This page contains comments that have been posted by Tim Keller in the blogosphere. It has been confirmed through first-hand and second-hand sources that Tim Keller does read blogs and comments on some of them.
...there was a move back into the cities by young people from the Midwest and the South. But in NYC this change did not happen until the mid-90s, about 1995. Before that, the place was far too dangerous (the crime rate was horrendous) and expensive. When we moved there in the late 80s 70% of New Yorkers in surveys said they would leave if they could. Then there was a recession in 1990-91. So Redeemer started and grew in NYC several years before those demographic changes kicked in.
...Friends and Seinfeld did not ‘highlight’ the migration to NYC but almost started it. In 1994 hardly anyone knew of big apartments filled with nice, wholesome, looking middle-class white people, as Friends depicted it. When it came on the air, the people and newspapers laughed at it. It was considered a middle-America fantasy of what NYC life was like. It was a much more crime-ridden and far edgier reality. That was then. Now Times Square looks a lot like Disney world, and Friends came true. But that might be passing away too. Hard to say. At any rate, I don’t think I ’shot your theory’. I do think that a lot of the newer urban churches, including mine (over the last ten years, anyway) have grown in the traditional way that mega churches have grown in the rest of the country. And I also think you are right that this will be or is coming to an end. I only wanted to note that Redeemer originated before the Disney-fication of U.S. center cities occurred. As you know, I think that the neo-Anabaptist missionals are a bit too rigid in what they are putting forth for the future, but its emphasis on process over program, ecclesial liturgy over experientialism, deep community, concern for the poor and justice, and contextualization–are all quite right. and traditional mega churches don’t see this.
...I admit that in Reformed circles preaching is often seen not only as a panacea but even, in some ways, as an idol. (That would be an interesting essay!) But with all due respect, I’d like to suggest that many in the incarnational/missional camp are over-reacting to this. Paul did a lot of preaching–and that wasn’t in a Christendom setting. Living the gospel out isn’t enough, because if you don’t explain with words why you are living the way you are, no one will understand it. And as soon as you explain it, you are preaching. If you look at the ‘popular’ preachers such as Piper or Driscoll or Lloyd-Jones you may be distracted by the impossible-to-replicate features (I’ll call them icing) that attract a lot of people to hear them. They may be unusually smart or well-read, may have an indefinable charisma, may be extraordinarily bold in a way that others can’t pull off with integrity, etc, etc. But I’d submit that those things are not the core of what their preaching does that changes lives and builds a community. Those core things are a deep grasp of Scripture, wisdom (knowledge of the heart and the ‘times and seasons’) and never missing the forest (the gospel) for the trees (all the Biblical doctrines and ethics.) Those core things are things any minister can do, I think, and if they do they will see lives changed and communities formed. The ‘icing’ features are either there or they aren’t. There’s nothing you can do about them. If they are there, you may draw a crowd, with all the particular problems which that brings. (March 27th, 2009)
I don’t think you can say that the ‘attractional church’ is more Reformed and modern while the ‘incarnational model’ is more Anabaptist/Roman Catholic and adapted for post-modernity. Avery Cardinal Dulles’ great book ‘Models of the Church’ recognizes at least five models of church, each one grounded in Scripture and tradition, each one emphasizing one part of what the church is, each one existing within Catholic ecclesiology, and each one being appropriate for certain situations but not others. What people are calling ‘attractional’ bridges what Dulles calls ‘herald’ and ‘institutional’ while the ‘incarnational’ bridges what Dulles calls ‘fellowship’ and ’servant.’ Dulles makes a strong case that each of these models each have strengths and weaknesses, but each one is valid, and each needs to be open to learning from the others in order to minimize its own shortfalls.
When you look at Dulles’ models, there’s a temptation to identify these with traditions. It is true that Catholics tend to stress the sacraments, Reformed churches the Word, and Anabaptists tend to stress community–but long ago the wisest theologians (Ed Clowney in the Reformed tradition, Dulles in the Roman Catholic) recognized that anyone’s Biblical doctrine of the church has to include all of these. Ed Clowney taught that the church was a) the people of God, b) the mystical Body of Christ, and c) the fellowship of the Spirit. Different church traditions have, indeed, tended to emphasize one or the other of these, but ultimately they are all true. But this then means that Biblical ecclesiology is so incredibly rich that no one congregation can really put equal emphasis on everything. Different leader gift-mixes and different cultural contexts will result in church models that emphasize some aspects of the church over others. That is fine. We need all kinds of churches for all kinds of cultures and places. What I am wary of is lifting up just one of the models as ‘the wave of the future’ as some in the missional church movement seem to be doing. ...(December 8th, 2008)
I pastored a small church in a small town for 10 years, a church in which everyone knew one another, lived within a few miles of each other, never moved out of the area. We ate together, spent lots of time in each others’ homes, and were deeply involved in the life of the community around the church. All the ministries were quite ‘organic’–there were few programs. Outreach, pastoral care, community service–all happened quite naturally through relationships. I’ve also pastored a very large church in Manhattan for 20 years, in which there is tremendous mobility, where people learn, are cared for, and minister mainly through large-scale programs. My conclusion is that –in the final analysis–neither approach to church is better at growing spiritual fruit, reaching non-believers, caring for people, and producing Christ-shaped lives. I said ‘in the final analysis’ because each approach to church–the smaller, organic, simple, incarnational church, and the larger, organizational, complex, attractional church–has vastly different strengths and weaknesses, limitations and capabilities. The two constants to effectiveness are: a) getting the gospel right (not moralistic or antinomian, not individualistic or collectivistic) and b) contextualizing the whole church to the culture around (not over-adapted or under-adapted.) To think that the key is in the methodology (organic/incarnational vs organizational/attractional) is a mistake that comes, I think, from a lack of experience. There are great and terrible examples of all these methods and models. All kinds are thriving and all kinds are failing. (December 6th, 2008)
I think the subject of economic justice in the publishing industry is more complex than it looks to most of your posters. Here’s one example. I like your application of ‘Mashable’s prediction about the music industry to the publishing industry, but there are problems. When you download music onto your ipod-you have it in a useable, durable form. When you download a 200 page book off the internet, it doesn’t come bound or in the most useable, durable form. The fact is, reading physical paper and print is far easier on the eyes and body than reading text on a screen, and getting text into bound, durable form takes a process to which many people contribute and therefore must be compensated by the buyer. So buying a published book costs more money then getting it over the internet–but publishing also provides more jobs and work for a lot of other people. Is it unjust for the buyer to participate in and support the lives of many people instead of just the author? And that’s just one issue. If an author pours his or her life into a book for a year–what is a volume of that book worth? Hard to say. (December 24th, 2007)
I took, believe it or not, six courses with Meredith Kline at Gordon-Conwell. My wife Kathy took two. He is greatly under-appreciated. We owe much of our understanding of the gospel to him. (re: Kline 4/17/07)
After several years of reading blogs I conclude that these sharp exchanges between people with different points of view almost always generate far, far more heat than light. Blogs seem to best for helping like-minded people to share information and to mildly revise one another’s thinking. Alan Jacobs (in an article on weblogs in May/June 2006 Books and Culture) said that blogs are ‘the friend of information, but the enemy of thought.’ I absolutely love blogs for getting news and opinion of all kinds, but the ‘dialogues’ are generally unhelpful. I’m sure everyone can point to one or two exceptions. But most of these interactions toward the pro- and anti-emergent caucuses usually just polarize people. (re: Emergent & Consistency 11/29/06)
I wonder where you’d go to find a truly missional denomination? I don’t know of any. For missionally minded churches, any denominational connection will bring you into relationship with some other churches and ministers who downright embarass you. This will be true of any ecclesiastical body with more than 5 churches in it. I don’t think that going independent and only staying connected in to a missional ‘network’–which has no disciplinary authority–is the answer either. My counsel: 1) inhabit a denomination with a historic tradition you admire (Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist) 2) stay in a denomination if it gives you space to follow your calling, 3) don’t be marginal to it–be active in the denomination, but 4) don’t be too absorbed in all its workings and especially not in its politics. (re: denominational frustration 10/9/06)
... I don't care whether Emergent calls itself 'evangelicalism' or not. Stott and others believed that the separatism of fundamentalism and the theologically innovations of liberalism drained Christianity of its vitality and power. They came up with a 'space' to inhabit that they believed was sufficiently 'in' the world and still sufficiently 'not of' the world. Stott had a set of evangelical essentials, including inerrancy and substitutionary atonement, that he felt was crucial for the church maintain in order to stay in that space. IMO history has confirmed their analysis, since both fundamentalism and mainline liberalism have faired poorly in comparison. Now emergent wants to find some new space--in a theological place that Stott would not go--that they think will be a better place for spiritual and ecclesiastical vitality. Whether they call it evangelicalism or not doesn't matter. Even though I see a lot of understandable reasons for their move, I don't think it's a wise one, either theologically or practically. (re: Emergent's future 10/05/06)
... I was making the point that the older Stott-Packer-Francis Schaeffer evangelicalism is fragmenting. Stott’s “evangelical essentials” are not seen by the emergent as essentials. That’s noteworthy and worthy of reflection, I think, since Stott and others carved out the space between fundamentalism and liberalism a half-century ago. Emergent (IMO) is moving out of that older space, and trying to create a new space between older liberalism and older evangelicalism. My guess is that they are basically coming to the same place as the post-liberals. But I wonder if they can really make a movement out of it without doing the institution building that Stott, Ockenga, Billy Graham etc did. I doubt it, though I am not totally sure of my doubt (!) since you don’t get back into Narnia the same way you did last time. (re: Emergent’s future 10/05/06)
By the way, Tony. I said: 'if you define evangelical orthodoxy using John Stott's evangelical essentials, then emergent is moving away from evangelical orthodoxy.' I don't think that's unkind or inaccurate. That's not the same thing as saying you aren't orthodox Christians. (re: Keller on Emergent 10/05/06)
When I came to NYC to start a church I listened to scores of the Doctor's evening sermons. They were designed to be evangelistic. The evening services at Westminster were much larger than the AM services, because Christians from all over London came and brought their non-Christian friends. Those sermons were a revelation to me. They were much more expository and doctrinal than any U.S. 'seeker' talks, but they were also far more oriented to the non-believer than the traditional expository preaching I knew. Even in the 1950's London was more secular than most of the U.S. is today, but I felt that his approach would be right for Manhattan, with adaptations. I owe the Doctor a great debt. (re: Lloyd-Jones 3/01/06)
I guess it depends on what you wanted the movie to accomplish. Everytime I pick up the Narnia books to read again after re-reading Lord of the Rings, I’m struck by how much thinner it feels at first then the super-thick, rich imaginative world of Tolkien. Then I remember this is mythopoeia for children, not adults. We should remember this when coming to the Chronicles movie.
Our hope has been that the movie would re-inject Narnia into the imaginations of the world's children, where it could bear enormous fruit. In order to do this, the movie had to first and foremost enthrall children--and it does. It couldn't possibly be as overwhelming as Lord of the Rings or King Kong. The children I've polled find Narnia rather scary and intense at places, but not traumatizing. Georgie Henley draws the children in so they experience the narrative arc through her. If 100 million more kids get their imaginations baptized we will be well served by the movie. And, as Lewis himself pointed out, it's not the production values but the story itself that effects the heart. You could do it with sock puppets and still get it. (re: Narnia 12/16/05)
“I don’t know why Millbank’s critique of the secular precludes a pluralistic society (if that is what you are saying?) Modern secularism doesn’t allow real pluralism–it doesn’t allow non-secular people to reason from their ‘narrative identities’–their ‘control beliefs’, as it were–in public discourse. That’s what Newbigin said, I think. I actually don’t know how we get to real pluralism without a serious critique of secularism.” (Keller comments on an extinct blog entry from March 2005)