In another post about gay marriage I noticed that Tim Keller does not like the term evangelical. He prefers to be called orthodox. Yet, the piece continues to call Keller evangelical.
Tim Keller is widely regarded as one of the leading intellectuals of evangelical Christianity, having pastored one of the most successful Protestant churches in New York City and written several best-selling books over the past few years.
Keller, who is in his early 60s, does not even like the “evangelical” label, preferring to call himself “orthodox,” and has largely steered clear of politics.
I also object to being called evangelical and have argued for some time as Moses did with Pharaoh, “let my Reformed Protestant people go.” Providentially, we have no Pharaoh to whom we can send our petitions. Evangelicalism is the creation of 1940s ex-fundamentalists who wanted a word different from fundamentalism to describe Protestants whom the mainline churches did not represent. Now it is a term kept alive by journalists and scholars.
The beast won’t let Keller or me go. I feel his pain even if I think it would be better for him to acknowledge his ordination and call himself a Presbyterian.
Old Life 
If he is a Presbyterian and wants to be called Orthodox I can think of a church he might want to go to…
LikeLike
“Keller, who is in his early 60s, does not even like the “evangelical” label, preferring to call himself “orthodox,” and has largely steered clear of politics.”
RS: But what does it mean to actually be orthodox for Keller? Even if he prefers to call himself “orthodox” or even something like that, is it true? Benny Hinn prefers to call himself “orthodox” as well. Are there that many people who would want to be called non-orthodox?
LikeLike
When the journalists and scholars are done with ‘Evangelical’, maybe we Lutherans can have it back, give it a good laundering, and once more put it to its proper use.
LikeLike
Mark,
You might need a professional dry cleaner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOr09AI7Rfk
LikeLike
That would be a three point shot AND a trip to the free throw line for Mark.
But why “orthodox” rather then “evangelical”? I gues because he doesn’t want to be identified with evangelical politics. But he still likes the big tent, hence “orthodox,” keeping his distance from that sectarian “Presbyterian” label.
LikeLike
“… But why “orthodox” rather then “evangelical”? I gues because he doesn’t want to be identified with evangelical politics. But he still likes the big tent, hence “orthodox,” keeping his distance from that sectarian “Presbyterian” label …”
Yeah, I agree. I was in the audience once when he preached a sermon, if that’s what you want to call it – I wasn’t overly impressed, and near the end he appealed to all of the same things, like social justice and world transformation as do the “evangelicals.” So go figure.
LikeLike
Article: Tim Keller is widely regarded as one of the leading intellectuals of evangelical Christianity,
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM…
LikeLike
Tim Keller: “First, it would have to be political without being partisan. That is, it would have to equip all its members to be culturally engaged through vocation and civic involvement without identifying corporately with one political party. Second, it would have to be confessional yet ecumenical. That is, the church would have to be fully orthodox within its theological and ecclesiastical tradition yet not narrow and harsh toward other kinds of Christians. It should be especially desirous of cooperation with non-Western Christian leaders and churches. Third, the church would not only have to preach the Word faithfully, but also be committed to beauty and sanctity, the arts, and human rights.”
A long dead baptist preacher named William Rushton (A Defense of Particular Redemption): “The Lord Jesus Christ, to whom all the saints are united, is the only foundation and bond of spiritual union. The whole family meet and center in Him. That which unites them is his glorious person and work. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. This voice which they hear is the truth of the gospel which they love and which produces among them love for each other for the truth’s sake.
Rushton: “In the exercise of His grace those who love the gospel have fellowship with each other, and they are despised by the world and are separated from it. If, therefore, the people of God are united in the bond of truth, nothing is so effectual to scatter them as the influence of erroneous doctrine. In the kingdom of Christ the advancement of doctrines which obscure the glory of imputed righteousness is an offense of the most malignant kind, because it tends directly to abase the Lord Jesus and to destroy unity among His people. The effect of an ‘ethical challenge’ ministry is not only to produce divisions among the people of God, but also to exalt the preacher.
Rushton: “Self-exaltation is a mark which invariably distinguishes the preachers of a perverted gospel. While their doctrine has a direct tendency to obscure the glory of Christ it tends to magnify
themselves. The preacher becomes the bond of union.”
LikeLike
“I was in the audience once when he preached a sermon…”
I love the way you phrase this, George. When I was 20-ish I got into an accident with my employer’s van; the damage was from a concrete pole in a parking lot. On the accident report I wrote “the pole hit the van…”
Then I saw a quote on yahoo news of all places that reminded me of CTC logic:
“If someone is washing the feet of any females … he is in violation of the Holy Thursday rubrics,” Peters wrote in a 2006 article that he reposted earlier this month on his blog. . .. By Thursday evening, Peters was saying that Francis had merely “disregarded” the law — not violated it.
LikeLike
‘“If someone is washing the feet of any females … he is in violation of the Holy Thursday rubrics,” Peters wrote in a 2006 article that he reposted earlier this month on his blog. . .. By Thursday evening, Peters was saying that Francis had merely “disregarded” the law — not violated it.’
That’s not bad logic. The pope is the “source” (to put it excessively bluntly) of positive canon law. He is absolutus legibus, free from being bound to that positive law. Priests and even bishops are not free in that way. It may be a bad way to run things, it may be imprudent, but it is not illogical. I happen to be perfectly fine with it.
LikeLike
“that Francis had merely “disregarded” the law — not violated it.” / “He is absolutus legibus, free from being bound ”
Finally I understand why the Pope isn’t married. A wife would see right through that – “don’t you even try to pull that absolutus legibus crap with me, Francis – you can pick up your stuff like everyone else in the house!”
Matt, if he disregards it because it is merely positive law, then the choice of men never reflected natural or moral law, right? And anyone who thought it did, erred?
LikeLike
MM, it’s the demand of a faith that builds its a assurance on a mere man. God anticipates such a faith and sends a God-man. The pope eclipses the incarnation. Once again Rome obscures Jesus.
LikeLike
Matt, but the Callers regularly qualify papal authority by saying that the pope can’t issue a dogmatic claim that contradicts church dogma. Are you saying that whatever the pope says or does is right? He is subject to no law or teaching, not even of his predecessors? He can just make stuff up? I would have thought this was a Protestant caricature.
LikeLike
Matt, let’s just start with some easy stuff. How about the pope reconcile the various different schools of interpretation undergirding and issuing forth in pastoral interpretation from Vat II. Positing a hermenuetic of reform………continuity against a hermenuetic of rupture is ok as far as it goes, though 2005 is a little late but where’s the details? You know, where the devil lives that pope Paul was blaming for the pastoral confusion. And if a pastoral letter, devoid of anathemas turns out to not be very pastoral, as in agreed conclusions, who failed? The magisterium or the document? Or both? Or is it still all the devil’s fault? And if locating the church that Jesus founded is paramount for faithful assurance and certainty, and that assurance is embodied in the charism of the pope, where’s all the infallible or even just definitive interpretations of all the sacred text and sacred tradition? I mean if we’re going to place our trust in the charism of the magisterium, how about a little more charism.
LikeLike
DGH now says kind things about TKNY?
How soft the “Reformed grump” has become!
What’s next, a fawning post on Gilbert Tennent and the dangers of an unconverted ministry?
LikeLike
Neoz, yes, back on my meds. Look for a post soon about the brilliance of Jason Stellman’s exegesis.
LikeLike
DG,
Could it be that “Evangelical” is group known not so much by what they are (i.e, adherence to the infallibility of the bible, etc.) but what they are not? As I learn more and become more convinced of the Confessionally Reformed position, it’s helped clarify the distinction of not only what the bible teaches/permits, but also what the bible doesn’t teach/permit.
I guess when I think of “Evangelicalism” I end up thinking about what someone isn’t – i.e., they are not confessionally bound by something. Anglicans, P&R, Lutherans, etc. are not “Evangelical” because they are distinctly something. Whereas an Evangelical is not distinctly anything since they are opposed to clear-cut explicit distinctions (e.g., confessions/creeds).
Maybe it could be helpful in that sense? Hence Keller’s aversion to the term Evangelical – he wants to be known for being distinctive (although ‘Orthodox’ is not a very helpful distinction – everyone thinks they’re orthodox)?
LikeLike
Nate, it strikes me that Keller is doing in Protestants what “independents” do in politics — avoiding commitment.
But your other point about ev’sm might be right for a certain strand. But we have lots of Calvinists who think they are evangelical and think that Arminians aren’t. So some evangelicals import confessional standards.
LikeLike