Engaging with Keller: Thinking Through the Theology of an Influential Evangelical

by Iain D. Campbell (Editor), William M. Schweitzer (Editor), D. G. Hart (Cotnributor)

Tim Keller’s name is known across the evangelical world. His work as a pastor-teacher has found expression both in the urban ministries of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, and in his many writings. Keller’s books, in turn, have spawned Bible study courses and generated a great measure of discussion about key biblical concepts, as he has sought to make the gospel relevant for a modern generation. In this collection of essays, written from within the same evangelical constituency, several writers engage with different aspects of Keller’s though. While indebted to Keller in many ways, they also wish to examine his position in the light of Scripture and to work constructively as well as critically with his published works. That such an influential figure should be the subject of discussion is not surprising; what will be surprising to many is that not all evangelicals are prepared to accept without question all of Keller’s conclusions or formulations. This is a book to stimulate discussion and to remind us that God’s Word must always be our final judge in matters of theology, evangelism and apologetics.

Genres: Theology, Ecclesiology

214 pages, ebook

First published June 17, 2013

About the author

Rev. Dr. Iain D. Campbell was pastor of the Free Church of Scotland in Point on the Isle of Lewis. Prior to that he was the pastor of Back Free Church of Scotland, also on Lewis. He was Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland in 2012.

Reviews

[John Brackbill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book, which is an evaluation of Tim Keller's teaching, is tastefully done and well written. The final chapter which evaluates him on the basis of his PCA affiliation is the least helpful chapter if you're a non Presbyterian however even in that chapter there is profit. This is an important read for those who are being influenced by Keller's books.

[Todd Wilhelm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read in which some scholarly UK Presbyterian pastors and one American Presbyterian pastor highlight several areas where Tim Keller "has failed in his self assigned task to communicate the old orthodoxy in relevant ways to a contemporary, postmodern audience."

"Some people think that critiquing someone's theology implies that we must be impugning the man's character or his motivations. But this is hardly the case. Theology is a demanding business, and the best of us get it wrong sometimes. For instance, John Calvin's esteem for Augustine is not in any doubt. However, at various points in The Institutes Calvin was compelled to differ with him. In so doing, he did not call into question Augustine's character, motivations, or indeed his usefulness as a teacher of the church in many other areas. He was merely helping us to be discerning, and would have been remiss to have passed over the issue in silence. So esteem for the man and criticism of his teaching need not be mutually exclusive. Likewise, this book is concerned with ideas and their implications, not the man behind them." -page 20-21

"Why not just get on with the work of the gospel?
A related question is, why not simply get on with the work of the gospel? To answer, we refer to the case of Jonathan Edwards. There is no doubt that Edwards was a zealous evangelist; yet he devoted great amounts of his time towards treatises to correct what sometimes appeared to be inconsequential theological issues. Why? Because, at least in Edwards' mind, these pursuits were intimately related:

"And this increase of light shall be very much by means of ministers; God will make use of his own institution and bless them in order to bring about this increase of light... he will make use of them at that day to clear divine truths and to refute errors, and to reclaim and correct God's people wherein in any respect they have been mistaken and have been going out of the way of duty."

Why did Edwards not simply 'get on with the business of the gospel' rather than spend time writing against what some would consider minor doctrinal problems? It is because he believed that the clarity and purity of the message were essential to its efficacy under God, and that this work was of no less importance than his preaching. From this perspective, clarifying the message is to get on with the business of the gospel." -page 19

"More serious, in my view, is Keller’s exegesis of the Sabbath-fulfillment in Christ. His view is typical of many evangelical theologians for whom the actualization of the fourth commandment in this age of the Spirit is in its spiritualization: Jesus is the Sabbath (so Keller argues), and therefore we sanctify the Sabbath by resting in him.

This position on the fourth commandment has become something of a given in modern evangelicalism. Keller’s view is typical of theologians who are reluctant to hold the traditional position that the resurrection of Jesus Christ has altered the Sabbath from the last day of the week to the first, and that by observing a new Sabbath, on each Lord’s Day, we bring the Sabbath commandment into its own by our worship, rest and profession of the risen Christ.

It is difficult, however, to justify Keller’s position. If the law of God is not entirely abolished (which Keller concedes it cannot be, since the gospel forces us to approach the law with a different paradigm from that of religion), then the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy remains. On Keller’s own admission, it must remain as an element which a Christian should ‘study and obey... in order to discover the kind of life you should live in order to please and resemble the one who created and redeemed you’.

The problem, of course, is that spiritualizing the commandment is not obeying it; nor does it exhaust its meaning or relevance. The transition from seventh day of the week Sabbath to first day of the week Lord’s Day was a natural one for the church to make in the wake of the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit. The principles of redemption and grace which the older form of the commandment embodied had come into their own. To be sure, the gospel means nothing if it does not mean resting in Christ. But this hardly exhausts the requirement of a command from God which regulates our week and calls for a day of rest and worship.

There is no doubt that a legalistic sabbatarian position is as inimical to the gospel now as it was in Jesus’ day. But to call Jesus ‘Lord’ involves conceding the New Testament Sabbath to be under his lordship. What else gave John the apostle the motivation to observe each Lord’s Day as a day of worship of his risen Lord (Rev. 1:10)? What could be more fitting for believers in this age of the Spirit than to lay aside their work in order to fulfill their duty of rejoicing in the day that the Lord has made for them? To be sure, there is a glorious anticipation in the weekly, new covenant Sabbath of the rest that waits in glory for the people of God (Heb. 4:9). But the fourth commandment is not fulfilled or honored by interpreting it in a non-literal way."
-Chapter 1 “Keller on ‘Rebranding’ the Doctrine of Sin” by Iain D. Campbell, page 55

[Brian Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a model of critical engagement with a brother in Christ. Almost all of the authors are respectful and appreciative of Keller's ministry. Most are not reticent to praise Keller even as they critique significant aspects of his ministry. The manuscript was also submitted to Keller for feedback.

I disagreed most with the chapter by Hart. This, no doubt, is because he was arguing for a Presbyterian ecclesiology while I am a Baptist. However, the other essays I found to be careful treatments of Keller's teaching about sin, hell, perichoresis, the church's mission, and evolution. Another chapter examines Keller's hermeneutical methodology. One of the central concerns raised repeatedly is that Keller's efforts to make biblical doctrine plausible in a today's world sometimes subtly distorts the doctrines themselves. The authors are not opposed to finding new ways of talking about old truths, but they note that when this is attempted the church does need to be careful to ensure that the new ways of speaking are as faithful as the old ways.

Given the overall excellence in content and spirit of this book, I was disappointed to see a defensive review in Themelios. For instance, Kevin Bidwell has a perceptive critique of the use of the divine dance metaphor. The reviewer criticizes Bidwell for not treating Keller's Trinitarian views more fully. But this is unfair. Bidwell notes at the beginning of his essay: "This is not a critique of everything that Keller ever said about the Trinity, but only his use of a particular imagery of questionable validity and having problematic implications." Surely a friendly critic should be allowed to note that Keller is orthodox in his Trinitarian teaching but that a particular metaphor that he often uses is problematic. In addition the Themelios reviewer accused the authors of at times misrepresenting Keller, but I wonder if the reviewer misread the critiques, which were often not that Keller denied certain teachings but that they were minimized to the point that certain distortions arose. The response to that kind of critique cannot be, "but Keller teaches such and such here." I would have been much more encouraged if the reviewer mixed his defense of Keller with acknowledgement of areas in which the authors had pointed up some real problems. The authors of Engaging with Keller clearly appreciate his work, and wrote their book to strengthen Keller's ministry and the churches influenced by it. But that goal won't be achieved if the readers are defensive.

[Moses Flores · Rating 1 out of 5]

What was the point of this book? I have been listening to Keller for almost 4 years already and plenty of the concerns raised here could have been alleviated by listening to him more and even his lectures or more careful reading. Chapter after chapter was merely "I would have done it differently than Keller..." Or "Keller should be clearer..." As if it was Keller's job to write a systematic theology or any other authors purpose in sharing their sermons on print. No other author is held to that standard. The other thing to consider is the context in which Keller is preaching: he is in high culture in New York. Honestly, and this is completely my opinion, these men merely demonstrated their inability to read, to read someone in the best possible light, and puff themselves up as as their essential arguments were "I would have done this differently, better and more faithful than Keller." The essential doctrines that concerned these authors were all affirmed by Keller. I was actually baffled after some chapters thinking to myself "so are we not supposed to help the poor?" Or "so is talking about perichoreosis wrong? Is offering an analogy of perichoreosis wrong?"the last chapter takes the cake. Apparently it is wrong to have non-Reformed friendships. Apparently it is Presbyterianism that unites Christians and not the gospel.

[Scott · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is largely an "in-house" Presbyterian critique (lots of talk about the Westminster Standards and Keller's Presbyterianism) however there were some really helpful things to chew on. Some of the critiques, however, were not super strong and felt like splitting hairs at times. Overall, a helpful polemic in good spirit.

[Cole Brandon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have not read or listened to much of Keller, so I do not know how well these authors represent his views. Some of critiques are unimportant (chap 7) or misleading (chap 1, 3, 5), while others are right on (chap 2, 4, 6). Whether or not you care about Keller, this work is helpful for reflecting on different theological themes and how to engage the culture both effectively and faithfully.

[Alasdair Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone who has benefited immensely from Keller's work, I found this to be a fair appraisal of some of his emphases and a helpful corrective to any tendency to allow helpful insights to become controlling paradigms.

[Daniel Wells · Rating 2 out of 5]

Check out my chapter by chapter review at missioconfessio.wordpress.com

[Sandy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative, though not very engaging. Would have benefitted from better editing.

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Comes off as hair-splitting at times, but thought-provoking.

[Alex]

Only read D. G. Hart’s essay “Looking for Communion in All the Wrong Places: Keller and the doctrine of the church.”

[Peter Kiss · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book intended to clear up the wake of someone who is notorious for muddying the waters on almost every core doctrine of the faith, whether it be sin, obedience to God, hell, creation, or hermeneutics.

[Andrzej Stelmasiak]

So, a book edited by the two men disqualified for the ministry about the man who finished well, without a moral scandal in his life. I somehow doubt that this book will stand the test of time.

[Leandro Dutra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irenic polemics about various aspects of pastor Timothy ‘Tim’ James Keller, founder of Redeemer presbyterian church in New York.

I mostly side with the polemicists, apart from wishing that the chapters on evolution and on church polity painted with less broad brushes. Specially Hart assuming all Presbyterians should agree that presbyterian polity is a Bible mandate sounds puerile, but even he has pertinent points.

Too bad Iain D. Campbell, joint editor, was found after his death to have been living in serious sin, and instead of repenting for life chose to kill himself. This all but assures us this book will never be reprinted, and ‘acceptable’ (read barely readable) copies of this slim paperback are already being sold by more than US$ 120 a piece.

Even worse that Keller died relatively early, and be it for lack of time or for his early death, as far as I know never responded to the criticism presented in the book.

[John Dekker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read the review: Keller 5, Critics 3