “Christian books”. I am tired of trying to divide truth and lies from men. I am sticking with the Word at this time in my life. Words of men can not be counted on these days.
My experience with our former church is that they slowly brought stuff in and they changed their agenda so that no one noticed. They say that if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck and this was exactly what happend until it was full blown.I was a member here for 30 yrs. The same pattern is happening so fast is so many churches. It all looks the same. How could all these churches be doing the same thing without something transforming the way they think. I personally found that a ministry was brought in to “transform” my church. I will stay quiet now..and leave the mulling over of Tim Keller to someone else. The gate is going to be so narrow!

Anonymous

No worries Cynde. There was no offense taken.

Believe me, I sincerely do sympathize with you. I get letters every day from all over the country with these kinds of sad stories.

http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

I want to sincerely thank everyone for their comments. Almost everyone has at least somewhat added to the discussion, and it seems many have heeded the points made in the original post.

It seems, though, that there are some who, on the one hand, fall into category 2. This is evidenced by their innovative interpretations of Keller’s remarks, with what seems like a presuppositional commitment to the fact that he couldn’t be wrong. That’s not helpful, for reasons spelled out particularly under points 1 and 2, and I hope those folks will consider that.

On the other hand, there are some who seem to be ignoring the force of categories 4 and 5. I understand that, for some, this video adds to numerous concerns about Keller’s other doctrinal and philosophical commitments. I think it’s right to consider all those other things. And I even think it can be helpful to point them out, just in a way that evidences concern for Christ’s flock and not simply an alarmism flavored more by a desire to separate than to edify. Having said that, this thread isn’t the place to debunk theistic evolution, contemplative prayer, etc. So, for those who continue to bring up Keller’s other dubious commitments, you’ve made your point, but now it’s time to move on.

What’s driving my more tempered response to this whole thing is that, even though I disagree strongly with Keller on a lot of points of theology and philosophy of ministry, I don’t think believing any of those wrong things precludes one from being a Christian. I think they all raise some serious red flags, but there’s a difference between being wrong and being a heretic. And so the fact that he is a brother in Christ informs my response. There must be a difference between how we respond to wolves in sheep’s clothing vs. how we respond to erring brothers.

With that all said, I’d actually like to close the thread today because none of the Cripplegate guys will be around to look after the comments. I’ll probably re-open it later on anyway, but I did want everyone to know why it was closed.

http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

Reopened. As we move forward let’s keep the above thoughts in mind.

http://www.poffclan.blogspot.com Trisha

Thank you!
Guest

Certainty is arrogance. I don’t know what happens to anyone other than myself. I encourage everyone I know, whether or not they identify themselves as Christians, to walk more closely with — or toward — Christ. We are NOT to judge others, that is God’s job. Only a flattened, rationalist, graceless reading of the Biblical text would make you think the fate of anyone other than yourself can be known for certain. What is certain is that humility draws others to Christ, and arrogance makes them run like….heck.

Charles Whitemoon

Certainy is arrogance if it is based on one’s own doing.

Cerainty is NOT arrogance if it is based on the clear teaching of scripture, “rightly dividing the word of truth.”

Your assertion that we are NOT to judge others is completely false. The Lord did not tell us not to judge, rather warned against judging others if oneself is guilty by the same criteria.

There are issues regarding taste and gray zone personal conduct issues that Paul provides excellent instruction in some key chapters, such as eat meat/don’t eat meat particular worship day/not that particular worship day, etc. etc. about which we are rightfully not to judge others.

When it comes to discerning, exposing, and judging false teachings and their teachers, EVERYTHING from start to finish of the New Testament admonishes and exhorts us to the complete OPPOSITE of what you are claiming.

It would be too lengthy for this thread to cite all the clear passages from Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude, 2 John instructing us to identify false teaching and false teachers and expose, resist and isolate such.

In his letter to the church at Ephesus in Revelation, what was the one thing Jesus Christ COMMENDED the Ephesians for? Answer: for weeding out and ridding themselves of false teachings and teachers.

Aside from the mountain of passages urging diligence and resistance against false teaching, where are any passages telling us to allow a touchy/feely free for all of any teaching with any partial or remote fidelity to the clear teaching of scripture? Good luck finding any.

True, only the Lord knows who is in the lamb’s book of life, but

1. We are commanded TO judge and expose false teaching and teachers,
2. Wheat and tares. Note tares are not red footballs, tares are difficult to distinguish from true wheat.

3. False teaching/false teachers can and do HAVE CONSEQUENCES,

often BIG consequences. Especially coming from individuals who for various reasons have developed a large audience, national/international prominence.

4. We will know them by their Fruit. If part of the fruit is increasingly muddled commentary, negligent commentary, and/or dangerous endorsements, why is it a given that such is coming from a “brother?” Maybe in some cases it truly is an “errant brother,” as opposed to a tare/heretic, but how are we to know? And why, in some cases, such as this one, are we supposed to assume the former?

And, regardless of the answer of that, with either, even if “errant brother,” people such as Keller have large followings, including thousands and thousands of young, impressionable believers who are often a set up to be led down bad pathways by faltering shepherds. And such certainly needs to be confronted.

My challenge, which I feel compelled to mention, in the case of Keller, or many other examples recently, Why does it more often than not seem to be faithful, dedicated housewives, mothers, insurance salesmen, chemists, etc. etc. doing what they can, with the only means they have, attempting to faithfully accomplish such? Why not many pastors, lifelong scriptural students/authorities taking the lead and speaking out? With precious few excepions, seems like there’s mainly measured fluff or silence. I would be delighted to be wrong, or proven wrong.

cynde

Thank you Charles. I have grown weary of watching so many churches being afraid to call out false teaching. I am not attacking the heart of Tim Keller..I am contending for the faith and the fact that the bible is black and white. The grey area gets people in to big trouble. I have been a Christian for 52 years. There is an agenda that is bringing this “transformation” to churches everywhere. Believe me..I have spent countless hours looking at both sides of this issue. I have seen Christians being so decieved along with men and women who attend these churches and have no clue about why they are even there. This used to be slowly leaking in and now it is a freight train. I will keep quiet now and let all of you decide for yourselves what you want to believe.

Cynde

One more thing…when I first realized what was happening in our former church, I spent as much time looking at myself and repenting for MY sin. Thankfully Christ died for it and I could come to his throne in obedience to Him.

Anonymous

Guest,

You seem pretty certain of your views.

Jerryw

If the Apostle Peter was in need of strong, loving reproof for “not [being] straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2:14), then it is not only appropriate but necessary to offer a strong admonishment to Pastor Keller. I understand the difficulty his ardent defenders may have accepting that such a respected pastor/teacher is worthy of a helpful rebuke. Nonetheless, it was necessary.

Very irenic and proper, Mike. Thank you…

http://twitter.com/thealkimist albert kim

Actually no rebuke is necessary in this scenario

paul

If anyone has helped me understand the exclusivity of Jesus Christ it’s Tim Keller. I’m not just saying that ‘as a fan’, but just out of the sheer fact that, if you’ve heard anything by him or read his books, Keller clearly understands the exclusive nature of the Christian faith among other faith positions. I understand the concerns about Keller’s statement, but I think there are some misinterpreted semantics going on with this interview (not to mention the pressure of on-the-spot questioning in front of college students).

If you watch the video he isn’t dodging the question of hell. He’s actually answering the question in two ways, but fails to explain he is doing so (like most people do when they’re thinking off the top of their heads). The first answer Keller gives point blank in response to the question is, ‘If they don’t have Jesus, long-term they don’t have God.’ You can’t be clearer that that. Then he launches into explaining that if there are other ways of salvation, he genuinely doesn’t know – all that he knows is what’s been revealed to him in Scripture that salvation is only found through Jesus Christ. What he’s really getting at is that it’s perfectly logical to say that God is capable of saving human beings through any method he wants (Matthew 3:9 – And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.) What he says goes along with Deut. 29:29 – the secret things belong to God, the things revealed belong to us. Do we really have the audacity to declare who is burning in hell for all eternity and who isn’t? That we can read the true motives of people’s hearts? God alone is the judge. Jesus indirectly speaks to this subject in Luke 13 and the question the disciples raised about the tragedy at the Tower of Siloam (“Do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish”). Romans 10 deals with this very issue and the salvation of Israel: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down)“ or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Keller is primarily dealing with a philosophical point here – yes, Christianity says Jesus is the only way and he confesses that here. Is it possible for God to save people through any means he wishes (i.e. ‘trap door’)? Theoretically & logically, God could raise up children for his glory through a pile of rocks – He is God and with him all things are possible. Hallelujah that God chose to send His one and only Son to accomplish our salvation. That truly is amazing love that calls us to repentance and new life.

I think Keller is showing enormous poise here throughout an onslaught of very difficult questions and trying to explain the complexities of the Christian message. Salvation is only explained in the Bible as being through Jesus Christ, but God could save people by any means he chooses and reveals. Until he reveals a ‘trap door’ we are left to conclude that salvation can only come through faith in Jesus Christ. We wouldn’t know of that salvation itself unless it were revealed to human beings from outside of nature to begin with. In that sense, we really are on a need to know basis. It’s all grace that we even know of this revealed salvation through faith in Christ.
http://twitter.com/thealkimist albert kim

People are making this a much bigger issue than it really is. His comment here is largely inconsequential. The task of Orthodoxy and Communication is not an easy one and both should be heeded in such a scenario like this. He is speaking off the top of the dome and if your goal is to be sensitive while maintaining fidelity, of course you’ll make slight slips here and there. You must understand that if Keller simply said, “yes, they’re all going to hell,” that would have simply shut the ears of most listeners in the audience. Any talk of Grace after that will have not been given any hearing.

Keller is a Reformed Theologian, not a Fundamentalist, so stop holding him to a Fundamentalist standard. Keller’s stance on theistic evolution does not pose any problems to Orthodoxy. (Warfield, Machen & Hodge were theistic evolutionists) It is simply one of the worst of all boundary-markers in gauging someone’s beliefs to Christian Orthodoxy.

julie

I really wonder if Tim Keller and those who have come to his defense have ever read 1st and 2nd Thessalonians (not to mention the rest of the New testament). What is the role of the pastor? For instance, what do they do with this statement from Paul: …”but with the help of our God we dared to tell you His gospel in spite of strong opposition.. For the appeal we make does not spring from impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God who tests our hearts. You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed – God is our witness. We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else.” 1 Thessalonians 2:2b-6. As far as what happens to those who do not trust in Christ for salvation, Paul had this to say: “This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with His powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power….2 Thessalonians 1:7b-9; see also 2 Thess 2:9-12. Folks, if we remove the bad news, then we do not have any good news. At that point we have distorted the gospel and we have robbed men of hearing the only truth that can save their souls. What is Keller’s “good news” in this clip?

http://twitter.com/thealkimist albert kim

To suggest that Tim Keller and his advocates don’t read Scripture or take it as the foundation of their faith is just absurd and an accusation out of pure ignorance. Keller went to Gordon Conwell and Westminster, and was heavily influenced by the likes of RC Sproul, Edmund Clowney and other pillar (Reformed) Biblical and Systematic Theologians.

Keller knows his audience and knows that the standard “christian fundamentalist biblicist ‘you’re all just goin to hell’” buzz phrases will automatically shut the ears of most people. Tim is not “pleasing men” as you have suggested in this scenario. That is a complete misapplication of the text. This is a world of a difference between your Fundamentalist preacher who thinks he’s being “faithful” by just spouting Pauline warnings in a legalistic way since he does not have a clue as to how his words communicate to the hearers. Most people will just chide such a person off as a narrow-minded bigot. That does not help in the advancement of the Gospel.

To assume that in order to be faithful to Scripture’s instruction is to apply it strictly to every jot and tittle is a gross and false application. That kind of assumption is foreign to how Scripture itself expects to be interpreted. Keller in the entire scope of his ministry as been nothing but faithful to Pauline admonition and instruction.
http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

Albert, there’s a world of biblical ground between “I don’t know,” and “you’re all just going to hell.” Nobody’s arguing that Keller should have just flippantly and insensitively condemned everybody. But his answer is in no way biblical. 1 John 5:11-12, John 3:16-18, John 14:6, Acts 4:12, and a plethora of others all preclude any doubt to what happens to Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, etc. who die without Christ. As to content, it was an unfaithful response, even if you think it was an appropriate form.

http://twitter.com/thealkimist albert kim

Except he didn’t really say anything really akin to “I don’t know” when you look at the interview as a whole. I thought Paul above my first comment did an excellent job explaining what Keller is most likely doing but it seems like you haven’t taken any of his comments seriously. Like I said, at best this is negligible. Redeemer Presbyterian Church does not stand or fall on that one comment.

Keller throughout the interview is theologically/philosophically on-point yet you’re gonna spend all your time this? All of this painstaking nitpicking is simply ridiculous. How is this not parallel to other people who in many cases render atomistic readings of Scripture to fit their own agenda?

http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

It’s not that I didn’t take his comment seriously, I just don’t agree with it. In fact, I believe I anticipated that comment and addressed it in the original post. Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I could have been.

I also disagree with your conclusion that Keller’s comments are “at best negligible.” Your saying so doesn’t make it so.

Neither have I said that Redeemer stands or falls on that one comment. In fact, point 4 says pretty much exactly the opposite. Nor do I agree that the rest of the interview was “on-point.” I didn’t disagree with every word, but there were many other answers that Keller gave that I found personally disappointing.

I happen to think this one comment was extremely disconcerting, saddening, and out of character. So yes, I decided to spend my time on it. You seem to think it’s negligible and inconsequential, yet you’re spending a lot of your own time attempting to explain that to us.

You seem to have come here with a bad taste in your mouth to start with, Albert, and I have let that go for a few comments to let you have your say. As far as I’m concerned, you haven’t appreciated that, and continue to comment condescendingly and even with a degree of disrespect.

So, your point is that you think we all have misinterpreted Keller’s comment. We got it. But I say that’s a naive and rather irresponsible reading of what he’s said. I explained why in the original post, and in a couple follow-up comments. You haven’t seemed to take those points seriously. So if you’ve got nothing new, rest in the fact that you’ve made your point and move on.

Truth Unites… and Divides

“Keller’s stance on theistic evolution does not pose any problems to Orthodoxy. (Warfield, Machen & Hodge were theistic evolutionists) It is simply one of the worst of all boundary-markers in gauging someone’s beliefs to Christian Orthodoxy.”

Wrong on several counts, Albert.

Warfield was not a theistic evolutionist. There was an article in Themelios if I recall refuting the often-repeated assertion that Warfield was a theistic evolutionist.

Next, historical Orthodoxy is a huge problem for theistic evolution. And visa versa.

Lastly, theistic evolution is a fairly good marker in gauging someone’s beliefs to Christian Orthodoxy.

Pingback: The Cripplegate « Gairney Bridge
Pingback: What I Read Online – 09/13/2011 (a.m.) | Emeth Aletheia
Brad

To be fair to Keller, he also said…

“If he is who he says he is, then, long term, they don’t have God.”

AND

“unless you get Jesus Christ who created you to start with, unless you are reunited with him sometime, there is no eternal future of thriving.”

AND

“I’m trying to go back to this idea that, that, if he is who he says he is, you’ve got to have him. If right now a person doesn’t have him, he or she needs to get him.”

AND

“the only thing I know is you need Jesus.”

AND

“unless they find Christ, I don’t know any other way”
http://twitter.com/thealkimist albert kim

Mike, point 4 should have been at least half your article even in the midst of your disagreement. You are doing very little to address the uncalled for up-in-arms that a lot of people are becoming in your discussion.

And Condescending? Really? You’re on the high-horse now? How about; “Yeah man, I’m sorry that so many people on here are making such uncalled for accusations towards Keller as well as those who advocate his teaching ministry even though I have a disagreement in the interview.” You butted into our conversation and I only intended to leave one comment until I received an absurd response. Your failure to address such absurd responses puzzles me with how balanced your position truly is in this matter. Condescending or just a genuine disagreement? I’ll leave that up to you.
Pingback: Keller and the Exclusivity of Christ « Johannes Weslianus
Steven Mitchell

FYI: Keller has posted an apology/clarification over TGC: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/09/13/keller-on-salvation-outside-of-christ/
Pingback: Tim Keller Explains His Remark on the Exclusivity of Christ – Justin Taylor
Timothy Durey

I was definitely saddened to review this interview of Keller, and I even commented on it on challes.com and also Justin Taylor’s blog. Unfortunately, there would have been two nice pieces of information to have known: 1) This interview took place in 2008, 2) he sought to correct his mistake a couple of years ago.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/09/13/keller-on-salvation-outside-of-christ/

http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

Hi Timothy,

I’m sorry that you didn’t know the interview was from 2008. Both Justin and I included that in the opening of our posts. Also, it sounded like Keller sought to correct his mistake to those people who brought it up to him at the time. If there was another public statement about this particular video, I didn’t (and still don’t) know where it is. Nevertheless, I’m very happy to see Keller’s comments released by the Gospel Coalition today. It’s the outcome I hoped for.

Dstrong

A couple of points. First, Mike said that contextualization is about changing the methods but not the message. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think that is what contextualization means. That sounds more like the old seeker-sensitive guys. Contextualization, as I understand it, is putting the message in a language and form that communicates to a particular culture. In other words, you can’t go about proclaiming the gospel in the mountains of Peru exactly like you would in the suburbs of Detroit. We are called to show people what the gospel looks like in their particular context. It’s what Jesus, Paul, Hudson Taylor, and every good missionary does. Contextualization is about adaptation, but its as more about language and communication. Changing methods but not message just seems way to shallow of a definition for contextualization, and I have never heard any “missional friends”(myself included) ever define it like that. Sounds a little like a straw man.

Secondly, I’m not sure how exactly Keller was in any way changing “methods” here? He is talking about the gospel to a non-believer. That’s a pretty normal method. I’m not trying to be picky, but I think a lot of jargon gets thrown around that often leads to unnecessary conflict. I think precision can help us a lot.

Finally, Keller was clearly wrong in his statement and owns up to it, as you can read for yourself on the Gospel Coalition website. You are to be commended for not blasting a brother in Christ for a poor choice of words.

http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

Thanks for your comment, Dstrong. I agree that precision is helpful, and so I hope to make some clarifications.

As to your first point, I really don’t want to be beating up on straw men as far as contextualization goes. It surprises me, though, that you haven’t heard contextualization described in terms of the methods-message distinction. That principle (message in the closed hand, methods in the open hand) has been at the heart of almost every conversation I’ve had with a proponent of contextualizing. Maybe I just need to get better conversation partners, but if I’m not mistaken that was the subtitle of Driscoll’s, “Vintage Church”: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods. I know Driscoll doesn’t speak for everyone who calls themselves missional, but as he was explaining what he saw the missional church as back in 2006 when he came to the DG conference, he explained it in those terms. And he is a leader in the movement from whom many take their cues.

In fact, you define contextualization with those concepts without necessarily using those words. You’re saying we have to proclaim the gospel everywhere (unchanging message), but we have to adapt the way in which we communicate it as we vary between Peruvian mountains and Detroit suburbs (adapting methods). Now, of course I’ll agree that we have to speak the appropriate language — we can’t speak English to natives of Peru. But I don’t think it needs to go much beyond learning the language and the culture well enough not to unintentionally say or do stupid things. Of course, when we’re communicating in our own language and culture, that kind of adaptation is not needed. So, I’m all for speaking the gospel in ways that people can understand. I suppose where we might disagree is how much people can understand.

And that brings me to your second point. I’m sorry if I was misunderstood, but I never actually said Keller was changing methods here. I said that some of his defenders — from JT’s thread, from personal conversation, and eventually even on this thread — were making excuses for his response by saying he adapted his presentation (his method) according to the particular audience he was addressing. And since he was addressing many people who were hostile to Christianity, a more vague, non-off-putting response was acceptable. What I pointed out in point 3 was, (a) if that was the case, that’s an illegitimate move, and (b) it actually went beyond changing the method to changing the message. That is, the message (or, as John says, the testimony) is that the one who has the Son has life and the one who doesn’t, doesn’t. Yet that wasn’t the message he presented. And my point was, sometimes seeking to adapt the method will wind up causing us to adapt the message, however unintentionally.

I hope that clarifies, and I do thank you for your commendation.

Dstrong

Thanks for the clarifications. I did hear Driscoll’s DGC message, but honestly I don’t remember it. I would give a hardy encouragement to getting some new conversation partners, as you said. Leslie Newbigin might be a good place to start. I say that only because the whole method/message distinction, which I’m sure has been picked up by missional guys, did not start with them. So it comes with the baggage of the seeker sensitive/ church growth guys. Thus, when someone criticizes contextualization on the method/message distinction, I have noticed that they assume there is lurking the same pragmatism and distrust of Word and Spirit that has come from people who, say, fill their churches with cool bands and cutting edge drama and little gospel. Admittedly, you did not say that, and I’m sorry for making that assumption if it isn’t true. But that is the angle I am coming from.

I’m trying to wrap my head around your definition of methods as it sounds incredibly broad. So when Paul shifts from preaching largely from the OT and using OT stories and language, as he does in Acts 13, to not using the OT at all but using the language of Greek philosophers in Acts 17, you would call that a change of method. Correct? If so, then I’m not exactly sure why anyone would have a problem with a change of “method.” And not only a change of method, but one based totally upon his audience.

Even further I would say, and perhaps you agree with this, method always “says” something about the message. But a change in method, as far as contextualization is concerned, is a change that says, “Not only is the message about the redeeming love of Christ, but that love is so real that I am going out of my way to make it as clear as I possibly can to communicate it to you and show you how much I care about you.”

And that leads me to seriously question your statement that contextualization doesn’t need “to go much beyond learning the language and the culture well enough not to unintentionally say or do stupid things.” Paul seemed to go way beyond learning enough of the culture not to say stupid things. He totally adapted the message. He obviously studied their philosophy. He spoke in the places they would hear, Mars Hill, and spoke in a way they were used to. Paul said when he is with Jews he acts like a Jew and when he is with Gentiles he acts like a Gentile. That’s well beyond the realm of just learning the basics. Granted the gospel can be communicated with basic language and basic cultural instruction. Praise God. But no one is arguing that. The contextualization debate, as far as I see it, is whether we as gospel proclaimers should do everything we can to make the gospel clear. It is whether we should do what our God did. He came to us as a culturally bound, historical, first century, Jewish male. God contextualized himself in a person, and into all that goes with being a person (culture, language, etc.). Jesus is the Word, the perfect message of God. That’s way, way beyond basics. Perhaps this is not true, but you seem to be arguing that we should be satisfied with bare minimum. I do not think that position is defensible by Scripture. Have you ever stood in a foreign place, where almost everything from eating to sleeping to standing is foreign, where the culture is overtly hostile to Christianity? In that context, not saying stupid things just does not cut it. There is a reason that Hudson Taylor was more successful in his work than other British missionaries to China. There is reason why natives are far, far more effective in communicating the gospel than foreign missionaries. My point is that contextualization is a big deal. It is required by the message we proclaim. I cannot proclaim to someone that God loves us and became like us to show us himself and substitute himself for us, when I am unwilling to try to become like them, or at least to do so as much as walking in holiness and truth allows me to do.

Long responses, I know. But I am sincerely trying to understand the other side of this contextualization debate. And thus far most dialogue turns into accusations and unhelpful generalizations. In other words, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

http://mriccardi.blogspot.com Mike Riccardi

I do want to make it clear that Keller’s response causes me to rejoice. As I said in the post, my aim was the benefit and edification of all involved, a retraction/clarification, and God’s glory magnified in the vindication of the truth of His word. I believe that’s happened. And I’m thankful to Tim Keller for his graciousness.

Also, I do think it’s worth pointing out that those who defended Keller’s response were at odds with Keller himself, who mentioned that he “almost immediately” recognized the wrongfulness of the statement.

C_butler

Thanks for this Mike. One other thing to throw in to the mix – I’m not mad-keen about Bashir and the way he asks his questions. Whatever his reputation as a guy who cuts through the waffle and gets to the bottom of issues, I think he often backs his interviewees into a corner with straw-man-type questioning, trying to get the sound-bite response. It’s disappointingly empty of grace. When he does it to Rob Bell (and gets a waffly answer back), evangelicals sit back and say “I told you so”. When he does it to Keller, we pray that Keller would stand firm in the faith. But maybe the issue is more with Bashir and his questions?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=141303796 Matthew Montgomery

Would be better if you put the update at the top of the article, would seem to be more beneficial and fair to Mr. Keller.
http://twitter.com/thealkimist albert kim

For those here that haven’t encountered it yet, Keller has issued a statement of clarification and apology. Now can we get on with our lives people? My point exactly. Relax people.

I had suspected that what Keller had in mind at the moment was Deut 29:29 (Creator-creature distinction as expressed by Calvin/Turretin) though it wasn’t the best way to apply and express the doctrine.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/09/13/keller-on-salvation-outside-of-christ/
http://twitter.com/t3rri3rg4l paula coyle

Friel just read something from Keller admitting he should not have done this, that he is ashamed, etc and apologizing. Do you know if that’s available anywhere? I’m trying to find it. I would be anxious to put it up on my blog, even though I still have issues with keller, I want to link to that apology if it exists.

Truth Unites… and Divides

Paula,

Look at the comment thread here:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/09/13/keller-on-salvation-outside-of-christ/

http://twitter.com/t3rri3rg4l paula coyle

oh, never mind… i see the update now DOH!

julie

Does it really matter that Keller apologized? I don’t get it. A pastor should have scripture in his heart and out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. Keller speaks of us needing Christ to “thrive”. Is this even biblical language? He doesn’t know if those without Christ will perish? That’s ironic because Jesus told us they would. For a pastor not to be able to articulate the gospel, regardless of who he is speaking to shows that he is not fit to be an elder. Elders are to be apt to teach. REady in season and out of season. The gospel does not change. No matter who you are speaking to the gospel does not change. As for pragmatism (“you can catch more flies with honey”), is this what God thinks? Is this how God works? I have a dear Christian friend that is surrounded by unsaved relatives, including their spouse. This friend is courageously battling cancer of the mouth. If God was a pragmatist, would He allow my friend to suffer in this way with the unsaved world looking on? Why would he even allow it in the first place? It sure doesn’t look like “thriving”. Wouldn’t health and wealth be a lot more attractive to the unsaved? We have become so hand-wringingly effeminate in this country, afraid of our own shadows. God is not afraid of unbelievers and His gospel offends them. Imagine that! God is not afraid to offend unbelievers. Yes, some will be offended, even permanently. We are promised this. Yet, glory to God, some will also be born again through that same gospel. I was, you were, if you are a Christian. Why? Because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.Rather than looking at and listening to Keller, search the scriptures and see if these things be true. Be a noble Berean. Acts 17:11

Keller and the Exclusivity of Christ

Subscribe by Email

Search

Recent Posts

Categories

Pages

Our ministries

Our visitors