I greatly respect Tim Keller and always
have. He is incredibly intelligent. He is always kind and gentle, but never
compromising on what is true and right. I have always felt a kinship with him
because he is a missionary to the city with a passion for fresh expressions of
the church being planted in all kinds of places and means. Keller is not just a
thinker, but also a practitioner. I have learned much from him and have come to
value the Gospel more than ever because of his influence (if that is even
possible).
Center
Church is a large tome
designed more like an expensive textbook. But do not be discouraged from
reading it; it is some of the best material available to help a pastor to think
like a missionary regarding church, culture and the gospel. I highly recommend
it for that reason. I read it on Kindle which presents a problem for the nice
layout you find in a bound copy, but the content is just as good even if the
pages are not as pretty.
I do not often critique books and delayed
doing so in this case. After seeing so many embrace this book unquestioned in
its entirety, I felt compelled to at least raise a couple questions myself. The
last thing I want is for this to turn out to be a Keller vs Cole debate. I have
always seen myself as standing behind Dr. Keller in his corner. I still do. This
critique is merely a supportive friend asking a couple questions; and I do
fully offer these questions in respect and honor. I would discourage anyone making
it about the two of us.
In this review (broken into three parts),
I will briefly explain the premise of the book, discuss some distinctions of
the language that raises questions for me and then raise a couple other important
issues that I have with the content of the book (in the second and third posts).
At first I want to say that overall the content was terrific and I would not
discourage anyone from reading the book.
The premise of the Center Church is that the church should be balanced. Who can
argue with that? Keller has three areas he addresses where the church should
strive to find a balance: the Gospel, The City and Movements. These three areas
are almost a comprehensive summary of his philosophy of ministry at Redeemer Presbyterian
Church. 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
In some of the categories I would
personally change the language. Keller–who is very precise and masterful in his
use of language–makes choices that are strange to me. Some I can explain even
if I would say it differently, but other choices I cannot explain or understand
and will mention a bit later.
I would use the term "Culture"
rather than "City" for the second category (which Keller also suggests
as a possible option). This would only serve to widen the application of the
concepts found in what I believe to be the best part of the book. I have always
appreciated and shared Keller's commitment to urban mission, so I can live with
the language of “city” and he does devote some content to urbanization and the
complexities and opportunities in the city.
A true missionary is always trying to
find a balance between irrelevance and syncretism with a culture, and Keller
actually does a fine job on this subject and also of elaborating the variety of
views concerning contextualization. It is my view that Christian leaders today
must all see themselves as foreign ambassadors and view their world through the
lens of a cross cultural missionary. Keller does that better than just about
anyone in the US and all leaders would be wise to learn from his example and
teaching on this. I will recommend this book to any who desire to work as a
missionary. He explains contextualization fully and in language that all can
understand.
It was his third category (his axis
regarding movement) that first tripped me up. Of course this subject is my own
passion, which explains why I turned so quickly to that part of the book. What first
caught my attention were the extremes that he is espousing that we should avoid.
We find on one side structured organization, tradition and authority. Another term he
uses throughout the book describing this extreme is institutionalism. I agree
this is to be avoided. On the other side of the axis the extreme to be avoided
is described as fluid
organism/cooperation and unity.
When I first read that description of an
out of balance extreme I felt the air sucked from my lungs and heat rising on
the back of my neck. I asked myself: Why on earth is “fluid organism,
cooperation and unity” considered a bad thing that is to be avoided much like abandonment
to sin and syncretism (the other right hand extremes from the three sections)?
This caused me to go back and read that entire section more thoroughly assuming
he would explain this. After reading the section (twice now) I was still left
wondering how Keller could say that we need to avoid becoming a fluid organism
as well as cooperation and unity.
To be fair, he did mention that in this
particular axis we should find ourselves more toward the organic side than the
organizational side. I was left wondering, however, how far to the right should
we go? How much unity is too much? He doesn't say. What he does say is
that, “ministry that is out toward the end of any of the spectrums or axes will
drain a ministry of life-changing power with the people in and around it.” So
if I am to understand this correctly, Keller feels that if we are too close to
fluid structure, unity and cooperation we will lose life-changing power. So
less unity and less cooperation combined with more static structure will result
in life-changing power? Really? So then, are we to assume that too much unity
and cooperation is a dangerous thing?
We can certainly sacrifice truth in our
pursuit of cooperation and end up compromising the Gospel. That should be
avoided, but I think Keller covers that fully in the first and second sections
of the book. I imagine it is an attempt to defend the idea that some unbending organizational
structure is necessary to be the church and that we can go too far in
eliminating such a structure. Some of the more reformed leaders of the church (and
Keller would be among them) have a need to defend the dogma of a clergy that
have received a special calling to preach, which is so central to their
ecclesia. Keller does basically say as much defending the need for what he
terms “top leaders”. Perhaps he is resistant to fluid organism, cooperation and
unity in a movement as an attempt to maintain a static structure with the
church’s top tier leadership holding some measure of control.
I understand that we can become so fluid
and organic that all organizational distinction, such as a denomination or
church brand, can lose meaning. I would argue that this does not sap life but
that the preservation of the institution can and does, but we are likely to
differ some on that. I have to assume that this lack of organizational definition
and structure is what Keller is struggling with, but I can only guess, as this
is not clearly explained. He would be uncomfortable with my own non-hierarchical
view of ecclesia and probably sees it as an extreme to be avoided.
It just strikes me, then, that he didn’t
use words such as “chaotic” “non-hierarchical” or “anarchistic” to describe the
extreme rather than the positive language of “fluid organism, cooperation and
unity.” I am still open to hearing more about this particular choice of words. Do
we actually want to discourage cooperation and unity in a citywide church
expression?
I happen to know that Keller and Redeemer
Pres are very cooperative and promote
unity in NYC. In fact I am proud of them for their kingdom values and the example
they set for so many in the way they embrace differing expressions of the
church there. Some of our own organic church planters in the five boroughs of
NYC find warm acceptance and supportive encouragement from Redeemer Pres, and
for that I have always been grateful. Even in this section of the book he emphatically
encourages more unity and cooperation in order to reach a city. All the more
reason for scratching my head on the language he uses here to describe an
extreme we must avoid.
6 comments:
Hey Neil, as I read through your post I was thinking (as you point out near the end) that the antithesis of highly structured would be "chaos," and that organic would be the balanced, more effective, "centered" approach. Then again, I agree with your views of the church!
On the topic I have appreciated the metaphor used in The Trellis and the Vine, that a massive trellis will overpower and kill the vine, while a flimsy, weak trellis will just collapse and likewise cause its demise. What is needed is just enough structure to support the life of the vine. The analogy, of course, agrees with yours of the endoskeleton. (Which, by the way, I just discussed with one of our resident apprentices this week as we go through Organic Church.)
Peace, brother, thanks for continuing to serve the King!
Great comment Chris...and thanks for using OC!
In regards to the organic and structured comments. Along the same lines check out the Nicholas Taleb thoughts on antifragility. It addresses systems that are fragile versus not. And while the reading is deep helps us think in new ways about what is really fragile vs. what is flexible.
But save that reading for when you have time to really think!
Thanks Dave, I'll look for it. Hope u r well friend. Thnx stopping by the blog!
Hi Neil
I read your post and for the most part I agree with your thoughts. But, this said I'm not sure organic/liquid is some where in the middle. It all rests on the viewer.
I'm based in Denmark, and NO KIDDING - here organic is viewed as the uttermost-counter part to tradition.
Organic is a tough sell!
The ironic part is that I'm a pastor in a pentecostal movement in which we have never had any sort of system/organization/leadership but only a network and every pastor is sort of captain on his own ship...
Let this be said though. You had me at OC and I believe it is an important issue you are pressing in this post. I think I see this issue from almost the same angle as you ...
I'm still selling the organic-drug here in my neighborhood and LTG has caught on and this fall we'll start our first organic-church/missional-community. Thanks for being a great inspiration!
Blessings from Denmark.
- Michael
Michael, we've been praying for Denmark. I hope to visit sometime next year.
Post a Comment