TKNY Does His Impersonation of Dr. Phil

Published on by D. G. Hart

From our Southern correspondent:

RELIGION: My self-view swings between two poles: If and when I am living up to my standards, I feel confident, but then I am prone to be proud and unsympathetic to failing people. If and when I am not living up to standards, I feel insecure, inadequate, and not confident. I feel like a failure. THE GOSPEL: My self-view is not based on a view of myself as a moral achiever. In Christ I am “simul iustus et peccator”—simultaneously sinful and yet accepted in Christ. I am so bad he had to die for me and I am so loved he was glad to die for me. This leads me to deeper and deeper humility and confidence at the same time, neither swaggering nor sniveling.

Imagine how good a Christian feels on Paxil.

61 thoughts on “TKNY Does His Impersonation of Dr. Phil”

  5. Steve, how can it be true? What if I’m in Christ and having a bad day? Does that mean I’m not a Christian?

    Keller is on the spectrum where the prosperity gospel resides. Everything is better with God/Jesus/the gospel. Where’s the suffering? Where’s the fall? Where’s the Gospel Coalition?

    Like

  8. On a technical point, I agree with Shane Lems that the word religion itself gets a bad rap. Religion is either good or bad, pure or impure. In other words, in order for Keller/Driscoll to use this framework, they have to define religion differently than Scripture itself does, but I assume they know that: http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/is-religion-bad/

    On a larger point, I don’t see what the real problem is. Keller’s point here is aspirational — this is how the Gospel *should shape* my self-image, which is a real thing, not just psycho-babble. Just look at Philippians 3.

    And *knowing* that one is still sinful and striving to repent is a form of suffering, and bearing the cross. And when you have a bad day, Keller (and I) would then say remember the justified part — it is a look towards the objective, not the subjective. And then focusing on the objective truth of the Cross, that helps me deal with my guilty conscience and/or pride. This is just Heidelberg Q. 1.

    Like

  9. DGH,

    I’m going to have to demur from you on this one,

    Keller is on the spectrum where the prosperity gospel resides. Everything is better with God/Jesus/the gospel. Where’s the suffering? Where’s the fall? Where’s the Gospel Coalition?

    To answer your questions:

    1. Everything *is* better with the Gospel. That’s…sort of the Gospel message. That doesn’t mean our circumstances are rosy or that we feel great. But the Gospel gives us the strength to persevere even in our weakness and sin (simul istus et peccator).

    2. The suffering is evident in that we continue to deal with our idolatry and are enslaved to this body of death. We continue to be moral failures after we receive the Gospel, but even when we fail we take comfort that the Gospel is not about how morally renovated we are but about how much God loves us in Christ.

    How would your approach be different, Dr. Hart?

    Finally, who are you crushing on harder, Stellmann or Keller? I can attest that bromances ebb and flow, but who would you say has a deeper hold on your cold, dark heart? 🙂

    Like

  10. Brandon and Chris, I would agree that generally Keller is right on substance and is not bad if we compare him to the mass of evangelicals. Some cold-hearted confessional presbys do hold him to a higher standard and (obviously) find his style, manner of presentation, and preferred idioms to work at cross (no pun) purposes with churchly, old school presbyterianism, or – indeed – any real presbyterianism. We can let Keller be Keller — just aren’t sure that a confessional presby church with a book of church order can let Keller be a presbyterian.

    Like

  11. Brandon, I see Keller’s uncritical embrace of the modern cosmopolis to be evidence of a gospel of success — not to mention the Every Inch Captive language. I don’t see believers enjoying success as the world defines it anywhere in Scripture.

    So my approach would be the Sunday school one — follow Scripture.

    Plus, this particular excerpt from Keller is a long way from Piper’s everything-needs-to-glorify God. Keller is about the self, Piper about losing oneself in God’s glory.

    Which Allie are we supposed to believe?

    No bromance here. I’m still trying to figure out the Reformed world’s man crush on a minister only loosely Presbyterian.

    Like

  12. Chris, what’s wrong with limiting the gospel’s work to reconciling sinners to God? And what about the fact that the self is also shaped by creational forces? God is my Father, but my dad also has a lot to do with my self. Is the idea that the gospel shapes the self an example of redemption swallowing up creation?

    Like

  13. No one is saying that Keller is an Old School Presby. But he gets justification, and the primacy of its emphasis and verbal proclamation right, which in the current 2K/ESI discussions is no small matter.

    For instance, see the balance in his “The Gospel and the Poor.” http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the_gospel_and_the_poor

    But yes, all ESI folks tend toward an overly realized/optimistic eschatology, and that can have discouraging personal implications as well. (All about ) I actually wrote on this recently if anyone is interested:

    http://theaquilareport.com/mite-vs-might-calling-for-a-truce-in-the-two-kingdomtransformationalist-war/

    Like

  14. D.G.,

    Thanks. It’s “Ally”, not “Allie”. Allie is the waitress at Cracker Barrel.

    I personally think Keller is a piker as long as he’s talking about square inches. If he’s going to expand this on a global scale he needs to start talking about square centimeters.

    Like

  16. D.G.,

    Forgive me. Entire hectares of God’s creation are on the line and here I am worried about proper word usage and spelling. I receive your chastisement willingly.

    Like

  17. Chris, I read your piece at Aquila and was not convinced that 2kers are guilty of legalism. I don’t see a need for a truce.

    In the Keller piece I read this:

    So what does it mean to be committed to the primacy of the gospel? It means first that the gospel must be proclaimed. Many today denigrate the importance of this. Instead, they say, the only true apologetic is a loving community; people cannot be reasoned into the kingdom, they can only be loved.

    But proclaiming the gospel also means saying what the gospel is not. Helping the poor is good but it is not the gospel. It is fruit of the gospel.

    Like

  18. Zrim,

    I guess would say that the three main benefits of reconciliation to God in this life are justification, adoption, and sanctification; and that coming to a more proper view of myself stems from these benefits. I don’t see how that denies sinful/creaturely limitations now, unless one turns this new self-view into a sort of mystical perfectionism (e.g. a preacher saying that if you are not always “on fire,” you are not walking in the Spirit). Whenever we preach aspirational goals (say, like loving God with all heart, mind, soul and strength), over-realized eschatology is always a threat. But that does not mean we don’t preach them, while yet keeping Romans 7 in our back pocket.

    Like

  19. DGH,

    Thanks for the response. As I read that article, I think Keller is saying precisely that helping the poor is a fruit of the Gospel, and not the Gospel itself (unlike many right now in the PCA, who seem to conflate the two readily).

    As for my article, fair enough. The folks I primarily had in mind are certain campus ministries who constantly promote missions and/or joining their staff with little use for secular vocations. I was probably over-conceeding to say this attitude often makes it into typical Presby 2K churches, but I did so for rhetorical purposes, so I could point out the legalism often found in Transfomer circles.

    I was trying to do the Keller thing — setting up two extremes, and putting (all about) myself in the middle as the reasonable center. And more than that — to plead for preaching grace above every other agenda.

    Like

  20. Chris, my point isn’t that the expanded work of the gospel to self-understanding “denies sinful/creaturely limitations.” It’s that it isn’t clear how they make any meaningful room for the created dimension of personhood. So why can’t the gospel simply explain the new creation and let law constitute the original?

    Like

  21. Chris, where are these 2k churches you speak of? And (if they exist) please show examples of the spiritual damage they are doing to plumbers and doctors? As you’ve half admitted, I believe you tried a bit too hard in your article. The reasonable center does not exist when one of the extremes is imaginary. And forgive the cranky, old school, churchly concerns about the transfos — you know our main problem with the transfo emphases is that they do mess up the church, which is where — in the context of right administration of the sacraments, biblical worship, and proper discipline — that the best grace preaching happens.

    Like

  22. Z,

    I am not sure I am following you. I don’t see how Keller’s statement above as being anything different than what Paul says in Philippians 3. I don’t think it is supposed to be anything grander than that. So maybe, to answer your question, read Philippians 3, and see if Paul passes your test. Make sense? Best I can do, sorry.

    Like

  23. CW,

    To be more specific, now that I am remembering my thought processes more from when I wrote the article, I do have in mind specific missions conferences I have sat through in PCA churches and other evangelical settings. In my experience, and reading of 20th century history, the PCA is more a product of neo-evangelicalism than anything else. And neo-evangelicalism is *defined* by activism, cf. Marsden’s work on Fuller.

    So I would prefer not to name specific names or organizations (since the article was broad), but just think of times when you have heard missions talks given, when the overseas missionary was far exalted above the local plumber. If you have not experienced such things, count yourself blessed. It IS out there, though, in the reformed world, so I don’t concede the point; just being nakedly frank about the ultimate intent of the article. When I say we need a truce, the side that is firing more intensely has a lot further to come.

    Like

  24. But, Chris — this is quite good:

    ” I am to tell them to enjoy their lives; and whatever their hand finds to do, to do it with all their heart (Ecclesiastes 9:10). I will tell them to live quietly, to mind their own affairs and to work with their hands (I Thessalonians 4:11). I will tell them to love God and neighbor, to remember the Ten Commandments, and to seek the fruit of the Spirit and the wisdom from above (Galatians 5:22-23; James 3:13ff). And in terms of evangelism, I will tell them to walk in wisdom toward outsiders; and for their speech to always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that they may know how to answer each person (Colossians 4:5-6; cf. I Peter 3:15). And in terms of the culture, they are to pursue the welfare of the city in which they dwell, just because that is part of what it means to love their neighbor, all the while knowing that those cities are not ends unto themselves (cf. Jeremiah 29:7; cf. Hebrews 13:14).

    That is what God requires of them and nothing more. They are to walk in the good works which God has prepared for them and no others, no matter what preacher tells them otherwise (Ephesians 2:10).”

    All of which will be easier if they have a church not redefined (screwed up) by the transfos of the left or right.

    Like

  25. Chris, I was referring to you statement above, not Keller’s (though the sentiment may be the same). But when I read Phil 3 it seems like the gospel explaining the new creation. Plus, Paul seems more like the fellow who would describe the gospel as the power of God unto salvation, not so much that which “shapes my self-image.”

    Like

  26. Chris, but is there anything distinctly 2k about the conferences and speakers you have in mind? I heard the higher life/gotta be a professional Xian stuff in the baptist world and there was nothing 2k about it.

    Like

  27. CW,

    Yeah, I agree with your first post. I am trying to guard against legalism wherever it may come from. I am especially wary of redefining the Gospel as so comprehensive that it is something we must live. Ugh; not very good news that, when I look at my works.

    As far as whether this broader evangelical missions-driven model is distinctly 2K. Hmmm, I need to think about that. I don’t think the ones I know have thought it all through very much — only that they so emphasize evangelism as primary that they make that their legalism. So maybe they are 1Kers too — just everything is about soul winning. At this point, the people I am describing are barely Reformed — more neo-evangelical — but they ARE in the PCA in places.

    Perhaps a chart I could draw is like this, to once again, make (all about) me the reasonable middle:

    Evangelistic Legalism Two Kingdom Approach (Grace) Transformer Legalism

    Again, need to think more about this. I also need to say that I know Kuyperians who are quite grace oriented, both in person and in theology. I just want to them think this through with me.

    Like

  28. Z,

    I am still not sure this addresses your concern, but I think some moderate accommodation to 21st century language is OK (e.g. self-image). I want folks to view themselves as God wants them to see them, using Scripture to try to discover what that is.

    Like

  30. Chris, you’re right, that is my own concern, and it may be petty but I do think language is powerful (there’s that logocentrism). And because it’s so powerful, accommodation can be dicey. The gospel as self-shaper seems too close to accommodating to the therapeutic, the sort that hand waving doesn’t really cover. But perhaps if we took the power of language more seriously we’d see more significance in differentiating between Christian worldview (this-worldly) and Christian faith (otherworldly).

    Like

  31. Thanks, Chris, for the corrective on “religion” and also for the blog reference. As Macintyre has taught us to ask, whose justice, whose rationality, we need to learn to ask—-which religion, which gospel?

    Because the gospel of “gospel vs religion” is so-involving it tends to fail to define either the law or the gospel. The gospel is not the law, and the law is not the gospel, but this does not mean that there is no law, because any “grace” which is not about Christ’s death as the satisfaction of the law is not the grace of the gospel.

    Christ’s death as a satisfaction of the law was not a formality which makes it possible for God to make a proposal to sinners, because Christ’s death was a satisfaction of the law by a propitiation so that all for whom Christ died will one day not perish under the wrath of God.

    The biblical doctrine of election is not only about election being before regeneration and regeneration being before faith. The Biblical doctrine of election is about Christ’s death being a just substitution for all those for whom Christ died.

    Not that Keller or Driscoll ever talk about propitiation being only for the elect. That’s only something the Confession says. Keller is more into showing us how Christ is the elder brother who pays the price. That reminds me of Cranfield reading Romans 2 to say that Christ is the one who did the works which lead to immortality. If it’s Christocentric, it must be useful to say it, even if the biblical text does not say it?????

    http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/the-glory-and-comfort-of-free-justification

    Like

  33. I agree that saying the gospel means saying what the gospel is not. But the problem is that there are so many things the gospel is not, and we don’t have time for every antithesis. Why should we take the time to tell people who think nothing about the poor that helping the poor is not the gospel? But on the other hand, we can pretty much assume that everybody we meet is an Arminian, so we could start from from there. The gospel is not the idea that Jesus died to make it possible for any sinner to cause her salvation to happen.

    This difference between religion and gospel reminds me of a long time ago the two guys at Present Truth/ Verdict magazine (Brinsmead and Paxton) One problem they had was what they called “gospel”. They rightly insist on the centrality of the “outside of us doing and dying of Jesus.” But they did not tell the entire gospel, as the apostles did in the book of Acts. They did not talk about the promise of God to destroy those who do not believe the gospel.

    Those two guys sounded like Barthian universalists, and when you ask them about this, they would get red in the face and relegate ours question to the “religion” box. Brinsmead and Paxton even consigned any talk of effectual call or the new birth to being “religion”.

    So, the ultimate question is always—well, what is the gospel which you put into contradiction with the law.. But there are also always questions about which law and which religion!

    Yes, we can and should divide law and grace. But as some kind of Anabaptist, I could not help noticing that Brinsmead and Paxton were saying something very definite about what they considered good and right “religion”. Although they claimed to only be talking about “gospel”, to the extent that they defined “religion”, they ended up saying all manner of things about what we have the liberty to do or not do in “religion”.

    For starters, they definitely assumed that congregations should be non-separatist. They assumed that anybody who was not as ecumenical about “the one church” as they were was some kind of legalist or “mere religionist”. While Brinsmead and Paxton claimed they wanted “tolerance for dissent”, they also attempted to remove all basis for a discipline gathered church. They simply had no tolerance for people who were so intolerant that they would not consent to go to their own “one church”. In their accusations against the sectarians, they became quite sectarian.

    Is not speaking in tongues religion? What about plagiarism? What about racism?

    Is there secular racism and also religious racism?

    Like

  34. Chris H: But maybe I don’ t understand the issues as well I should.

    Good view to have on here. A handful can help out here as long as I want to learn.

    There are two dozen on here that think they have something to tell the world though….

    Like

  35. Chris – I don’t see how that denies sinful/creaturely limitations now, unless one turns this new self-view into a sort of mystical perfectionism (e.g. a preacher saying that if you are not always “on fire,” you are not walking in the Spirit).

    Erik – We’ve had those folks here in the past. Want to see my scars?

    Like

  36. Karlstadt — “If they desire to evaluate and offer their obedience and good will to God, they notice so much pollution that they must be ashamed of themselves…However, through the costly and unpolluted priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, they receive joyfulness in Christ’s sacrifice before God…Christ alone is righteous before you and before you only Christ’s sacrifice is without weakness and without blame. Christ’s sacrifice is so great that I must consider my own as nothing…Man on earth does not accomplish any command of God, not even the smallest.” (Ron Sider, Anreas Bodenstein Von Karlstadt, E J Brill, 1974, p 252)

    That being quoted, I do think Karlstadt was a “soft legalist”, in the sense that he thought that most of Mosaic law was normative for Christians. But I disagree with Luther also about what the law is. Disagreement about law and religion does not necessarily mean that we disagree about the gospel.

    Like

  37. Chris – So I would prefer not to name specific names or organizations (since the article was broad), but just think of times when you have heard missions talks given, when the overseas missionary was far exalted above the local plumber.

    Erik – Indeed, when is the last time you have heard this played in the church for the lowly plumber who spent the last week knee deep in a septic tank full of s**t?

    Like

  41. kent
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
    Chris H: But maybe I don’ t understand the issues as well I should.

    Good view to have on here. A handful can help out here as long as I want to learn.

    There are two dozen on here that think they have something to tell the world though….

    kent, as usual, cuts through the morass.

    this needs be acknowledged, is all. Now everyone, please, continue. Some of us do read. 🙂

    Back to my day job..

    Like

  43. O.K., I went into Kent’s study and read Chris’s piece.

    With all due respect, I think what he is reacting to is something I have not found in either Reformed camp — 2K or Neocalvinist. It might be that the Dutch pinch their pennies enough to not grouse about people earning a good living regardless of where they do it.

    It seems what he is reacting to is more a function of evangelicalism and the Bible belt.

    I think it’s evangelicalism bleeding into Reformed circles more than anything else. The validity of “secular” vocations is pretty well established in churches that are closer to the Reformers.

    Like

  45. Chorts,

    Most of what I have learned about the PCA I have learned here. My take is that it is way more evangelical than it is Presbyterian. This would explain so much, including Chris’s piece.

    And I’m waiting for someone to throw down on me so I can show what a man of peace I’ve become. The characters to do so are in the vicinity, but they’ve been quite serene all day.

    Like

  46. We cannot do every possible antithesis, but one more is always good, and I agree that more and more “evangelicals” are into ‘social gospel”. And here in central Pa (the Alabama in between) the political gospel takes a lot of time to explain that “the deserving poor” means that “the poor deserve to be poor” and that the gospel solution is to stop taxing the one percent so much. Left or right, it’s not the gospel, and we do need to say so.

    I love that the Canons of Dordt gets specific—
    The true doctrine concerning election and reprobation having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:

    FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 1. Who teach: That the will of God to save those who would believe and would persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decree of election, and that nothing else concerning this decree has been revealed in God’s Word.

    For these deceive the simple and plainly contradict the Scriptures, which declare that God will not only save those who will believe, but that He has also from eternity chosen certain particular persons to whom, above others, He will grant in time, both faith in Christ and perseverance; as it is written “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. (John 17:6). “and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)”. And “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. (Eph 1:4).”

    FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 2. Who teach: That there are various kinds of election of God unto eternal life: the one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and that the latter in turn is either incomplete, revocable, non-decisive, and conditional, or complete, irrevocable, decisive, and absolute. Likewise: That there is one election unto faith and another unto salvation, so that election can be unto justifying faith, without being a decisive election unto salvation.

    For this is a fancy of men’s minds, invented regardless of the Scriptures, whereby the doctrine of election is corrupted, and this golden chain of our salvation is broken: “And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Rom 8:30).”

    FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 3. Who teach: That the good pleasure and purpose of God, of which Scripture makes mention in the doctrine of election, does not consist in this, that God chose certain persons rather than others, but in this, that He chose out of all possible conditions (among which are also the works of the law), or out of the whole order of things, that act of faith which from its very nature is undeserving, as well as it incomplete obedience, as a condition of salvation, and that He would graciously consider this in itself as a complete obedience and count it worthy of the reward of eternal life.

    For by this injurious error the pleasure of God and the merits of Christ are made of none effect, and men are drawn away by useless questions from the truth of gracious justification and from the simplicity of Scripture, and this declaration of the apostle is charged as untrue: “who has saved us and called us to a holy life, not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Tim 1:9).”

    FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 4. Who teach: That in the election unto faith this condition is beforehand demanded that man should use the light of nature aright, be pious, humble, meek, and fit for eternal life, as if on these things election were in any way dependent.

    Like

  47. Keller: In the gospel view, everyone is wrong, everyone is loved, everyone is called to recognize this and change. By contrast, elder brothers divide the world in two:

    mark: The gospel says that everyone is loved? Does the gospel also say that everyone is already justified and now needs to “recognize this”? Is that what the Westminster Confession says? Does the Bible itself operate as an “elder brother” when it “divides the world in two”?

    Romans 9: 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written,“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

    Matthew 1: 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

    Matthew 11: 25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

    Luke 4:25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.

    John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

    John 3:18 As many as believe in him are not condemned, but as many as do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

    John 5: 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all would honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. As many as who do not honor the Son do not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, as many as hears my word and believes him who sent me has the lasting life of the age to come. they do not come into judgment, but HAVE passed from death to life.

    25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

    Westminster Confession, Chapter 3: VI. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

    Like

  50. Chris H—-if one defines the Gospel as more than just salvation but as including the redemption of all of culture in this era, then our work in this world better be really, really good and influential, or we are just not doing much for the kingdom.

    mark: Yes, there are many ways that we know that Doug Wilson is a legalist (a second aspect of justification in the future conditioned on present “reality’) but one way is to check out the “classical schools” under his influence.

    They don’t train people to have a job which serves others and pays enough to make a living. No, they insist that every job is a “calling” and they think learning Latin and having parents who send you to a classical schools means that you should be an elite “leader”.

    Being Kuyperian means never having to call being a retail clerk a “calling” because it’s grace that makes Christian people superior so that they don’t have to do that but can use what’s been infused and imparted to them to go from strength to strength.

    Like

  52. Unsurprising that the would-be “Tim Keller of Scotland” (who put Mark Driscoll on the cover of the Free Church magazine several years ago) would be a big fan of the Tim Keller of TKNY.

    Like

  55. thanks, Dr Hart. I had not seen the exchange before.

    I don’t mind when people question my questions, tell me what’s wrong with my questions.

    But I do mind when they simply ignore my questions. Robertson has no response for yours—

    dgh: surely good communication also requires thinking about the implications of your statements. So why is it that you upbraid Tullian for ideas that Keller holds and has popularized? I get that you can’t read hearts. So please explain why Tullian gains your disapproval, as do those who disapprove of Keller.

    Like

  56. but he has still not engaged your chapter in Engaging Keller?

    robertson—-The only one of those that is remotely true is about being uncharitable about US Church politics tribalism. Mea Culpa. I think its generally a good idea to be against sin – and tribalism in the church is sinful. You seem to suggest that tribalism can only be discerned in the heart. That is not actually the case. It can be seen in the words, writings and actions of those involved. …. lo and behold, the tribal wars of one section of the US church are poured out upon my head.

    hart—- well,are you sorry for making accusations about tribalism or are you not? First you apologize and then you sling more invective. “Poured on your head”? Chill. It’s only the interweb.

    Like

  57. Mark McCulley:

    “Keller: In the gospel view, everyone is wrong, everyone is loved, everyone is called to recognize this and change. By contrast, elder brothers divide the world in two.”

    You ask, “Does the gospel also say that everyone is already justified and now needs to ‘recognize this'”?

    From what I have heard from a local megachurch pastor and avowed Kellerite, the answer is “yes” as he presents the “gospel” in his first of 5 pastor’s classes (and in his sermons) completely framed by Keller’s Prodigal God concept. Sin is nearly always referred to as “brokenness”; Salvation is effected by recognition (realization) of what Christ (your older brother) has done for you on the cross to bring you into “right relationship” with your adopted Father (Abba.) Completely missing is acknowledging one’s sinfulness and subsequent repentance.

    Another gospel? You decide.

    Like

  59. Montani’s description of the Kellerite’s gospel presentation is why I think “the medium is the message” concept is so helpful. Keller and his boys may know the gospel, may even be able to think about it in conventional terms, but the spin theY put on it or the sophisticated package they wrap it in CANNOT HELP BUT CHANGE the actual content of the message.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.