Tag Archives: Tim Keller

Stage Fright

A video has been making the rounds on Facebook and elsewhere.  It shows a trio of ballet dancers giving a performance during an offertory at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, where Tim Keller is the founding pastor (as mentioned here).  You can watch it here if you’re so inclined, but my remarks don’t necessitate it.

There’s a lot that can be said about it, a lot that should be said, and a lot that has been said.  However, I want to briefly mention something I haven’t read anyone else say.

This performance would only be possible in a church building with a stage.  Your traditional Reformed church building with a large pulpit occupying the center of attention would never accommodate a ballet trio.  However, these days it has become virtually a given that any new church building must have a stage.  How did this happen?  You can pretty much blame a Canadian preacher lady.

But before I get to that, we need some other history.  Prior to the Reformation, medieval church buildings also featured performance front and center.  It was the performance of the mass at the altar that was the central part of pre-Reformation worship.  When the Reformation took place, the altar disappeared.  The focus turned to the pulpit, where the living Word of God was preached.  Performance was out, preaching was in.  Now it is true that in the old medieval buildings repurposed for now-Reformed churches the pulpit did tend to stay on the side.  However, as new Reformed church buildings were constructed, the pulpit became the center of ecclesiastical architecture.  It was the center because the Word was at the center.

I’m not sure about European Protestantism, but it seems to me that the stage first appears in American Christianity in the time of the Second Great Awakening.  An American architect and engineer named Benjamin Henry Latrobe visited a Methodist camp meeting in Virginia in 1809.  He drew some sketches.  One of them, “Plan of the Camp,” includes a stage (see Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, 54).  This was an outdoor revival camp.  However, so far as I know, Protestant church buildings of this time did not yet include a stage.

Enter Aimee Semple Macpherson (1890-1944).  She was born in Oxford, Ontario –quite near to Norwich, today the home of a very large Netherlands Reformed Church community.  By 1918, she was a Pentecostal revivalistic preacher.  She made her way to Los Angeles and set out to build one of America’s first mega-churches.  The Angelus Temple was completed in 1923.  It was built to seat 5,300 worshippers.  For our purposes, I believe it was the first church building in the United States custom built to include a stage.  Certainly, Sister Aimee was a dramatist.  She employed dramatic productions in her worship services — she was quite the actor herself.  Along with the traditional pipe organ, she also used a big band for the singing.  These liturgical features virtually required a stage.  The Angelus Temple was cutting edge and within a few decades, it was common for American church buildings to include a stage.  In time, it became common for the pulpit to disappear as well.

Note well the development.  The Reformation recovered the preaching of the Word — and with it a church architecture which made the means of grace central, especially preaching.  The heirs (and heiresses) of Anabaptism adopted a church architecture which sidelined the Word.  The stage appeared where the Word wasn’t enough.  So, especially when building churches or repurposing other buildings for churches, Reformed and Presbyterian believers do well to ask themselves whether their architectural instincts reflect a Reformation worship ethos.  What are we saying when the pulpit is traded for the stage?   Does performance have any place in Reformed worship, i.e. the kind of performance where afterwards the congregation applauds?

 


Contextualization in Scripture

91zstravscl

Whenever I read a book, I usually make notes afterwards for future reference.  I finished reading Keller’s Center Church a couple of months ago, but I’m only finally getting around to writing my notes on it today.  As I’m doing so, I’ve across something worth sharing about contextualization.  Keller defines contextualization like this:  “…it is giving people the Bible’s answers, which they may not at all want to hear, to questions about life that people in their particular time and place are asking, in language and forms they can comprehend, and through appeals and arguments with force they can feel, even if they reject them” (page 89).  A little further in that chapter, he gives this helpful sidebar:

Craig Blomberg points out that in Matthew’s parable of the mustard seed, the sower sows his seed in a “field” (agros, Matt. 13:31), while in Luke the sowing is in a “garden” (kepos, Luke 13:19).  Jews never grew mustard plants in gardens, but always out on farms, while Greeks in the Mediterranean basin did the opposite.  It appears that each gospel writer was changing the word that Jesus used in Mark — the word for “earth” or “ground” (ge, Mark 4:31) — for the sake of his hearers.  There is a technical contradiction between the Matthean and Lukan terms, states Blomberg, “but not a material one.  Luke changes the wording precisely so that his audience is not distracted from…the lesson by puzzling over an…improbable practice.”  The result is that Luke’s audience “receives his teaching with the same impact as the original audience.”  (page 95)

I looked into this a little bit and it seems to check out as correct.  Just one small point:  I would prefer “apparent discrepancy” to “technical contradiction” (after all, fields and gardens are not exactly polar opposites).  The main point is that contextualization is evident in Scripture — therefore, we need to take it seriously too.  For myself, as a Canadian living and ministering in Australia, I try to use the right words for my audience.  I try to avoid Canadian idioms and use Aussie ones.  However, I’m quite sure that I still have a long way to go in minimizing linguistic distractions when I preach and teach.


Predestination in Mission

91zstravscl

For Reformed people who care about sharing the gospel (which should be all of us!), it is probably a given that election/predestination is not something we incorporate into our gospel message.  We do not go around telling unbelievers about the doctrine of unconditional election.  Instead, we generally recognize that this doctrine is revealed in Scripture for the comfort and edification of believers.  The common way of thinking is that this doctrine is for those already in the church, not for those we are trying to draw into the church.

That way of thinking can be partially credited to 1.14 of the Canons of Dort.  The Canons of Dort say that the doctrine of divine election “should be taught in the church of God, for which it was particularly intended, in its proper time and place…”  For a long time, I have understood this to mean that election/predestination would never have a real place in our missionary message.  By “missionary message,” I mean everything connected to the good news as we communicate it to the unregenerated.

My thinking on this has been upended by Tim Keller.  In his book Center Church, he stirs up a lot of thought in the area of contextualization (see here for some of my work in this area).  This has to do with the communication of the gospel in cross-cultural ministry.  In chapter 10, he discusses “active contextualization”:  entering the culture, challenging the culture, and then appealing to the listeners.

When it comes to challenging and confronting the culture, Keller relates a discussion he once had with a Presbyterian missionary to Korea.  This missionary was working amongst Korean prostitutes and was not connecting with them.  He spoke of God’s grace to them, about the forgiveness available through Christ, and about God’s love for sinners.  Nothing he said engaged them.  He decided to try something radically different.  He would begin with the doctrine of predestination.  Keller rightly notes that this doctrine is a challenging one for Western hearts and minds.  Westerners value democratic and egalitarian notions.  Many in the West do not want to hear about a sovereign God who chooses some and passes by others.  But what is true for Westerners is not necessarily true for Asian prostitutes in the mid-twentieth century.  Keller writes:

So he told the prostitutes about a God who is a King.  Kings, he said, have a sovereign right to act as they saw fit.  They rule — that’s just what kings do.  And this great divine King chooses to select people out of the human race to serve him, simply because it is his sovereign will to do so.  Therefore, his people are saved because of his royal will, not because of the quality of their lives or anything they have done.

This made sense to the women.  They had no problem with the idea of authority figures acting in this way — it seemed natural and right to them.  But this also meant that when people were saved, it was not because of pedigree or effort, but because of the will of God (cf. John 1:13).  Their acceptance of this belief opened up the possibility of understanding and accepting the belief in salvation by grace.  They asked my missionary friend a question that a non-Christian in the West would never ask:  “How can I know if I am chosen?”  He answered that if as they heard the gospel they wanted to accept and believe it, this was a sign that the Holy Spirit was working on their hearts and that God was seeking them.  And some of them responded. (Center Church, 126)

So there are times, places, and cultures where it might be effective to use the doctrine of predestination as a missionary starting point.  It’s not that this doctrine is the complete message.  Rather, it’s a starting point to bring unbelievers onward to the full gospel of salvation in Christ.

But then what about the Canons of Dort?  Does this approach contradict 1.14?  No, it doesn’t, because 1.14 doesn’t say that this doctrine should only be taught in the church and that it may never be used elsewhere.  There’s indeed room in the Canons for a wise and creative adaptation of this doctrine to the missionary calling of the church.  Because of the pervasive influence of Western culture, perhaps the contexts where this could be done are increasingly few and far between, but missionaries should definitely be open-minded to the possibility that this Presbyterian missionary’s approach could work elsewhere.


Critiquing Keller on Evolution/Creation

As most readers know, I’m also involved in another blog, a cooperative venture entitled Creation Without Compromise.  That blog was the brainchild of Dr. Ted Van Raalte — together with Rev. Jim Witteveen and Jon Dykstra, we seek to “promote a biblical understanding of origins.”  Since its inception, Creation Without Compromise has published several significant pieces addressing the challenges we face in upholding the biblical doctrine of creation.  Some of the best ones, in my view, are collected on this page.  Last week, Dr. Van Raalte began a series that has long been in the works, one that likely contains the most important material we’ve published so far.  A number of years ago, Tim Keller wrote his “White Paper” for BioLogos.  In case you’re not familiar with it, BioLogos is one of the foremost promoters of a synthesis between creation and evolution.  Keller’s paper has been influential and is therefore worthy of a closer look.  Does it stand up to biblical scrutiny?  Does Keller present a good model for reconciling Scripture with the conclusions of so many scientists regarding origins?

Part One of Dr. Van Raalte’s critique can be found here.

Part Two is found by clicking here.

 


Does Every Text Have One Main Point?

515XatoWK1L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

Timothy Keller continues to publish thought-provoking and (mostly) worthwhile books.  While I’ve had my concerns about some of his positions, I can also appreciate some of the good contributions he makes.  This book on preaching covers a lot of familiar ground, but it also makes a few insightful observations that I haven’t encountered elsewhere.  Rather than review the entire book, let me just share one of the points I found to stir up the grey matter.

The first chapter includes a discussion about expository preaching.  Keller notes that oftentimes such preaching is conceived of in such a way that every biblical text must have one main point and that one main point must become the theme of the sermon.  However, “this assumes that every biblical text has only one big idea or main point to it” (42).  This rule, while generally helpful, can be taken too far.  Because, as Keller rightly observes, “In some Bible passages it is not easy to discern one central idea” (43).  He then gives several examples, mostly drawn from biblical narratives.  Here’s one of them:

Then there is the strange account of the the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:11-20) who tried to cast a demon out of a man “in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches.”  In the comical result, the demon talked back through the man to the would-be exorcisers:  “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?” before leaping upon and beating all seven of the sons.  What was Luke trying to get across to us by including this incident in his book of Acts?  I’ve heard a number of great expositions of this passage, and all of them were grounded in the text and not contradictory of one another.  Nevertheless, they were not the same.  Multiple valid inferences can be drawn from such narratives, from which a wise preacher can select one or two to fit the capacities and needs of his listeners.  (43)

I think Keller is correct, I’ve seen it several times in my own sermon preparation over the years, although I would also add this:  what is the Holy Spirit trying to get across to us?  Cannot the Holy Spirit have multiple purposes in a text of Scripture?  Why not?

The book is richly footnoted — nearly 50 pages of footnotes!  Some of the footnotes take things a bit further in terms of discussion.  This is also true with the matter above.  In footnote 16 in chapter 1, Keller points out that this idea of one central proposition in a text (and therefore in a sermon) is drawn from classical rhetoric.  The problem is that the Bible is not, by and large, a work of classical rhetoric.  Thus, “identifying what the theme is can be fairly subjective” writes Keller.  The concept of a big idea can become somewhat forced, although Keller grants again that there are some passages where the concept definitely works.  His summary (summarizing a footnote!):  “We must be careful of a kind of ‘expository legalism’ — in which it is assumed that there can be only one exegetically accurate sermon and sermon theme on any one passage” (250).  In the next footnote, he also adds that this should not be misunderstood as saying that “the biblical text itself has multiple or indeterminate meanings.”  The Bible is not a wax nose which can be turned which ever way you please.

I want to add one other element to this discussion, something which Keller unfortunately doesn’t touch on:  what exactly is a text?  Some of this discussion really depends on how you define a text for preaching.  Consider this comment of Keller:  “…there are places like Proverbs, in which it is notoriously difficult to see unifying themes in the chapters and in which often every verse provides a new ‘big idea.’ ” (250).  But who would argue that a chapter in Proverbs (well, most of the chapters anyway — there are exceptions like chapters 7-9) provide a text for expository preaching?  Having preached on Proverbs a few times, I think most of those verses are self-contained texts for preaching, either individually or in connection with one or more neighbouring verses.  This is all the more true when you consider that chapter divisions were added to the text long after it was originally written.  Many times chapter divisions are helpful in seeing some flow of thought in Scripture, but many other times they are just arbitrary and artificial additions, sometimes more a hindrance than a help.  In other words, the chapters don’t necessarily define a “passage” or “text.”  Because he doesn’t tackle this, there is a lack of clarity in Keller’s discussion on the definition of a “Bible passage” versus “a text.”