We are coming up to the first anniversary of Tim Keller’s death and so this is perhaps a good opportunity to reflect on his life and contribution to the work of the Gospel. Keller planted a thriving church in New York before going on to develop a wider international speaking and writing ministry. I’m sure that most readers here will be familiar with his story but if not I’d recommend Colin Hansen’s biography.
Hansen did most of his work on the biography at the point when we knew that Keller was seriously ill with pancreatic cancer and so was unlikely to have long to live. It was published shortly after his death, so perhaps unsurprisingly, it is essentially uncritical, highlighting the positives. I have no complaints about that but I doubt that Keller himself would want us to then slip into hagiography, he would have been the first to recognise his own faults and limitations. As was noted by Sam Allbery at his memorial service, Keller would have been pointing us to the true and better one.
Keller’s legacy may be summed up under four categories.
- A local church: Redeemer Church, New York. First and foremost in ministry terms, Keller was a planter and pastor who left behind a fruitful and thriving church in a city famed for its religious scepticism.
- International church planting: Keller sought to help others benefit from the experience of Redeemer as well as resources that he enabled to be shared through the City to City movement. Here in Birmingham, we have benefited from partnership with City to City.
- Evangelical unity. Keller was a key player in the founding of The Gospel Coalition which became a focal point for reformed evangelical unity in the US and a model followed around the world whether other evangelical groups have opted to use the TGC name or not. TGC is not without its critics and I have highlighted concerns and challenged things that I think they have got wrong. Recently I questioned whether or not a TGC UK was necessary. However, without downplaying limitations and faults, I think that we can rightly appreciate the good that has come through TGC. Indeed, those of us who are concerned for reformed evangelical unity should be willing TGC to succeed not to fail.
- Christian thinking and practice. Here we are talking about Keller’s contribution both through writing and speaking to apologetics, pastoral theology and homiletics (preaching).
It is in the fourth area where I think that we should focus in terms of recognising the limitatinos of Keller’s ministry. This is partly because I think that it is here that there are things we might want to question as well as commend but also because if there were weaknesses in other aspects of his ministry and so in his legacy, then we are likely to find them here.
First of all, though it is important to recognise the strengths. First, in his thinking and writing, as in all else, Keller kept his focus on what mattered. His concern was the growth and spread of the Gospel, leading to mature disciples and healthy churches. This meant that Keller did not go seeking controversy. It’s not that he didn’t have strong convictions or that he was unwilling ever to disagree but that he made sure that what mattered stayed central and sought to avoid distraction. Of course, the result was that he would often be attacked from opposite extremes. When that happens you tend to think that a person cannot be all bad!
Secondly, Keller modelled a winsome approach to apologetics. What he in effect did was to take a particular form of apologetics, what we might refer to as presuppositional apologetics and the use of subversive fulfilment and popularised it. Regular readers will realise that I see this as a good thing. I consider this the most helpful approach to apologetics but what Keller did was take this approach out of the academy and the hands of academics and into the pulpit and so into the hands of pastors, preachers, evangelists and indeed all church members.
Now for the critique. First, whilst Keller’s desire to avoid distraction is admirable, I’m not sure that how he sought to achieve this was always so helpful. His book “Center Church” sums tup the problem. In fact, it is my least favourite of all of his books. It seems that in that book he is consistently attempting to find a central, moderating position between extremes. The problem with this approach is that the seemingly central, moderating position isn’t always the correct one.
Secondly, there has been a tendency in conservative evangelical preaching to pepper talks and articles with lots of quotes from the great and the good. The aim s to demonstrate support and reasoning for an argument. However, I’m not convinced that this is helpful in most cases. In fact, it can give the appearance of intellectualism which both puts off the non-academic whilst failing to go deep. I wish that preachers would drop the habit! I don’t think that it has been helped by people attempting to mimic Keller and indeed has been exacerbated as he has become one of the quotable notables. So, I would encourage preachers not to mimic Keller.
Finally, one crucial part o Keller’s legacy must surely be the grace he showed in facing suffering and terminal illness. In a world where people are increasingly seeking “the good death” or euthanasia, then surely the best rebuttal to arguments for assisted dying is the example of men and women who have shown us how to die well. Pastorally too, Christians need good examples of how to finish well.
Faithroots 