Speaking of New York City Circa When Harry Met Sally

Published on by D. G. Hart

Sam Desocio thinks the shelf life of Tim Keller and urban ministry may have expired. For one thing, the reasons for doing urban ministry that motivated Keller in the 1990s are now mainstream, tired and maybe even trite:

As a church planter I often have the opportunity to spend time with other ministry leaders and church planters. Among most of them I don’t see the assumed disgust for the city which Dr. Keller uses as a sparring partner. While many of them are in rural or suburban locations, almost all see urban ministry as vital. In fact, When I talk to current or hopeful church planters, urban ministry is undeniably given preeminence. I was once meeting with a church planter making plans for a move to a new city. He shared with me that he had a small scattering of people interested in working alongside him. Some of these folks were in the suburbs on one side of town, while others, were in the suburbs on the other side of the town. So, I asked him what area he was considering, (someplace close to one of those two areas I assumed). He answered that he was “called to the city”, and so the folks in both areas would have to be willing to move or come closer to him. I really liked this guy, but he had recently moved to his city, and –from what I could tell–expected longstanding residents to move away from existing relationships to pursue his vision of relevancy (maybe it was Christianity’s relevancy, but maybe it was his own).

Of course this is a subjective estimate of the prioritization of urban planting. So lets look at the stats coming from within the PCA. Six of the ten churches organized in the PCA in 2012(the most recent stats) were in cities with populations over 100,000. Of the over 40 church planters placed on the field by the PCA in that same year: 21 were in cities of over 100,000. Nine were in cities between 100,000 and 50,000. Only 12 were in cities below 50,000. A glance at the Acts 29 Network (also admittedly influenced by Dr. Keller) shows that only one of the last ten churches in that network where planted in cities with populations less than 100,000.

For another, Keller’s call to urban ministry may distort Scripture:

Dr. Keller’s argument for cities pushes too much of the Bible through an artificial urban rubric. This rubric down plays Paul’s ministry in the country side of Lycaonia. It tables Jesus’s pursuit of the one at the expense of the 99. I don’t bring this up to argue that Jesus didn’t care about Jerusalem, of course he wept over that city. Its clear that Paul care about major cities in the Roman empire, but it is impossible to boil down the locations of Paul’s ministry to one easy framework. We could ask: if Paul’s strategy was to go “into the largest cities of the region”, then why did he travel to Lystra several times, while there is no mention of any time spent in Smyrna (Population 90,000) or the even larger Sardis (Population 100,000).

Dr. Keller’s prioritization of important places, potential swells beyond population and ends up reinforcing a view of the world which esteems significance as the highest good.

Instead of challenging the cultures views of importance, Dr. Keller seems to be reinforcing them.

Good thing Sam doesn’t blog at Gospel Coalition.

29 thoughts on “Speaking of New York City Circa When Harry Met Sally”

  1. TKNY is likely suffering from overexposure and “all (non-Old Life) men speaking well” of him. He won’t always be cool, but his spawn we shall always have with us.

    Like

  5. JAS, in which Ortlund calls DGH a strident meanie pants!

    “The most strident chapter in the book is Daryl Hart’s concluding piece on Keller’s ecclesiology.”

    Like

  6. From the review:

    Hart is certainly entitled to believe that being Presbyterian requires such denominational separatism (though I think even most Presbyterians will find such a view too restrictive). But it would have been a far more illuminating piece if he had erected an argument for why Presbyterianism forbids one from trans-denominational partnership. This view appears to be assumed throughout his chapter, rather than demonstrated, despite being the linchpin of his critique.

    Heck, Episcopalians at one time didn’t even tolerate Presbyterians. What planet do these guys live on? Oh that’s right, planet Religious Affections.

    Like

  7. What does “The City” mean? Does it mean Newark, Crown Heights, Compton, Detroit, South Central LA? Or does it mean Seattle, Chelsea, SOHO, Cambridge, Tribeca? The former are depressing places – no fancy gourmet French/Thai/Cuban Fusion restaurants, art galleries, museums, Whole Foods. Nowhere to catch Chinese Opera, Classical Music, Jazz. No faux-French coffeehouses (cafes?). No Shakespeare in the Park. But if the latter then I can understand why “The City” attracts a certain type of Christian with an inferiority complex. Someone wishing to show their cultural betters in “The City” that Christians too can do serious stuff. It’s not all Left Behind novels and movies.

    Like

  8. Andrew,

    Definitely not Compton. Can you just see these guys rolling down their window at an intersection asking for directions to the nearest Pinkberry?

    Like

  13. It seems like the critique of Keller’s ministry conflates two separate issues.

    First, Redeemer (like Covenant Presbyterian in Chicago) started as an ostensibly suburban church that simply met in the city. Many who attended may have lived in the city, but they were the 20-something children of suburbia who hadn’t yet married and had kids. When these 20-somethings eventually married and had kids, they would retreat back to the ‘burbs, or at least to some gentrified inner suburb like Montclair (NJ) or Oak Park (IL). So, in the ’90s, the urban dwellers who attended these churches were just living temporarily in the city; their hears lay with suburbia, and to suburbia they would eventually return (even if they kept driving into the city on Sunday mornings). Of course, at that time, there weren’t too many PCA churches in the ‘burbs. Now that there are suburban PCA churches in most major metro areas in the North, there’s no reason to drive into the city anymore.

    Second, few of these churches are in distressed parts of the city, although some of them are in areas that were distressed in the ’90s. Still, evangelicals are much better suited to engage in urban cross-cultural mission when the culture in question is poor and uneducated. When the culture in question is affluent, highly educated, and progressive (at least on social issues), it’s a different story.

    Third, urban PCA churches are going to be in a bind on same-sex marriage. Until 2 years ago, it was uncommon for people to discuss homosexuality in the more fiscally conservative white-collar professions, e.g., law, banking, finance, consulting, etc. So, a fiscally conservative gay-rights proponent didn’t necessarily know where his colleagues stood on the issue, and therefore kept his socially progressive opinions to himself (for fear that people may think he’s a fiscal progressive as well). That’s all changed. It’s now clear that the overwhelming number of corporate lawyers, bankers, and finance professionals favor same-sex marriage. In fact, an incredible number of them have come out of the closet within the past 12 months. (After all, who’s better suited than a bunch of single closeted gay guys to work 16-hour days, travel to Singapore on one day’s notice, and spend your days sharing grooming tips with your fellow ambiguously gay closeted colleagues.) So, within a mere 12-18 months, fiscally conservative elite professional workplaces have come to embrace, if not celebrate, gay people. In my former law firm in DC, over half of the guys in my practice group came out of the closet within the past year (including me). For churches like Redeemer to maintain a place at the table (and not be relegated to Jerry Springer territory), they’re going to have to accommodate to that new reality. And I suspect that Keller won’t. Some of the Redeemer spin-outs will, but they will leave the PCA to do so.

    Pressure is indeed coming for the PCA’s urban churches to accept same-sex marriage. Truth be told, many of these churches’ congregants would have few objections to their churches blessing same-sex unions. Matthew Vines, a Harvard-educated conservative Reformed 20-something, recently published a book that makes an evangelical case for affirming same-sex marriage. There are certainly cogent objections to Vines’s thesis, but Vines proffers a reasonably persuasive thesis. But let’s be honest, many Christians will accept Vines’s argument for the simple reason that it passes the smell test and that it aligns with what they want to believe. There is no way that the PCA is going to be able to change quickly enough to respond to the coming demand. Many of these churches will have to choose between losing members (and 30-40% of their income) or moving to a denomination that gives more leeway on this issue (e.g., RCA).

    And for the same reasons, the Acts 29 movement will fare even worse.

    Like

  14. Bobby – In my former law firm in DC, over half of the guys in my practice group came out of the closet within the past year (including me).

    Erik – Old Life’s first openly gay contributor?

    Are you the same Bobby who lives in the Chicago suburbs and has been around here for the past 1-2 years?

    First name only is tough to keep straight (no pun intended).

    Like

  15. Bobby– “But let’s be honest, many Christians will accept Vines’s argument for the simple reason that it passes the smell test and that it aligns with what they want to believe. ”

    I have not read the Vines book, but two friends who have would second that reaction. Both think there is nothing in his book that is really new, just the framing, and that seems to be what is important these days.
    To what extent, if any, is the current imbroglio over sanctification really a fight over whether a non-celibate gay can be a Christian? I have picked up enough knowledge of Reformed theology to understand that this has always been a subject of some contention, but the heat of the current public debate is surprising to me. That leads me to suspect that there is more to the debate than is readily apparent.

    Like

  17. Yes, Erik, I’m the same guy. I’m now an in-house corporate attorney at a large corporation.

    Like

  18. Bobby,

    Were (are) you in the PCUSA or an offshoot? I think you were considering coming to Des Moines for the “Reformed in America” conference if I remember correctly. I was looking forward to meeting you.

    Like

  19. @Dan

    I suspect that it lies somewhere in the background. That being said, we’ve always been pretty selective about our demands for sanctification. When is the last time a Reformed church barred an unrepentant glutton from the Table? Moreover, I suspect that few Reformed churches even discipline couples for unrepentant premarital sex, as long as there’s some tangible intention to marry in the future.

    As far as Vines goes, he’s done a good job of framing the argument in a way that a lot of evangelicals will be comfortable embracing it. There are certainly cogent arguments against same-sex marriage. But those arguments are much more complex and nuanced than the thin arguments that evangelicals have long relied on. Those arguments looked strong to us when the culture was inclined to believe the conclusions they supported. But now that the cultural winds have shifted, Vines will get the benefit of the cultural tailwinds. Moreover, Vines has all the right enemies. When half-witted blowhards like Owen Strachan and Denny Burk are speaking out against you, many will believe that you must be doing something right.

    I think the key weakness in Vines’s argument is that it assumes orientation essentialism. A flavor of such a critique is proffered by Michael Hannon in a recent First Things piece entitled “Against Heterosexuality.” But most evangelicals don’t read enough Foucault even to appreciate the existence of the critique.

    For Protestants, marriage is not a sacrament. When people ask them what I think about marriage, I invariably point them to Gary Becker’s brilliant article, “A Theory of Marriage.” If we thought about marriage in the church in the way that Becker suggests, we’d likely have a lot less divorce and have much happier marriages.

    Like

  20. Bobby–“That being said, we’ve always been pretty selective about our demands for sanctification. ”

    Nothing new there, what I find striking is the willingness, if not eagerness, to elevate sanctification over or on at least a par with justification. Being a dumb old non-reformed Baptist, I always thought that kind of thinking led to works righteousness.

    Like

  22. @Erik

    I was planning to attend the conference, but had just returned from an overseas work trip.

    Like

  23. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/11/005-recovering-christendom

    meilaender—-No destiny can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it,” O Donovan writes, “other than that of a city.” It is not surprising, therefore, that, in his account, when we gaze upon the face of Christ we look at one who is “our leader and commander.” What if we were to think of the God whose face is revealed in Christ not first as one who commands but as one who loves? Perhaps such a move would not be as conducive to political theology, but it might alert us to overlooked possibilities.

    GM—Can we really conceive of no destiny in this world or another than that of a city? When in Revelation 21, in a passage that plays an important role in O’Donovan’s account, the holy city, the new Jerusalem, comes down from heaven, the seers metaphor is a decidedly mixed one. For the holy city is described in the nonpolitical imagery of marriage”as “a bride adorned for her husband.” And the holy city Jerusalem that is revealed is “the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” We should not too readily assume that the holy city is chiefly an image of political rule; perhaps, rather, it images a communion in which each participant is loved personally and intimately.

    GM– Not politics, then, but marriage would be the sign of Gods ultimate, redeeming intention for the creation. Not command but love would be the dominant motif. …. And the promises to Israel would point not toward a redeemed public realm but toward a hope that lies, finally, beyond that realm.

    Like

  25. the enemy of my enemies I quote….judiciously

    GM— “the characteristically Lutheran distinction between law and gospel can be presented not as a corrective to abuses that had arisen within the church, but rather, as the basis for an entirely new system of theology….. It becomes, as David Yeago observes, ‘the prime structuring principle’ of all Christian theology.” Gilbert Meilaender, “Hearts Set to Obey” in I Am the Lord Your God: Christian Reflections on the Ten Commandments, p 258.

    Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is NOT of faith, rather “The one who DOES them shall live by them.”

    sounds a bit like a “structuring principle”….

    Like

  26. O Donovan–“if there is no religious test on the right to vote or to have access to education or medical care, why should there be a confessional test on being a member or receiving Communion, which is after all, an important means of social participation?”

    Like

Leave a comment

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