Tim Keller’s Center Church stresses how important the theological vision forged through the engagement between doctrinal/denominational traditions and cultural contexts (and various ministerial programs produced as a response to them). As he keeps saying in the beginning of the book, Center Church is not about “imitating my ministerial program and methods” (42). Rather, Keller’s more fundamental concern was the dichotomized tendency within Christian publishing. On the one hand, books on doctrines and denominational traditions are being poured out without much regard to minster’s practical situations. On the other, ministers are flocking to buy books providing practical tips for ministry without a trace of theology or doctrine. The main problem in such dichotomy is that both seem to hold little regard for each other, while the one cannot exist apart from the other. What is raison d’être of theology and doctrine if they were not for practical ministry? Also, if all the sources of practical ministerial tips and techniques come from business and social sciences, could such ministry be worthy of being labeled Christian? Probably not. Keller’s Center Church brings together these two questions, and his response is to come up with a theological vision. The book itself is massive 400-page, which is turned into gargantuan 800-page volume. Thus, it is not feasible for me to summarize the book as I usually proceed to do in regular book reviews. Instead, I will explain what Keller means by a theological vision, followed by the three underlying principles in Keller’s doing theology. I will conclude this review by briefly mentioning a potential loophole in Keller’s theological vision.
What is a Theological Vision for Keller?
For Keller, his theological vision is incarnational through and through. This is because the task of presenting the unchanging, eternal God in the culture-specific, temporal planes is founded on Jesus’ Incarnation. The reason that this book is entitled Center Church is also that Keller hopes to function as a middleperson between God and the world, as the body of Christ (the Church) is still engaging in the work. This could sound such a cliché for any theologically literate person with moderate degree, yet Keller goes further in explaining his vision and making it more coherent with contemporary realities. Whether the subject of envisioning a theological vision is an individual or a community, such a subject should reflect on the message of the gospel, on the cultural contexts in which she/they are located, and on the nature and identity of the church charged with the task of the gospel proclamation. Therefore, Keller suggests the gospel, the city, and the movement to be the three main axes of his theological vision. These three axes are organically interwoven together. Imagine a reflection on the gospel devoid of those on the city and the movement. A reflection on the city without the gospel and the movement? What about a reflection on the city apart from the gospel and the movement? They all sound awkward and strange.
At the same time, it is called Center Church because each of these axes is located at the center in between the two extremes. For the gospel axis, legalism and relativism are on the two poles; for the city axis, over-adaptation and under-adaptation to the culture are on the two poles; for the movement axis, institution and organism are on the two poles. This makes it easier for the reader to take a guess at what Keller is going to discuss down the road. However, this should never be taken to mean that one can figure out the actual substances of his discussion.
In fact, Keller’s three axes themselves are didactic enough for ministers, especially for those doing urban ministries. Even so, each city has its own particulars and Keller’s vision for Manhattan may not always work well for Seoul’s apartment complexes in Kang-Nam district, nor for Boston’s Newbury Street commercial district. This is why Keller provides the following set of questions for how to find out theological visions.
-What is the gospel, and how do we bring it to bear on the hearts of people today?
-What is this culture like, and how can we both connect to it and challenge it in our communication?
-Where are we located—city, suburb, town, rural area—and how does it affect our ministry?
-To what degree and how should Christians be involved in civic life and cultural production?
-How do the various ministries in a church—word and deed, community and instruction—relate to one another?
-How innovative will our church be and how traditional?
-How will our church relate to other churches in our city and region?
-How will we make our case to the culture about the truth of Christianity?
In all these questions, astute readers will notice that the pervasive themes in this set of questions is that of connecting and communicating. I will delve into these two themes as the controlling elements in Keller’s theological vision when I lecture on Keller’s theological vision in July. I apologize for not going into detail here for this reason.
Instead, I will deal more in-depth with Keller’s theological method. I will not attempt to categorize Keller’s theological method into a particular mold; rather, I will name three underlying principles in Keller’s doing theology, demonstrating how Keller goes about in explaining each.
Examining how Keller does theology is crucial for understanding the book Center Church, as well as for the readers to devise their own theological visions. For theological vision cannot be unfolded unless one has a good grasp of how to do theology. This is as though one can imagine a really great dish in mind, yet without the recipe one cannot go about actually making the dish itself. Although this review cannot possibly deal with a thorough analysis of Keller’s theological method, I can at least list a number of underlying principles in Keller’s doing theology. With the basic presupposition of the authority ascribed to the Scripture as canon, I think Keller’s theological method can be characterized as 1) experiential, 2) dialogical, and 3) mutually critical. Let me unpack what I mean by each.
1) Experiential
Keller’s theology has an emphasis on human experience. Experience has been regarded as one of the four elements of theological raw material, as in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition). Unless one takes contemporary experiences seriously, one cannot draw from one’s audience any sense of empathy. To Keller, experience is like a double-edged sword. He actually goes into detail about why experience has become one of the three idols in Western church (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGFUG1tzRAU). With such guarding against experience, many evangelical churches have gone into the other extreme of giving little regard to experience for their doing theology, if not completely disregarding it. However, Keller still takes experience seriously, for true spiritual renewal always begins with the human heart.
When the Bible speaks of the heart, it means more than just our emotions. It is true that we feel our emotions in our hearts (Lev 19:17; Pss 4:7; 13:2), but we also think and reason in our hearts (Prov 23:7; Mark 2:8) and even act from our hearts (Eccl 10:2). Our heart is the center of our personality, the seat of our fundamental commitments, the control center of the whole person (58).
Our hearts move our emotions. Not only that, our hearts have to do with all our experiential dimensions as human beings. For this reason, “but the truths of the gospel, brought home by the Spirit, slowly but surely help us grasp in a new way how safe and secure, how loved and accepted, we are in Christ” (69). Emphasis on the heart naturally leads to a theology which is experiential. God’s presence is what we experience, not what we cognitively comprehend. Of particular interests here is that Keller pays close attention to our emotions. Our emotions are the lens through which we can peek into what our fundamental commitments are. This is why Keller explains comparatively between those who are simply religious and who are believing the gospel. While for the religious, “my identity and self-worth are based mainly on how hard I work or how moral I am, so I must look down on those I perceive as lazy or immoral. I disdain and feel superior to others,” those believing the gospel goes, “my identity and self-worth are centered on the One who died for his enemies, including me. Only by sheer grace am I what I am, or practice something different from me. I have no inner need to win arguments” (65).
2) Dialogical
Keller’s theology gives serious weight to the Bible and tradition. At the same time, Keller gives sufficient weight to specific contexts and culture. Thus, the first axis of Keller’s theological vision is the gospel, and the second the city. The dynamic between the first and the second axes is dialogical. Contemporary evangelical churches, in proclaiming the gospel message, tends to hold out the traditional way of doing things, often regardless of the contexts they are in, even rendering such stubbornness as being loyal to God. But Keller says that that is no more than a simple disregard for contexts. Let me quote what he says here. “Here is a beautiful paradox that is easy to miss: the fact that we must express universal truth in a particular cultural context does not mean that the truth itself is somehow lost or less universal. D.A. Carson writes, “While no truth which human beings may articulate can ever be articulated in a culture-transcending way.. that does not mean that the truth thus articulated does not transcend culture… As soon as you express the gospel, you are unavoidably doing it in a way that is more understandable and accessible for people in some cultures and less so for others” (93).
In other words, the gospel provides answers to the questions culture asks, yet it is possible only when the gospel message has gone through the process of sufficient contextualization. This is why dialogue between the gospel and culture is absolutely necessary.
But more than that, the dialogical principle goes beyond being merely instrumental for the sake of proclaiming the gospel. Rather, it is more deeply rooted in the goodness of God’s creation. “Without an appreciation for God’s gracious display of his wisdom in the broader culture, Christians may struggle to understand why non-Christians often exceed Christians in moral practice, wisdom and skill” (109).
The dialogical principle is intensified into the principle of mutual criticism. In Keller’s theology, the dynamic between the gospel and culture is that of mutually critical. Culture challenges the gospel so that the gospel retrieves what has been thus far hidden within it, which, if appropriated contextually, might benefit so many in any given culture. Listen to Keller on this. “Ultimately, the most important source for learning will be the hours and hours spent in close relationship with people, listening to them carefully. In the earliest days of my ministry in New York City, I preached at both morning and evening services… As I listened, I heard four categories of responses. Some told me about things I had said that confused them; some shared something that had moved and helped them; some related things that had offended them. This last category I divided into two. I came to see that some of the things that bothered people were simple, irreducible, biblical, gospel truths… As I studied the biblical text with the objections and questions of my new friends still ringing my ears, I saw implications and applications of the text I hadn’t seen before. I would think of a skeptic I had met with that week and say, “That is exactly what she was complaining about!” or “This answers his question very well” (122).
This actually means that the cultural challenge to the gospel is not the challenge against the gospel per se, but more to the challenge against the acculturated form of the gospel. The Bible and the gospel message are multi-dimensional enough, which would make it impossible for a Christianity in a particular historical context to contain the whole gospel truths. So the questions coming from a particular culture always challenges the gospel presentation of a culture in a healthy way, digging into the underrepresented truths of God’s work.
If so, what is the challenge of the gospel to the culture? For Keller, the gospel challenges modernity itself. Drawing upon such intellectual stars as Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Robert Bellah, and Ernest Becker, Keller takes pains in uncovering the weakest links of modernity, thereby providing the message of the gospel as an alternative.
Summarily speaking, the gospel can be integrally presented only with the help of culture, and culture can be wholesome only through the challenge of the gospel. Keller recaps the gist of his theological method through borrowing from Leslie Newbigin, particularly through the term missionary encounter. I will delve more in depth in my lecture on Keller’s theological vision in July.
The Potential Limitation of Keller’s Theological Vision
I will briefly explain one potential limitation of Keller’s theological vision. While Keller’s theological vision is generally very coherent and integral in its engagement with reality, one thing that Keller seems to be missing stems from the mismatch between Keller’s theological tasks of connecting and communicating and his theological emphasis on human guilt, well represented in the substitutionary atonement theory. However, the language of connecting and communicating suits more with shame rather than with guilt. It seems that Keller already has internally adopted a theory of justification and atonement that addresses well the human problem of shame, yet he shirks around confronting the traditional atonement theory centering on guilt. I will discuss quite at length on this in my lecture in July. Thank you!