I started reading the "Foundational Documents for the Gospel Coalition" and came across this in paragraph 2:
Yet we often see the celebration of our union with Christ replaced by the age-old attractions of power and affluence, or by monastic retreats into ritual, liturgy, and sacrament.
It's amazing to me that someone such as Tim Keller can be so naive about his own tradition (or opposed to it without saying so) that he would oppose "sacrament" to "union with Christ". Baptism, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, "signifies and seals" our "ingrafting into Christ." (cf. WCF 28.1). In fact, to oppose sacrament to the truth of the gospel as though the former is a temptation to be avoided is fundamentally anti-Reformed; it's anabaptist.
The idea that this anti-sacramentalism is the "only hope for the church", as the next couple of paragraphs go on to state, flies in the face of not only the continuance of the ancient practices of the church, but also the power that many in the rising generation are finding in joining themselves to the liturgy, ritual, and sacrament of the church.
All this in the name of generating a "united effort among all peoples"!
I will refrain from extended comment about the ways in which at least one leader of this movement has not exactly modeled a holy rebellion against use of position of power in an attempt to control the future of the church.
Yet one more thing to, indeed, unite the church, as we all respond in unison: "Kurie eleeson," and, "Come quickly, Lord Jesus."
35 comments:
Is it poor form to comment on my own post? As I've reflected on this latest "evangelical" movement, I've realized that there's something deeply "evangelical" at the root of it that I am growing very, very tired of: The attempt to rally the world around the majority of the world (including other Christians) being wrong and oneself being right.
We'll be one by everyone repudiating the riches they are discovering in the traditions of the church (even the tradition of which one of the founders is a part [i.e., Westminster Confessional Presbyterianism])!
Nightmare.
Yeah, i read that paragraph and was a bit puzzled by it; especially since i know that Keller has always placed some practical premium on the Eucharist by giving it a "cycle" in the liturgy at one of Redeemer's Sunday services (at least, i think that is right). I wonder if he wouldn't emphasize the "monastic retreats into", as being the problem, rather than sacrament per se.
Of course I put great value on the sacraments. But these documents were produced by Baptist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalians, and we decided we didn't want our varying views of the sacraments and ecclesiology to divide us. About the statement in question--despite my Reformed view of the sacraments, I believe you can put your heart's trust in sacraments rather than Christ just as you can put your heart's trust in sound doctrine/moral uprightness rather than Christ. There are both high-church and low-church forms of works-righteousness.
-- Tim Keller
Hmm, It basically skips from the fall to the "Plan of God" for salvation with no reference to Israel. A search pulled up only one reference to Israel.
Jim Boice tried to found an organization for the gospel that included Lutherans. But that seems to have dropped off. I doubt lutherans would worry about trusting sacraments so strongly.
Oh, I dunno. Maybe I just have increasingly low expectations, but given the diverse group of people involved, I thought it was a pretty good statement over all (despite various quibbles).
Episcopalians? I've spent some time in the Reformed Episcopal Church, and can't imagine any of their bishops drafting that (at least the quoted part on liturgy and the sacraments). Of course, there are all sorts of Episcopalians, including some low-church ones, though that seems an oxymoron to me.
Why not warn about the age-old attraction of gnosticism...which in its modern form is very anti-liturgical and anti-sacramental?
John
Excellent review of Wright's Romans. Roger du Barry.
I agree with Joel. Pretty good!
Dare I ask this question: Is is possible to worry TOO much about "works-righteousness" mentalities? Obviously we must oppose legalism where we see it. But is it possible that we're looking for this error under every rock when it's really NOT that prevalent? I know we're all supposed to worry about being closet pharisees and what not. But where in the Bible does it really tell me to be worried about that all the time?
Whoops, I meant to sign my name to the post above (8:17am): -Ken Christian (PCA)
Ken: Conceived narrowly, 'works-righteousness' is an opposite error to anti-nomianism. But if conceived more broadly (as do Kierkegaard in Sickness unto Death and Luther in Galatians) confidence in human 'works' is the only alternative to faith-confidence in Christ. In Luther's Larger Catechism he outlines how every sin is founded on idolatry and every form of idolatry is a self-salvation/justification project, a failure to believe the gospel.
- Tim Keller
Mr. Keller,
Thanks so much for your reply (and thank you Daniel for hosting this conversation). Could the broader "works-righteousness" trap you wrote about be labeled as pride?
-Ken Christian
"But if conceived more broadly (as do Kierkegaard in Sickness unto Death and Luther in Galatians) confidence in human 'works' is the only alternative to faith-confidence in Christ."
OK, I had no problem with Tim Keller's participation in the document that started this blog. I wouldn't wish on him or anyone else some of the problems I have seen elsewhere and was glad that he was not likely to be targeted. I resonate with Daniel's concern, but I think we all have callings that cause us to see different issues. I think in general TK's influence has been in many directions and nothing about his involvement in this group means that will not continue.
However, I simply think the above claim, that there are only two options, trust in Christ v. trust in Human works, is untrue. There are three options. Trust in one's human works, trust in Christ's person and work alone, and trust in one's status as elect by God. Paul himself warns the Roman Christians about this (ch 11; in a way, I might add that indicates, though I don't think it proves, that he a similar problem caused the Jews to reject Christ). In Philippians 3 Paul mentions as the abominable alternative to trusting in Christ the trusting in things that had nothing to do with his own human abilites or acheivements (Paul also mentions human works, but his list is not reducible to that).
Beyond this and (I think) plenty more Biblical evidence, history shows us an overwhelming human evil of judging oneself as better than others by virtue of things that are not reducible to human works (i.e. race, economic class within a theory of economic determinism that eliminates pride in moral decisions-making).
Finally, I will add without any argument or evidence my opinion that there are pastoral needs in the PCA and in the wider Evangelical Church that need to be addressed and probably won't be under the exclusive two options given above. In fact, they will be used (contrary to anything Tim Keller or many other would wish) to rationalize sin and unbelief and righteousness and faith.
Submitted with respect and love,
Mark Horne
Correction: "...to rationalize sin and unbelief AS righteousness and faith."
Ken--Yes, 'works' broadly considered means pride, pride in something rather than in Christ. Kiekegaard would define sin and 'works-righteousness' as finding your identity in anything more than God. Racial or cultural pride is a primary form of this self-justification project. So you are right to say that the two options--Christ vs works--could also be called Christ vs pride.
-- Tim Keller
Allow me to offer yet another possibility: Christ vs unbelief.
Turretin, following earlier Reformed scholastics, asks the question whether Adam's sin was unbelief or pride (Institutes 9.6).
Turretin, of course, realizes this is not an either/or and he includes both pride and unbelief in his exposition of Adam's sin, along with ingratitude, profanation of holy things, homicide, and every other sin.
Against the Roman Catholic theologians, however, he maintains that the proper species of Adamic sin is unbelief. Trust in God, after all, is a self-dispossession that casts itself upon God and his grace. Turretin argues that such trust must have already failed through unbelief in order to make room for pride.
And that seems right to me.
Now, of course, every act of unbelief involves a turn towards self and, therefore, trust in something other than God - an idol - whether that is one's own intelligence, status, powers of nature, love, war, government, race, wealth, inheritance, past gifts, or what-have-you. The human heart is an idol-factory as Calvin says.
I guess I have difficulty seeing all of those as species of "works-righteousness" more than "unbelief," despite Luther and Kierkegaard. When I hear "works-righteousness," I hear it in terms of self-regarding accomplishment.
But in some cases, unbelief is premised not upon accomplishment. Rather, it rests upon a false trust in an idol that entails doing nothing but to rely upon something already received with no credit to one's own strivings - though I suppose the manufacture of the idol itself could be construed as a "work."
Still, that seems to stretch language - at least the English semantics - almost to the breaking point.
Thoughts?
I think Christ v. pride does indeed fit more of the evidence that we see in the Bible and in history. While Joel has issued in one warning, let me offer my own.
"Human works" doesn't seem to me like another name for "pride." Rather, it seems like an evasion of some instances of self-damning pride. In fact, it could actually be a rationalization for pride.
So, my advice, FWIW, is to stick with "pride"--though, as a I said, Joel's point about Turrettin and unbelief has some merit.
Mark Horne
http://hornes.org/mark/
Luther would not see a great difference between idolatry, pride, unbelief, and self-salvation. And I think it's a quibble, honestly, to insist that pride in your race is all that spiritually different than pride in your religious/moral good works. Racists 'take credit' for their race as much as religious people do for their efforts. I'm speaking out of my experience as a pastor as much as out of my theology. I've found that race-righteousness and religious works-righteousness erode under the same basic kind of gospel counseling and communication.
Tim Keller
Thanks to everyone for participating in this lively discussion--and it's even about a real topic (as opposed to my ear-piercing post from late last week, for example)!
I have come to be deeply suspicious of any of the kinds of reductionism that have been on offer in this discussion: works-righteousness; pride; race-righteousness. Sometimes such categories can be helpful for getting at why we're doing things that we can't otherwise pin down (hence the pastoral effectiveness of Sonship & CCEF counseling stuff).
But if a person is committed to, for example, preaching the text in front of him or her, these things will be rare topics of exhortation.
Perhaps part of my frustration with separating "union with Christ" from the sacraments as this document does is that the sacraments are about more than simply forgiveness of sins, they are about new creation. Eating the body of Jesus reminds me that God delights to bring life out of death. This is not only about my heart, it's also about my body, it's also about society, it's also about broken relationships.
I know, there is a big "kingdom" element to the document--which I'm happy to see. But the fact that we need a new reign tells us that "gospel" is bigger than guilt. All of this quibbling about whose reading of Scripture makes the best reduction sauce to pour over the guilt that people don't know they're supposed to be feeling seems like so much ado about nothing.
We only need such a reductionistic diagnosis if we have a reductionistic prescription. Because the gospel is broader, I share MH's concern that the diagnoses are broader as well.
Well, I don't think it is a quibble if the word that is condemned is not precisely "pride" but "arrogance." Romans 11 again. It is not a quibble if we have consistently blinded ourselves to a sin that we commit and lead others to commit in the name of the Gospel.
(This is a global concern I have about current Reformedom, BTW, not something I think is attached at all to Dr. Keller's ministry.)
But to sustain this I'm going to need to move beyond my memory of the English Bible. More later, unless some other Greek scholar wants to chime in.
I've found this interesting too, Daniel, but as indicated I think it will take more than one can work in to these short posts. You seem (to me) to have reduced what I'm saying about self-salvation and self-justification just to personal 'guilt'. I also was talking not just about my soul but about society. There are corporate idols and baseline cultural narratives of self-salvation as well as personal ones. I'm sorry our documents were so frustrating to you, but I'm glad you've given me some insight as to why. It's important to listen to each other. Thanks.
Tim Keller
Pastor Keller,
I think it is great that you are helping to create a Gospel coalition that reaches across denominational boundaries. Would you consider signing something like "Presbyterians & Presbyterians Together" to close heal the rifts within your own tradition?
www.presbyterianstogether.org
In Christ,
Brett Bonecutter
And, to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that Turretin's approach is the only way to talk.
I'm just not convinced that latching onto a single vocabulary (e.g., works-righteousness, guilt, pride, self-justification, unbelief, etc.), is particularly helpful. Turretin, along with other comments, helps open up the landscape.
What we need to do is to find ways to speak the Gospel into a variety of situations so that it can be heard. I suspect we probably all agree on that, even if we don't all agree on what that will always sound like.
I guess I didn't have the same frustrations as Daniel, except insofar as liturgy and sacraments were singled out for criticism, given all the wide possibilities.
My own frustrations had to do with the epistemology stuff, in part because I didn't know what the heck most of it meant. :-)
But, ah well. That's how these documents go. On the whole, I thought it was good and solid.
Daniel, it seems that your base question is "how could anyone -- especially someone as thoughtful as Keller -- knowingly put a wedge [and the tone of the statement you quoted clearly has antagonistic overtones] between union with Christ and the sign/seal of that union in the sacraments?" Tim's response of "we did it to appeal to a braod base" falls short to me because it is introducing a fatal flaw into the attempt at 'unity.' I too am very concerned about how to build Christian unity, but if the sacraments (reminder that they are commands issued by Christ to keep) are assigned a secondary (at best) place in the Christian's life, then we are moving into a realm that is revisionistic of the church's mission as historically understood IMHO :)
I resurrected my blog and put a few thoughts there. In short, I really like and appreciate the intentions behind this document. But I fear without some significant reformulation, I doubt it can work to either achieve greater ecclesiastical unity or accomplish its missional goals.
adfontes.wordpress.com
Joel,
"epistemology stuff" do you mind giving some examples and explaining what you mean by this?
thanks,
Troy Greene
Under Section 3, Creation of Humanity:
"The distinctive leadership role within the church given to qualified men is grounded in creation, fall, and redemption and must not be sidelined by appeals to cultural developments."
So, leaving aside the fact that this ignores (or doesn't care to read?) a massive corpus of work that is solidly evangelical, and doesn't make any appeal to "cultural developments" and draws a different conclusion entirely about women in ministry... does this mean Roger Nicole, or Cornelius Plantinga, or F.F. Bruce (if he were alive) for instance, are not evangelicals and could not be part of this "gospel coalition?"
That kind of thing was one of my gripes too. It chops out large strata of people and is much more narrow than it might look. Most of my church and all of my friends are not evangelicals according to this document for one reason or another (and I'm at a Redeemer plant). Which brings me back to questions like, "So why not use the Nicene Creed?" for a group called "The Gospel" Coalition.
I could imagine that authors of the document might find that bit nit picky, but I think it's of utmost importance to a group with a title like that, and that's essentially trying to pragmatically redefine ecclesiastical boundaries to (a) promote unity and (b) promote a common cause.
I could
FYI, that "I could" is a type (don't know how it got there).
JD
adfontes.wordpress.com
>>"So why not use the Nicene Creed?" for a group called "The Gospel" Coalition. <<
Because it's not a "gospel coalition", it's a "gospel as we understand it according to Luther only and by the way complimentarian and the NPP is undermining evangelicalism as we prefer it coalition"
It is driven by fear: we are losing evangelicalism as we prefer it, and must seek to save it, according to our understanding of it.
Any resemblance of this coalition and actual ecumenicism is sheerly coincidental.
"ecumenism" sorry about that...i don't think ecumenicism is a word!
I think you are spot on -- "...it's a "gospel as we understand it according to Luther...complimentarian and the NPP is undermining evangelicalism as we prefer it coalition"
The group seems to throw too many "non-negotiables" into the center of their understanding of the gospel -- and so draws the circle of evangelicalism too small. In the end the same old people may end up simply talking to themselves.
Two comments:
First, the document did not pit union with Christ against the sacraments per se, but rather against "monastic retreats into ritual, liturgy, and sacrament."
What the document DOES say about the sacraments:
"We believe that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordained by the Lord Jesus himself. The former is connected with entrance into the new covenant community, the latter with ongoing covenant renewal. Together they are simultaneously God’s pledge to us, divinely ordained means of grace, our public vows of submission to the once crucified and now resurrected Christ, and anticipations of his return and of the consummation of all things."
Second,
regarding: "It is driven by fear: we are losing evangelicalism as we prefer it, and must seek to save it, according to our understanding of it."
Who knows the thoughts and motives of the heart but the Lord?
I wonder at the absence of women from this "Gospel" Coalition--after all weren't women the first ones to proclaim the "Good News" of Jesus' resurrection? Women are not missing from Paul's Gospel Coalition in Romans 16. The stated desire for diversity in the GC seems rather lopsided. The council is predominantly white males with a few African-American and Asian men. Are there no qualified women? How does this "coalition" picture the richness of the Gospel when it leaves out over half of the church? What message is this sending to non-believers when they look at this all-male "coalition"?
Post a Comment