Tim Keller’s new book, Generous Justice, has him giving answers to reporters’ and bloggers’ questions about his argument and reasons for writing. One of those interviews came out recently at Christianity Today, under the title, “What We Owe the Poor.†Part of his strategy, as he explains, is to move people who are not convinced by the Ron Siders and Tony Campola’s of the evangelical world about the institutional church’s call to engage in social and political affairs. As such, Keller hopes to show than experience of God’s grace will inevitably lead to actions on behalf of the poor.
What those actions should be in each person’s case could differ widely. Most Americans when hearing about the poor immediately think of soup kitchens, donations, what to do when greeting a homeless person, and possible charitable organizations that provide needed services. In other words, justice for the poor should involve selflessness, taking from what you have and giving to someone in need. For Keller, caring for the poor seems to be a matter of delegating to others. As he explained in his interview with Kevin DeYoung to a question about his own personal pursuit of generous justice:
we have an excellent diaconate that works with those in need within our community. In addition, years ago I helped a group of people establish “Hope For New York,†a separate but closely aligned organization, that helps our church members give of their time and money to the needs of the whole city. As I say in the book, many churches who work among the poor establish a 501(c)3—often a ‘community development corporation’—to do much of the direct ministry to people in need.
I wish Keller had said what his answer implies, namely, that he does not do much beyond work with and encourage others who get their hands dirty. There is no reason for a pastor to be engaged with the poor directly since he is called to other work, holy work, and since God gives different gifts and callings to members of the body of Christ. But that kind of explanation might have given an out to every other Christian who reads Keller’s book, has a full-time job, but lacks a session or diactonate to whom he can delegate his compassion. Such a person might compare his pay stub with the budget of the federal government’s Health and Human Services and conclude that he is doing as much as his pastor for the poor.
Despite this anomaly, Keller does expound a useful definition of justice. Typically we think in terms of law and order, righteousness and wickedness, as in let’s rid Washington of injustice and institute a holy and godly society. But Keller hearkens back to a classical idea where justice is “giving people their due.†“On the one hand that means restraining and punishing wrongdoers. On the other hand it means giving people what we owe them as beings in the image of God.†In which case, justice involves everything from “law enforcement†to “giving to the poor.â€
Law enforcement and giving to the poor seem fairly unimaginative ways of rendering justice in this fuller sense. Other examples might include how to treat a young boy with exceptional intellectual gifts who is deciding on schools, an older woman with years of experience in child rearing or professional service who is contemplating what to do with spare time, a Senator in his home-state office who has no time to meet with constituents on a given day, a professional baseball player during the off season in an encounter at the airport who appears to want anonymity over recognition, or an auto-mechanic (see I didn’t go with plumbing) on a hot afternoon who is flummoxed by GM’s engine computers and has yet to work on your car.
In other words, a fuller account of justice might actually lead Christians to think in terms of the Shorter Catechism’s explanation of the fifth commandment: justice is “preserving the honor and performing the duties belonging to everyone in the several places and relations as superiors, inferiors, and equals.†One reason Americans likely shy away from this part of the catechism as a guide to justice is that we don’t care for those bits about superiors and inferiors. Be that as it may, preserving the honor and performing the duties would seem to cover Keller’s fuller definition of justice and while allowing for specifics instances of civil law and care for poor persons.
But why does justice for Keller only seem to extend to matters of politics or society? What about an expansive view of justice for the church, as in Presbyterian justice? What would it mean for a Presbyterian pastor to preserve the honor and perform the duties belonging to him in relation to session, presbytery, elders, General Assembly, and deacons? What would it mean also for a Presbyterian church member to do justice to the laws of his communion regarding the teachings of the confession on worship, the Lord’s Day, and Christian liberty? Furthermore, what would it mean for a Presbyterian church planter to do justice to rich people who give for the sake of establishing churches that will adhere to Presbyterian teachings and practices? What would it mean for a Presbyterian elder to do justice to those communions with whom he is in fellowship by virtue of ecumenical relations? And what would it mean for a Presbyterian denominational executive to do justice to the work of Presbyterian ministers who labored in years past to create a certain pattern of church life and teaching ministry that followed biblical teaching?
Obviously, I have my own answers to those questions. But the bigger point is why a larger conception of justice, even a generous one, does not seem to extend across the board, all the way to the claims that bind officers and members of Reformed churches by the vows they have taken to be received into fellowship and to render certain services.
83 Comments
Lots of talk about justice by Christians who confess the Westminster Standards and live in twenty-first century America; fifty comments with the eminent Bob Patterson leading out, followed by his host, Darryl Hart; then the man presently known as Prince; they all subscribe to the Larger Catechism which states the duties required by the Sixth Commandment: “The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.”
Fifty comments by the most eminent among us filled out with accolades from their admirers and nary a word about the 1,300,000 unborn children slaughtered on our doorsteps, blood running in our gutters and bones in our dumpsters year after bloody year, decade after obscene decade.
When the question of conflict with the civil magistrate is brought up, examples are sodomites, Palestinians, African Americans, and Third Reich Jews.
Not a word about the unborn. Not a word about the greatest injustice in the history of man.
Well over a billion victims felled by this bloody oppression and neither Darryl Hart nor The Prince can quite remember it. The murders are carried out on their doorsteps day after day, many by souls in their congregations, but in a discussion of justice and civil disobedience, that particular injustice doesn’t quite make the cut. It’s not in their memory bank. It doesn’t tug at their minds or hearts.
This silence screams.
Love,
The Prince?
Tim,
I understand and appreciate your hatred for abortion and this isn’t merely lip service to what follows, it is a hateful and ugly reality that colors the dark underbelly of our culture. I used to use the same sort of rhetoric as you, but there is a problem with it. It has been utterly ineffective in stopping abortion. If it were effective, I would be the first to stand up and applaud you for your bravery in addressing such a grotesque evil. However, the reason why it doesn’t work is because you are trying to indict a culture that is utterly inoculated to your rhetoric. You can picket abortion clinics, hold up graphic images of mutilated bodies, speak of the ills it inflicts on the whole of society, and you know what – they do not care!!! However truthful your message might be, it falls on deaf ears. What makes this worse is that you assume that if someone, a minister, a historian, a theologian, or an average Joe like me doesn’t match your level of “commitment to the cause” they are willingly complicit of the crime. It is borderline bullying and it’s not convincing.
I have read enough of your blog to know you are adamantly against abortion, and feel free to correct me if I misrepresent you here since that is not at all my intent, but you seem to leave little room for other modes of dissent. The problem is that there are other valid ways to be against abortion. One can support alternative pregnancy centers (which I know many 2kers do so in that virulent hotbed of evil dualism in Escondido) which actually saves lives. Others realize that this secular problem can only be overturned by secular means. The task of establishing arguments for personhood and human rights for the unborn have to be won in bioethical and legal arenas. These venues will likely have no tolerance for prophetic rhetoric or over-the-top condemnations, it is already an uphill battle to begin with. This involves persuading the very people you are burning at the stake with your rhetoric. It might appease your conscience to be shouting mad over abortion, but it isn’t saving lives and it hasn’t been since the inception of Roe v. Wade. From my own limited perspective, those who are making the most progress are comparatively making the least noise.
I wonder, if indeed abortion is such a burning burden for you, which it is clear from what writings of yours I have read, maybe it is time to step down from the pulpit and into a more active role in seeing it addressed. But you will still face the same balancing act between passion, practicality, and reality. Maybe this could mean short term compromises, or achieving smaller victories in order to save lives before the whole problem is solved. This is just one guy’s opinion (and not a very important guy at that), but heaping a whole lot of guilt upon those here, who with little exception oppose abortion, even if differently from how you do is quixotic at best and a fools errand at worst and it ends up being wasted words to us and to the unborn that you are so intent on saving. But accusing your brothers of blood-guilt because we don’t apparently hate this evil as much as you do seems over the top, and frankly unproductive.
Tim, so are you saying that you are more righteous and holy than all of the eminences here? Seems so. But what if I trump your righteousness with my own protests about the deafeningly silent disregard for the first table of the law, the way that pro-life people will desecrate the Sabbath, or allow Mormon and Roman Catholic idolatry to go unchecked in this greatest nation on God’s green earth? Or what of the strange fire of praise bands? I understand that love of neighbor is important. But where’s the love for God?
>>Tim, so are you saying that you are more righteous and holy than all of the eminences here?
No. Rather, I’m warning against the worship of men that’s crossed over from Evangelicalism to the Reformed world.
Concerning the Sabbath, my brothers and I have made it a habit to observe the Sabbath as our parents did before us. In the past ten years, though, I’ve been conforming my own practice more to that of John Calvin than the Puritans.
Concerning Mormon and Roman Catholic idolatry, I’m with you and have seen a number of souls turn away from our congregation because we preach against Roman Catholic heresy.
Concerning praise bands, one of these is not like the other.
As for the love of neighbor and the love of God, keep in mind the discussion concerned love of neighbor, hence my raising of the absence of love for the unborn.
Love,
Tim, you sure are cryptic in your love. I thought the point of your comment was to point out that no one here mentioned the wickedness that is abortion. Turns out your point was more about taking down the eminences who commented here so that no one worships them. Fair enough. But the last I checked the OPC had not turned me into the poster boy for the denomination the way that your communion has esteemed Tim Keller.
I too see a difference between praise bands and taking innocent human life. But I’m not sure the example of Nadab and Abihu would let any of us take too much comfort from that distinction.
Dear Darryl,
Sorry. In the future I’ll try to stay moron point.
Concerning praise bands, I’m no advocate. But worship should be in the vulgar tongue.
Merry Christmas, dear brother.
I venture Tim and Darryl need to sit down together for a long smoke.
Dear Jed,
Your comments are helpful. To avoid hijacking this thread, I’ve responded on Baylyblog.
Love,
Tim, and here I thought you were opposed to Roman Catholicism. Christmas? Who put the Mass in Christ’s birth?
Tim Bayly, it seems sort of passive-aggressive to storm in and rage irrelevantly about abortion, have someone respond to it and then stomp back home to respond for fear of highjacking. And confusing.
But your standing beef here and at your house is over alleged silence. It’s weird how activists conceive of a different way of engaging to mean silence and then re-define silence to mean tacit approval, which is a variant of “if you don’t care the way I care then you don’t care.” Huh? This is exactly how my old Bible fundamentalists used to behave and speak, yet I’m sure you’d snort at the idea of Reformed fundamentalism. But if your MO isn’t Reformed fundamentalism then I don’t know what is.
Rev Bayly:
What is your relationship to the PCA? I thought CGS was independent and doesn’t hold to pedobaptism.
Steve Zrimec,
It’s rare for me to be accused of being passive aggressive, but you know, you may be right.
As I see it, those Reformed pulpits that are silent in the face of the slaughter of a billion unborn babies do not indicate the minister’s silent approval. He’s almost certainly against abortion, philosophically, but his opposition to abortion is trumped by his terror of being perceived to be moralistic or a chest-thumper or a member of Jerry Falwell’s fan club or broadly evangelical or zealous or pious or stupid.
Under God’s mercy,
Tim Bayly, the thing is though that you have said, and to my knowledge haven’t retracted, that those who practice silence (which I take to mean don’t do things like preach sermons to Presidents about their political policies like you do) are unfaithful. So maybe you don’t take the tack that “silence is tacit approval,” but it seems to me you make up for it by suggesting something even more potent, unfaithfulness.
But it may be that some consider things like sermons to Presidents about their political policies to be a gross violation of a doctrine they hold dear, the spirituality of the church. You know, there are some who feel more or less about current American war policies the way you do about current American reproductive policies. But they also wouldn’t dream of preaching a sermon the President about it. Are they too unfaithful cowards?
Anyone,
Does 2K provide anything in the way of protection against the endless search for religious affection? Or is that some other doctrine?
Dear Kate,
Church of the Good Shepherd was founded in the Spring of 1996. Six months later I was called as pastor. We are confessional, subscribing to the Westminster Standards with an exception allowing freedom of conscience on time and mode of baptism. About half of us are credo and half paedo-baptist. With fifteen to twenty births a year, we’re regularly able to celebrate the baptism of covenant children in our Lord’s Day worship.
Love,
Rev. Tim Bayly,
How would you characterize Federal Vision theology? Federal Vision theology is (please, select one or more options):
a.) false doctrine
b.) no big whoop
c.) true, depending on what one means by “FV theology”
d.) true
e.) [fill in the blank:__________________________]
Dear Joseph,
David and I have often said we aren’t F-Vers.
Love,
Rev. Bayly,
Do you consider FV serious error?
Rev. Bayly,
Do you consider it serious enough error for denominations to require minister holding such a doctrine (FV) to depart their denomination?
Joseph, do you consider your question to be:
A) irrelevant
B) irrelevant
C) irrelevant
D) (fill in the blank)_____________ & irrelevant
Also, an error isn’t very serious if it simply requires a pastor to “leave” a Confessionally Reformed denomination rather than come under some form of discipline….hmmmm…so now I’m wondering about your anti-FV street-cred.
Craig,
It’s irrelevant because this wall is devoted to the topics: justice, Reformed Protestantism, Tim Keller, Word and Deed? Or because Darryl’s post was about ecclesiastic justice?
You should question my confessionally reformed street-cred (I’m getting there), not my anti-FV street-cred (I’m already there).
In any case, the topic of the Baylys & FV did surface recently on this blog, and since one of the Bayly brothers surfaced as well, I thought I’d put it to him. My question was phrased poorly, I admit. So, if it pleases you, excuse the digression.
Rev. Bayly?
>>It’s irrelevant because this wall is devoted to the topics: justice, Reformed Protestantism, Tim Keller, Word and Deed? Or because Darryl’s post was about ecclesiastic justice?
Perhaps you’d like to explain the connection between Tim’s opinion of FV and the post and discussion at hand?
>>You should question my confessionally reformed street-cred…
Thanks for the heads up. Now I’m definitely questioning your anti-FV street-cred.
>>In any case, the topic of the Baylys & FV did surface recently…
Okay. Neither of them are FV. You asked a broad question that doesn’t have a universal answer. There is no unanimity among FVers on certain things…except maybe a near denial (or actual denial) of the Covenant of Works…which has implications regarding the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. Since there is no unanimity, the FV should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not on the ambiguity of “being FV”, but on the distinctives that may deny biblical truths expressed in the Confession. This requires understanding and knowing at what point a man is “outside the bounds”.
Craig, the explicit denial of FV is fine and good. But what I find interesting amongst most 2k critics of whatever degree is that most demonstrate a latitudinarianism as opposed to precisionism on baptismal sacramentology (i.e. Tim’s reply to Kate). This coupled with the idea that notions of cultural redemption are implicit variants of law-gospel confusion make explicit denials of FV less comforting. That, plus generally propping up ministries of known FV sympathies.
>>But what I find interesting amongst most 2k critics of whatever degree is that most demonstrate a latitudinarianism as opposed to precisionism on baptismal sacramentology (i.e. Tim’s reply to Kate).
Throw it against the wall, lets see if it sticks. Maybe instead of having FV sympathies, Tim is too baptistic.Of course, if he was gung-ho “you gotta baptize them babies pronto!” he’d be labeled a baptismal regenerist…after all “why be so insistent?” Everything will always point to where you want it to, Steve Zrimec.
>>This coupled with the idea that notions of cultural redemption are implicit variants of law-gospel confusion make explicit denials of FV less comforting. That, plus generally propping up ministries of known FV sympathies.
You have the onus to demonstrate the former “notion” and explain what it means and how Tim’s views express that.
As for the second: take some pepto.
Zrim,
The latitudinarianism as to sacramental theology in some anti-2K folk I think may be more historical than necessary. Doug Wilson’s church in Moscow, Idaho (formerly Community Evangelical Fellowship, now Christ Church) went through an confusing period where Doug became paedo-baptist and began instructing his church along those lines, but then he was swayed back to a baptistic position and pushed the congregation the other way. Finally he returned to a paedo position and has been paedo ever since. So, even to this day, there may be certain families at Christ Church that are baptist (not sure about that though). In any case, it’s easy to see how this sort of waffling likely went a long way to the CREC allowing member congregations the same flexibility as to baptism. I don’t know that other neo-cals (ones who lack FV sympathies) would show the same sacramental latitudinarianism as those who are related to the Moscow-Idaho-centered movement. All that to say that, I think there is a coincidence here of postmillenialism (making them ardently anti-2K) and the sacramental latitudinarianism (coming from the historical anomaly explained above).
Moral of the story: even smart guys should probably go to seminary, seek ordination from an established ecclesiastical body, not plant a church in their mid-twenties, and not found their own denomination.
Craig,
I think the FV advocates are being dealt with on a case by case basis – in the church courts of their respective denominations. Most have simply decided to leave for the CREC instead of standing before their respective ecclesiastical bodies. Also, we all know that Tim Bayly and his brother have stated that they are “not FV-ers.â€
Suppose there rose up among the reformed, a group who advocated the Book of Mormon as another source of divine leading. Of course, the reformed denominations would not tolerate that and ministers would be brought up on charges or would leave voluntarily. Those who never signed-on to that error will stick around. Some of them might disagree with the error, but also think that it’s not worth fighting about and not worth disciplining ministers over. I was hoping Rev. Tim would help us understand if he considers FV theology bad enough error that a minister who adheres to it should rightly come under discipline.
To me, this does seem relevant to a discussion of ecclesiastical/ Presbyterian justice.
FV leaders never stop with their claim that “we are not all the same,” yet they remain affiliated with extreme advocates in the movement. They never stop claiming that they have not been understood, yet a decade of listening (by some of the brightest theological minds in the Church) has passed and the verdict is in.
You may think Cannon Press is swell, but the leaders in the NAPARC churches think there is real danger.
For what it’s worth, I have found these resources helpful (and fascinating). Throughout these materials there are references to the fact that not all FV advocates believe everything expressed (thought you’d like that): http://clark.wscal.edu/fvnpp.php
Btw, I also have friends connected with the FV. So it’s sad to see the division, but I believe the danger of FV is worse than the division. Regarding confessionalism, I’d like to say that I’m there, but right now I don’t have a clear understanding of what it means to be “confessionally reformed.” It’s something that I am committed to studying more.
Blessing.
Rev. Bayly?
You have the onus to demonstrate the former “notion†and explain what it means [notions of cultural redemption are implicit variants of law-gospel confusion] and how Tim’s views express that.
Craig, OldLife once made this argument about cultural redemption being a variant of law-gospel confusion:
http://oldlife.org/2009/10/03/do-tim-keller-and-norman-shepherd-live-in-the-same-neighborhood/
As far as how the Bayly’s views are of the culturally redeeming bent, it seems to me that all the huffing and puffing over abortion specifically and general cultural decay sort of speaks for itself as the hard transformative answer to Keller’s softer versions. I know you’re not convinced of that, probably because you’re not 2k.
Rev. Bayly:
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
A word on usage: it’s improper to write “Rev. Bayly.” If you must use the title, it should be used with both first and last name: “Rev. Tim Bayly.” Otherwise, it’s perfectly proper to write “Pastor Bayly,” “Mr. Bayly,” “Tim Bayly,” or in the give and take of a blog, simply “Tim.”
Rev. Tim Bayly,
Was that from postmillenial unction?
Interesting that Tim Bayly came to this thread and made a tangential (at best), inflammatory, self-righteous post, then made a series of responses that didn’t really defend his main point, but focused squarely on his church, his family, his title, and of course, himself. Furthermore, he retreated to his own blog where he can be surrounded and protected by his partisans rather than engage his opponents on their own turf. Seems like someone with courage would stand and fight rather than flee, especially if he really believed his own words. A real man would have the moxy to fight on foreign soil, rather than paper-airplane posts from the safety of his own turret.
Be that as it may, by Tim Bayly’s logic on the “silence” regarding abortion, Jesus would be a pretty sorry Reformed man as well. He never mentions infanticide or abortion, and in the Greco-Roman world there was plenty of both. Not to mention murder, rape, or homosexuality. I guess those issues just didn’t “tug at His heart or mind” either. Maybe Christ needed a refresher on the LC.
Of course all of those things listed above are sins, but the point is that they need not be mentioned EVERY single time justice is discussed, and don’t necessarily deserve the attention of an entire sermon or series of sermons. Simply because abortion wasn’t mentioned in this thread doesn’t mean the commenters here support it or don’t consider it an injustice. Flouting the men in this thread for not incessantly railing against the injustice of abortion is a creepily garish display of moralism.
Good column , I am going to spend more time reading about this topic
3 Trackbacks
[...] What We Owe Presbyterians (or, Presbyterian Justice) via Old Life Blog Posted on December 10, 2010 by Reformed Joe What We Owe Presbyterians (or, Presbyterian Justice) [...]
[...] error happened during a discussion of what sort of actions are just or fitting regarding one’s membership in a Presbyterian [...]
[...] every issue according to what women are doing as sexual beings. We were once having a very nice conversation at Old Life about Presbyterian justice when Tim had to intervene and censor us for not talking [...]