Second, the authors of this book should have clarified in the first place how they understand the nature and character of doctrine (i.e., they should have engaged the preliminary work of what’s often called in theology prolegomena.) Devoid of that work, these authors engage in nothing but measuring whether Keller’s theologizing is compatible/consistent with what they believe to be the traditional Presbyterian creeds, which I think is not a justifiable tool for evaluating Keller’s theology. First off, as Keller has made it clear in his The Center Church, his theologizing belongs to the category of middleware. In other words, making an analogue between computer components and the work of theology, Keller calls doctrine a hardware, ministerial circumstances a software. Located right in between is what he calls a middleware, mediating both as well as coming up with creative theological vision in light of both. (Doubtless Keller’s work here is open to controversy; however, that is beyond the subject of this review, so I will have to deal with it on a separate space if the opportunity arises.) Such middleware is a theological attempt to apply a particular denomination’s doctrine to a particular ministerial circumstance. Therefore, it does not compare it to the Prebysterian creeds which the authors of this book are making the subject of this book, nor is it possible in the first place. I suspect that the authors did not even try to understand the meaning of what Keller is doing in his theology.
Given that I make full concessions that the work these authors are doing is to measure Keller’s work by the traditional creeds, they show no consideration for Keller’s circumstantial aspects, so I cast serious doubt on whether they are on a fair footing to evaluate Keller’s theology. For this reason, I repeat what I said in the beginning of this review, that in order for such critical evaluations to turn out to be more productive, both parties—the critics and the one whose theology is being critiqued—need to reach at least a certain degree of consensus as to how they understand each other’s theological prolegomena. Prolegomena is a preliminary work of speculating on the conditions, nature, character, and meaning of theological work. Even though Keller does deal with this aspect of his theology to a certain degree, the authors seem either to judge Keller’s work lacking, or to neglect such dimensions of Keller’s work altogether.
For all such limitations of this book, it still rightly diagnoses some aspects of Keller’s theology, while they did many more wrongheaded critiques to a disproportionate measure. In this review, in light of the two limitations mentioned previously, I will give equal hearing to the following three areas: 1. One that the reviewer can fully agree with (Keller’s Trinity); 2. One that the reviewer can partially agree with(Keller’s doctrine of sin and judgment); 3. One that the review can never agree with (Keller’s hermeneutics). Now, I begin with 3.
The Confusion over Hermeneutics and Exegesis: Evaluating Keller’s Hermeneutics
Richard Holst is the one who has written the essay on Keller’s hermeneutics. This is arguably the worst essay in the book, in my viewpoint. To begin with, Holst identifies biblical exegesis with biblical interpretation, whereas biblical exegesis is the work of understanding the meaning of the Bible, and biblical interpretation the work of juxtaposing the meaning of the Bible with contemporary culture, in order to proclaim the gospel afresh. However, Holst has no idea whatsoever of the differences between exegesis and interpretation. Harsh as this might sound, I find it difficult that this essay is giving a fair hearing to Keller’s hermeneutics, especially in that Holst entirely neglects another pillar in Keller’s hermeneutics, i.e., his interpretation of contemporary culture. To make matters worse, Holst understands biblical exegesis reductively, meaning that all that the exegeting of the biblical passage requires is nothing but following a simple series of steps/methods. This amounts to total ignorance of modern hermeneutics! No one somehow relatively well versed in modern hermeneutics would say things Holst is saying here. What repeated occurred to my mind while reading this chapter was “I have to trash this!”
Because of such lack of understanding of what interpretation is, Holst hardly mentions his own inherited biases and traditions, leading him to appear to be naïve at best, and to be foolishly ignorant at worst. One of the major strengths of Keller’s theology is his cultural sensitivity and his equally nuanced approach to reading the Bible in light of such cultural sensitivity, yet Holst says virtually nothing about this other half of Keller’s hermeneutics.
While I spoke so harshly against Holst, I cannot hide some kind of sympathy toward him, for Gordon-Conwell theological seminary, my alma mater, is at least partly guilty of such lack of understanding in the differences between exegesis and interpretation. I don’t want to come down too harsh on Gordon-Conwell, yet evangelical seminaries in America should be required to have at least one foundational course in hermeneutics. Not only that, the curriculum should be constructed in such a way for students to be able to see the intrinsic relationship between biblical exegesis and biblical interpretation. I hope for the better.
Different Perspectives on Understanding Sin: Evaluating Keller’s Sin/Judgment
Essays on Keller’s understanding of sin/judgment are respectively written by Ian Campbell and William Schweitzer. The substantive critique they are throwing at Keller’s theologizing of sin and judgment is that Keller’s theology gives relatively less space to the traditional forensic understanding, yet pronounces more on the relational understanding, thus in their view resulting in the distortion of the traditional Presbyterian confessional standards. Phenomenally speaking, the present reviewer believes they are right. Keller’s doctrine of sin/judgment pays little attention to God as the wrathful judge and we humans as contrite lawbreakers. Rather, sin is more of not loving God and neighbor as ourselves, since our hearts are not right with God. The forensic framework of sin and judgment only plays a complementary role here. For this reason, the notion of idolatry is absolutely essential for Keller, for which Keller took his ministerial contexts into serious considerations. (We have to be reminded of the fact that Keller’s theologizing is his middleware in this regard.) In New York’s Manhattan, arguably the most progressive place in the world, Keller could not have prospered in his ministry had he put more emphasis on the traditional forensic aspects of sin. Thus, Keller did a kind of contextualizing the doctrine of sin through the metaphor of idolatry (i.e., Most people set their hearts on loving themselves and pursuing their own selfish interests rather than loving God and neighbor as themselves.) in order to reach out to more people in New York. One of the biggest strengths of communicating sin through idolatry is that it enables Keller to discuss with people the issue of the human heart and the issue of identity, which most contemporaries are passionately interested in.
Despite such merits of Keller’s approach to sin, Campbell and Schweitzer finds it problematic that Keller does not give sufficient emphasis on the forensic aspect of sin. For them, the more fundamental aspect of what sin is comes from the aspect of lawbreaking, not from idolatry. But is this so? I see a harmonious combination between sin as lawbreaking and sin as idolatry in Romans 13:8-10.
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:8-10)
This passage translates the forensic sin into the relational one. In this light, I cannot cast doubt on the dogged insistence on the part of the authors that lawbreaking should come before not loving and making idols in understanding sin. Why so? I don’t agree. This is even more so, considering all the good things Keller’s understanding of sin has brought about for Redeemer. On another note, I suspect that the author’s sticking to one particular understanding of sin could be a byproduct of Western Christianity. For another version of Christianity grown in different cultural contexts (e.g. Greek Orthodoxy) does not see sin in the same way as these Presbyterians do. As Korean, I believe that relational understanding of sin, rather than the forensic one, has more points of communicating and appealing to Koreans and many other Asians. Such reflections on the doctrine of sin and how it ought to be understood call into question whether the Presbyterian creeds, or any other creeds for that matter, should be taken as absolutely intact and unchanging. How do we Koreans contextualize the doctrine of sin, rather than blindly accepting the Western heritage and not questioning it at all?
Thus, intuitive judgment on the reviewer’s part is that these authors are still stuck with their own cultural confinements, which they are not able to discern sufficiently enough, which means that Keller’s understanding of sin does not lack biblical narrative foundation, as they claim in the book. (In fact, the Bible is replete with passages supporting the relational understanding of sin, beginning with numerous imageries of God the groom and us the bride. At the same time, Keller’s stress on the human heart is found throughout the Bible.)
This is also true of the doctrine of judgment. What is idiosyncratic about Keller’s understanding of judgment is that Keller portrays God’s judgment not as God’s wrathful passing on the sinners what they deserve, but inevitable results of their refusal to accept God’s love. As Campbell and Schweitzer rightly note, Keller attributes his understanding of judgment to one of his mentors C.S. Lewis. The problem is, as I have briefly mentioned in my previous reviews, Lewis is not a Prebysterian, but an Anglican, feeling more akin to the Roman Catholic tradition than it is to the Presbyterian tradition. This necessarily leads them to judge Keller’s understanding of judgment to be not faithful to the Reformed tradition. For my part, I see no problem in Keller’s doctrine of judgment, and this is why I do understand their judgment of Keller, yet at the same time I see no insufficiency in Keller’s theologizing of judgment, given the ministerial context of his. Now it is turn to examine Keller’s understanding of the Trinity. I judge this essay to be the best among all seven essays, and let me explain why.
Divine Dance: Keller’s Trinity
Kevin Bidwell writes on Keller’s understanding of the Trinity, and while Bidwell’s arguments are simple enough, it is not simplistic. According to Bidwell, Keller tries to explain the triune God by means of “divine dance” metaphor, yet such explanation is neither broad enough, nor deep enough to cover what the Trinity traditionally has conveyed to the people of faith. This metaphor, according to Keller, is a sublimation of the ancient Greek church’s notion of perichoresis (mutual indwelling), yet Bidwell argues little by little how groundless Keller’s assertion is, and I agree with Bidwell’s explanation. According to Bidwell, no matter what postulations of Trinity has to meet three criteria: first, it should be able to explain the oneness of God; second, it should be able to explain the three persons of the Trinity; third, it should be able to explain the tension between the oneness of God and the three persons of the Trinity. However, Keller’s divine dance metaphor does not provide any firm ground for any of these three criteria. Of course we should take note that Keller’s theologizing is always in terms of middleware. In addition, we should take into consideration that the doctrine of the Trinity has been experiencing something of resurgence quite recently, so as ministerial practitioner it would have been quite difficult for Keller to catch up with all the recent trends of the Trinitarian theology. Even so, it seems quite obvious that Keller is not able to provide some reasonable responses to Bidwell’s questioning. The reason that Keller keeps bringing up the divine dance metaphor is to see through it the dynamic economy among the three persons of the Trinity, which is not sufficient enough for a solid postulation of Trinity. For this reason, Bidwell encourages Keller to engage in deeper conversation with the best of the Reformed minds such as Jonathan Edwards and his Trinitarian theology to come up with much mature and solid theologizing of the Trinity. In my understanding, this is the most persuasive essay of all in the book because from the perspective of Presbyterianism as well as from the perspective of Keller’s ministerial contexts, Keller’s Trinity falls short of both considerations.
While this book is open to further conversation with Keller and his possible responses, for now it seems to be difficult to hear from Keller in any foreseeable future, given his busy schedule. Instead, I look forward to a more ecumenical lineup of scholars engaging in the potentials of Keller’s theology. While I can’t be sure of this, I hope for it. In the following week, a new series on the book of Revelation is in order. The first book is How to Survive the Apocalypse, analyzing the apocalyptic elements in contemporary popular culture from the perspective of the philosopher Charles Taylor. See you next week!
LIKEELLUL