Rick Phillips asks “a serious question: Did one of the founders of the Gospel Coalition (of which I, like many of us at Ref 21, am a member) really just suggest that gospel clarity is non-essential to a church?“
Phillips writes,
I do not think that Tim Keller meant to say that gospel clarity is non-essential. I think that having just spoken at a massive Willow Creek conference, enjoying the warm friendship of those good folks, and being impressed with much that they do, Tim merely sought to compliment them and defend them from unfair criticism.
Phillips is concerned with,
Tim’s use of the gee-wizardry of John Frame’s tri-perspectivalism to assert that Willow Creek represents “Kingly” ministry, while emergent churches represent “Priestly” ministry, and typical Reformed churches represent “Prophetic” Ministry. The logical implication is that each are equally valid and equally needed.
Regarding Willow Creek, Phillips asks,
Can a church whose gospel message is crippled by a serious confusion regarding faith and works (Reformed people agree on this, right?) really be fulfilling Christ’s “kingly” office? In other words, is gospel-clarity non-essential? …is it really helpful to laud Willow Creek as a model of Christ’s “Kingly” ministry, given the importance of gospel clarity? Would we want to plant more churches on the Willow Creek model or send a loved one to attend such a church? I sincerely hope, for the sake of gospel clarity, that we would not.
Regarding Emergent Churches, Phillips writes,
Likewise, I was a bit surprised by the embrace of the emergent churches as “Priestly”. Yet, isn’t it fair and simply accurate to say that the emergent movement exhibits a tendency to downplay Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement (and in some cases to attack this doctrine vigorously)? Can one be “priestly” while down-playing the forgiveness of sin and the reconciliation of sinners to God via the horrors of personal evangelism? …is it helpful to highlight the Emergents as providing a model of Christ’s “Priestly” ministry? Do we want to recommend to young pastors today an emergent approach to being “Priestly”? I, for one, would not.
Regarding Reformed Churches, Phillips writes,
I would not deny that many traditional Reformed churches (non-traditional ones, too), lack both visionary leadership and real community. Moreover, I do not mind suggestions that we Reformed should evaluate ourselves by criteria such as these. But is a failure to be kingly and priestly endemic to the Word -centered Reformed church? Does being Word-centered foster a danger of being non-kingly and non-priestly? It sounds like it does – but does it really?
Full text: Tim Keller’s Review of Willow Creek: What About Gospel Clarity? by Rick Phillips, Reformation 21
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Talk about a waste of time and a colossal way to jostle words and metaphors around as attempt to fulfill an insatiable need for Christians to label themselves and others. Emergents as “priestly”? And in the tradition of charismatic subjectivity anyone can say anything and some people will buy it.
Every local gathering should be lifting up Christ and allowing Him and His Spirit to perform those offices and tasks. Most of the emergent churches are involved in some form of serious heresy while others are just plain apostate. (Mars Hill, Solomon’s Porch, etc.)
As Keller is one of the key persons in the Calvinist Resurgence, this raises a lot of questions as to exactly how devoted the “Gospel-centered” crowd is to the Gospel. After Piper’s compromise with FV heretic Douglas Wilson, this should be our number one concern with regards to this movement.
Anyway, Stephen, thanks for pointing this out. I am preparing a response to a review of my paper on the New Calvinism, which has also been submitted for the CREDO500 conference and would be published there soon. This would be of great help in this aspect.
I have learned a lot about from Keller on engaging culture, but can not comprimse scripture for the sake of a man. I will continue to listen to Keller but as with anyone test it with scripture.
I look at the path of thought with these guys and it is though they take a good Idea that is biblical, (engaging the culture and not retreating to “church”) and then they just forget to test the methods or the teachings about this good idea with scripture, not everything they say is heretical, (maybe Rob Bell or Brian McClaranites) but it just shows that we must becareful or should I say meticulous with what we believe, and why we believe it.
This article makes me sick, to partner with Rick Warren becasue he is kind and call him kingly is nuts. Schuller is a kind guy as well as Richard Dawkins, maybe they are Kingly.
Mormons exhibit priestly attitudes but do we partner with them?
I would have to say the reformed church needs to look at the likes of the people mentioned and the works they do because we can be a bunch of mouths and have no hands and feet, I would venture to say that some of the works done by these individuals mentioned are great works, but are just dust that will blow away.
At the same time I see a lot of reformed individuals having the faith and the works, being kind giving helping the needy, helping old laidies cross the street, telling a frien his fly is down, etc. lets keep both of these up so that the race is finnished, not with mouth first but the whole body going accross the line (per say)
Daniel,
That is quilt by association with keller and the Calvinist Resurgence. keller could be wrong on many areas but that doesn’t mean everyone else that he associates with are wrong as well.
Piper’s compromise? How did he compromise? by inviting Wilson to speak in his conference? if so would you also call into question Dr. Morey’s integrity when he had invited quest speakers who do not share theological position as he does (some even Arminians persuasion), I am sure you would not right?
Would you please explain how FV is a heresy?
You can tell a lot about a man by whom he shares the pulpit with and who are his friends (and who he defends).
I saw Piper’s compromise a while ago and am not surprised he thinks he has fellowship with the heretical Willow Creek “church”. Also I am not surprised with Keller’s embracing of the ECM. No one believed me when I noted both these men’s compromise on Truth. I wonder what it would take for them to see it and then to reject them…a sign that says “false teacher”? “Compromiser”? “Man-pleaser”?
But the magisterium still reign surpreme and people will follow these men because they are their anointed ones. There is little loyalty for Christ and HIS Word.
A little yeast leavens the whole loaf, but so many think they can eat around the yeast and still get unleavened bread.
It seems that biblical doctrine continues to merely an option in these circles. How very very sad.
FV explained: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/251_FederalVision.pdf
“….The Federal Vision brazenly defends justification by works; universal covenant grace to every child of believing parents, if not to every person sprinkled with water in the name of the triune God; an election unto grace that fails to save; baptismal regeneration; and the falling away of many who were once united to Christ. Among the authors are Steve Wilkins, John Barach, Rich Lusk, Peter J. Leithart, Steve Schlissel, James Jordan, and Douglas Wilson.”
Works justification is damnable doctrine, for God has said that we are justified by faith (Romans 4) not by works. Regeneration is a work of God by grace, not earned by our works either (see John 3). Eternal Security is again, by God’s grace and to HIS glory (John 6, 10, Eph. 1). FV denies these ESSENTIAL truths and therefore the entire theology must be outright rejected. FV denies the ONLY Gospel that can save by adding man’s work to HIS grace in order to “save”. God demans purity of doctrine and practice and Truth IS knowable. Adding works to grace nullifies grace. In the words of one pastor, we MUST get the Gospel right. Gal. 1 says this too…anyone who brings a different Gospel is eternally condemned!
There is but ONE way of justification and ONE way of salvation and that is by grace through faith alone in Christ alone. Unless you think this is just an optional view.
Craig:
I said that this raises concerns, NOT that Keller’s actions imply that the Calvinist Resurgence is guilty of Keller’s error.
On Piper’s compromise through inviting Douglas Wilson, Wilson is a FV heretic. If you think that is not compromise, you may wish to consider whether inviting a Roman Catholic Bishop to preach in your church is considered compromise. There is essentially no difference between the two.
BTW, R. Scott Clark has given us an intro to the FV heresy on his webpage as well:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/tuning.php
===
The FV is 33-year old movement that originated, at least in this episode, with the Rev Mr Norman Shepherd who was then teaching systematic theology at WTS/P. In 1974 he defined faith, in the act of justification, to be “faith and works.” It wasn’t that, in justification, faith is “receiving and resting” and works are evidence and thus a sort of vindicatory justification of the claim that one believes. Nothing so nuanced or Reformed. Rather, he flatly claimed that there are two parts to faith in justification. When that created a predictable uproar, he modified his language to “faithfulness.” At the same time he, and others, was about revising covenant theology. In baptism, he wrote, we are all united to Christ and receive the benefits of Christ temporarily and conditionally. What is the condition of retaining them? Faithfulness!
…
In baptism every baptized person receives all the benefits of Christ (election, union with Christ, justification, adoption) so that one is in “the covenant” by grace but one retains these benefits and either remains or becomes (they’ve said both) elect, united to Christ, and justified by cooperating with grace through trusting and obeying. This was their scheme to combat evangelical antinomianism. Of course it’s an old brew called moralism and it’s been on tap forever. At the same time, the FV movement also re-defines covenant theology to say that there is but one covenant. Historic Reformed theology had affirmed three covenants:
- a pre-temporal covenant between the Father and the Son (and implicitly the Holy Spirit) to accomplish the redemption of the elect and to apply it to them;
- a covenant of works before the fall;
- a covenant of grace after the fall.
The FV affirms only one covenant: a gracious conditional covenant before the fall and a conditional gracious covenant after the fall. The FV generally rejects the pre-temporal covenant. This version of covenant theology has also had support among certain Dutch Reformed theologians in the 20th century (which served a a background to the current controversy). This re-construction of covenant theology served the FV movement well as it allows them to emphasize grace — who can criticize grace? — and it allowed them to insinuate conditions into the covenant of grace which supported their doctrine of justification through faithfulness (trust, Spirit-wrought sanctity, and cooperation with it in good works).
This issue with Tim Keller has got me thinking and searching scripture, here is the question “who is a fellow brother in sister of Christ” what is the stipulation to become a Christian? how far is to far when it comes to specific beliefs? Do we all hold to some form of heresy? can someone be saved that believes some wacked doctrines based on his experience before Christ, yet realizes his need for the blood of Christ and believes the gospel. Can we still call certain “seasoned men/women” brother even though they hold to improvable but questionable doctrines?
what doctrines are to far, even though people profess Christ and seem to have the evidence of Faith in there lives?
I understand these are very vague but just an issue that I have been thinking about and debates with friends and co workers.
Travis, good questions. I will draft up a reply and post later today (maybe even start a new thread).
More on Keller’s downward grade:
http://www.demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers
All for “rights” and not Biblical Truth.