The premise of the book Center Church is that the church should be balanced. Keller has three areas he addresses where the church should strive to find a balance, which form the structure of the entire book: the Gospel, The City and Movements. The three subjects are placed on axes with two extremes on each side that need to be avoided and then he challenges us to find the church somewhere near the center where there is balance. Thus a "centered church."
The balance on the three axes, and in
fact the visual summary of the book, are as follows:
Legalism/
Relativsim/
religion-------------Gospel---------------irreligion
Underadapted/
Overadapted/
only
challenge-----------City------------only appreciate
Structured
organization/
Fluid organism/
tradition
& authority---------Movement---------cooperation & unity
What I found most troubling about Center Church by Keller is his first
category–his axis on the gospel. Who in their right mind would challenge Keller
theologically on the subject of the Gospel? Well, in this case I will at least
make an observation.
Frankly, I have a problem with
positioning the gospel as a balance between religious “legalism” and
“relativistic irreligion.” The gospel does not belong in such a place as though
it is finding the balance between enough bass and treble with your spiritual
equalizer.
Yes, the gospel should be at the center
of all we think and do, and Keller is right on target in what he says about
this. I whole heartedly agree with that premise, but the Gospel is not a balance
between legalism and licentiousness; in fact the Gospel is an extreme in and of
itself. You cannot get more extreme than the substitutionary atonement found delivered
in Jesus’ sacrifice. Salvation by grace through faith is not a balanced
compromise in any sense of the word. It is called “the stumbling block of the
cross” for a reason and is not a balanced approach between self-righteous works
and reckless abandonment to sin. The Gospel is not partly legalism and partly
licentiousness. It is none of the above, it contains none of the above, and you
cannot find the Gospel by balancing the two. The Gospel is the defeat of sin,
whether that sin is legalism or lawlessness.
Dr. Keller knows this. In fact he states as much
in a footnote where he says, “putting the gospel between these two extremes is
simply a visual shorthand.” Keller says, “The gospel is neither
religion nor irreligion, but something else entirely—a third way of relating to
God through grace. Because of this, we minister in a uniquely balanced way that
avoids the errors of either extreme and faithfully communicates the sharpness
of the gospel.”
So I know he understands this, why then would
he even posture the gospel on such an axis? Personally, I am a visual learner
and that is why this jumped out at me so much. If one reads the book and pays
no attention to the diagrams I do not think there would be as much problem. Perhaps
that explains why there seems to be nearly 100% positive reviews of the book.
I contend, however, that this “visual
shorthand” gives the reader polluted non-verbal signals that can be confusing and can also
lead to some very unhealthy reactions. While much of what is said in the book
is fantastic, one cannot escape the fact that the entire design of Center Church is built around the premise
that we are to find a balance between the extremes on the axes that are
presented. This is not a minor mistake; it is the predominant theme of the book,
both its title and structure are built entirely on this very premise. For that
reason I am very uncomfortable with this “visual shorthand”.
There is much value in the book and I
do recommend it. If you are a missionary this book can help you to work through
how to redeem the image of God in a culture while also remaining
countercultural with the life-transforming Gospel. If you are a pastor but not
a missionary you should read this book and start being a pastor and a
missionary. Personally, I found the center section of Center Church to be most helpful.
It is just unfortunate that the book is
organized with a “visual shorthand” that places the Gospel precariously between
two doctrinal heresies. There is none better than Keller at communicating to a highly
educated, secular audience the goodness of the Gospel, and he will help you
think this through in Center Church.
I just wish he didn’t put the gospel between legalism and relativism. The
Gospel should be presented in many more places in this world, but not there.
16 comments:
Balanced sounds like lukewarm.
It may sound "lukewarm" to you, but I assure you, Dr Keller is not, nor is he promoting such. That, is exactly why I suggest that the way he postures the gospel in such a way runs the risk of misunderstanding!
I understand the point you make as far as it is not a balance between the two but yet the two are also two misinterpretations that are opposite from each other that I believe Keller is communicatin. Perhaps concentrice circles or something similar would be a better visual.
Yes, I try to say that I know Keller doesn't view the gospel this way, I'm simply questioning communicating it this way. I would likely see concentric circles just as bad if it implies in anyway that one leads to the other.
Neil!
Great work! I've never seen such a clean way to disagree with someone s statements while still honoring them.
Thnx. I am sincere in my respect for Keller. He is a great thinker and statesman for the church.
Hi Neil --
Thanks for your review and I am grateful for critiques by people I respect!
You should be sure to see the footnote no 11 (at the end of the introduction--p.26) where I say that the gospel is not a balance between two opposites as in the other two axes-balances. It is a "visual shorthand".
Tim Keller
Tim,
Thanks for popping in. And thanks for your influence.
I did read the footnote and mention it above. I know you don't think the gospel is a balance between the extremes. I say as much in the review.
Neil
I appreciate the way you introduced the topic and found Dr. Keller's response to your critique helpful. You bring out an interesting point Neil. I am curious to see if you believe the continuum between the two extremes, religious “legalism” and “relativistic irreligion", might be fairly represented with "truth" at one end and "grace" at the other - as it relates to the gospel?
Hey Gary! Actually, before I edited down the critique (yeah can you imagine the length?), I mentioned that as a possibility and how Jesus was full of grace and full of truth...but NOT half grace and the other half truth. So even such a scales still incomplete and a msrepresentation.
I'm familiar with Nebel's scale for grace-givers and truth-tellers, Gary, but when we speak if the Gispel itself it cannot be a compromise of the two. It is all grace and all truth, and doesn't consist of just some truth and some grace.
Could be Gary. Actually I just think the whole model of a continuum doesn't do the gospel justice, which was really my issue with Tim's "visual shorthand". There is no chance of almost being the gospel, or being mostly the gospel. I know Tim agrees, I just think this is the problem w/ putting the Gispel in such an axis. I have one more post for the review which will be posted tomorrow morning where I actually specify where I disagree theologically with Tim and not just take issue with semantics (1st two posts). I've been in Asia and w/out much break this past week so my final critique is coming late.
I agree Neil. Makes me wonder if Grace and Truth are at the same end of the continuum and Secularism at the other end. Curious to read your thoughts.
For a fixed visual shorthand, what would you think of a triangle with Gospel on the top vertex, and irreligion, and religion on the bottom vertexes. Showing that both are missing the gospel on opposite sides but the way towards the gospel is repenting from both and moving towards the gospel not balancing irreligion or religion?
Also I get why you say the gospel is not a balance but I've read Keller's paper on the centrality of the gospel and he shows some issues to be a balance for example religious people would tend to see sex as gross and dirty, irreligious people would tend to see sex as a god and the gospel would propel us to see it as a gift. Would it be appropriate to look at that issue as a balance, or would you disagree with looking at issues that way as well?
Hi Neil,
I am new to your blog bit your post here was as music to my ears!
I am sick, SICK of Sunday emphasizing, pastor centric (as opposed to Christ centered and expressed through the Body), pastor personality churches. So much so that I have no choice but to try and start meeting at a local McDonalds with other, non-aligned believers in the hope that the Lord will mold us into the kind if fellowship He meant for us to have.
Thanks again for posting.
Carlos
PS. This blog has a severe problem in allowing posts through an iPhone 3GS. Won't let me sign in using Wordpress and stops letting me enter characters. Let me know if you want help ironing those problems out - I'd be happy to help.
Post a Comment