Comments on: Three Perspectives within Evangelicalism

By: Kevin Ring

Kevin Ring — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:02:20 +0000

Lazarus would be the King of the group, by default.

By: Kevin Ring

Kevin Ring — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:53:12 +0000

I don’t see where in Tim Keller’s post he says “gospel clarity is non-essential to a church.”

Rick Phillips interprets Keller’s post in that way; but we need to make sure we’re not putting words in Keller’s mouth.

By: Charles Tysoe

Charles Tysoe — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:20:52 +0000

The Keller discourse is a mouthful of casuistry, fine-sounding theological hokum. Willow Creek is not a church; the willow creek guy is many things, but not a pastor. Poor Mr. Keller writes about the production as though perhaps the Queen of Sheba might have confided to her diary upon returning from the Court of Solomon.

By: Charles Tysoe

Charles Tysoe — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:11:14 +0000

re: Moses, Elijah getting “bent out of shape” when their preaching “didn’t get results” so that God “moved on from them”

1) There is no prophet of God whose preaching was or is “without results”.

2) “Bent out of shape”. Aren’t we the well adjusted modern prophets. No getting “bent out of shape” for us.

3) Elijah’s words had no effect on the course of affairs in his times? There is no reasonable basis for such a sweeping statement

4) The words of these two men, in addition to the effect they had in their own times, are recorded in the canonical text of the canonical, infallible and eternal word of God, which has been the instrument of the salvation of “men from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

They were disciplined; God disciplines those that belong to him. But in what way did he “move on” from them? He refers over and over again to sending his word by prophets in the past, reminding the people of their warnings; but they “would not listen”.

5) With whom did Peter, John, and James meet on the Mountain of Transfiguration, when they were with Jesus?

Moved on. Really?

By: David Zook

David Zook — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:59:32 +0000

This analogy is very helpful. It reminds me how imperfect we are as humans and how imperfect the church is. We all seem to emphasize one thing over another … at least that is the perception. I’m ready to go for the whole enchilada. Why can’t we take the best from these movements and mold them into one?

Corporations do this sort of thing and when they do it well they leave their competitors in the dust and are studied in MBA programs for years. They transform the way business is done.

What if that was the case for the church? How would the perception of the church change in the eyes of her city, her skeptics, and her those who are luke warm about her?

How would this transform the city?

By: miburo

miburo — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:20:51 +0000

I appreciate Phillip’s charity towards Keller. However, after attending at Keller’s church for several months, I can say that Keller is sometimes vague and confusing in his speech as when he says something like this: “gospel clarity is non-essential to a church.”

I had to decide whether or not to continue attending Keller’s church because, as much as I feel that Keller brings old truths through new sayings or ideas, his messages began to be a mix bag in regards to orthodoxy.

I do not deny Keller’s love for the city. I can attest to that. But as much as Keller loves the city, I worried that the city and it’s thoughts on God, life, etc. were seeping into and molding Keller’s thinking.

By: Nathan Wall

Nathan Wall — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:33:10 +0000

Interesting post. There is a thoughtful response from Rick Phillips at the Reformation21 blog. I would really be interested in seeing a Keller response to Phillips, but I doubt that will happen. :(

By: Donovan

Donovan — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:12:00 +0000

Very insightful!

By: A Dangerous Idea » Emergent, Reformed, Evangelical - basic underpinnings of difference

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:09:51 +0000

[...] Via JT [...]

By: dac

dac — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:09:23 +0000

It’s not that the reformed focus too much on the Word, it is that they place the bible in a higher position than what the bible teaches, evidenced in part by this ridiculous fascination with why your translation is evil (and mine is right), cumulating in the insane KJO factionalism.

By: iamjonnyking.com » Blog Archive » If Martyn Lloyd-Jones is “The Doctor”… Then, Tim Keller is “The Cardiologist”

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:20:11 +0000

[...] thanks to Justin Taylor, whose “super-duper” blog, Between Two Worlds, which is settling into its new “digs” at… The Gospel Coalition, informs us, as [...]

By: amanda!

amanda! — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:37:34 +0000

This is very interesting. I’ve read about the prophet/priest/king thing, and have seen very few churches do it well. I think it is difficult to be in on the whole Reformed thing (which I am) and be patient for results. To sit in church week after week and to go home and try to live it out day after day only to see other churches people act like the Word doesn’t matter as much as serving lemon squares at mixers does, well, it kind of reminds me of the whole Mary/Martha debacle from Luke. Maybe the Emergents are like Martha, and the Reformed are like Mary? That leaves the King thing open though and I think I’ve typed myself into a mental box.

By: pduggie

pduggie — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:28:41 +0000

And the good king gets rid of the false prophets. The good prophet (Elisha) serves the poor when the kings are bad. And the good priest (even notice they’re aren’t many in the bible?) defends the good kings against the bad kings (Abiathar, Jehoiada)

Applying that to Willow Creek/Reformed/Emergent is left as an exercise for the reader.

As a reformed person, I’ll add that good prophets (Moses, Elijah) have the problem of getting all bent out of shape when their preaching doesn’t get results. Then God moves on from them.

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:19:52 +0000

Veerryyy thought-provoking.

I have to admit that I’ve been hard on Willow in the past (and I say that as someone who is also very grateful to the WCA for giving me an internship back in the day). Keller is right, though – they’ve also got a lot of strengths to admire as well.

Extending Keller’s analogy is helpful when we reflect that just as there were good kings, true prophets, and faithful priests, there were also bad kings, false prophets, and corrupt priests. We must all be careful not to fall into the same errors…