TIM KELLER, COMPROMISE, AND ACCOMMODATION

 

 

James R. Wood, associate editor at “First Things,” admires Pastor Emeritus Tim Keller, who had promoted a non-combative and non-adversarial view of influencing the culture and evangelism. However, Wood now recognizes the costs of Keller’s approach:

 

·       During the 2016 election cycle, I still approached politics through [Keller’s] winsome model, and I realized that it was hardening me toward fellow believers. I was too concerned with how one’s vote might harm the “public witness” of the church, and I looked down upon those who voted differently than me—usually in a rightward direction. “Public witness” most often translates into appeasing those to one’s left, and distancing oneself from the deplorables. I didn’t like what this was doing to my heart and felt that it was clouding my political judgment. (“First Things;” 5/6/22)

 

My wife and I had attended Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan for two years, where we had observed some of the things that Wood has noted. Evangelicals were no more correct or “enlightened” than the seculars. We were left with the impression that the vitriol that was being vented against the Church was justified. Therefore, if we could simply be nice enough, unlike those judgmental evangelicals, the world would naturally be drawn to Christ.

 

Keller did draw many to Christ, but I always wondered, “to which Christ?” I now see that many potentially offensive Biblical teachings had been left out of his preaching, for instance:

 

·       Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)

 

There had been no concern about being unequally yoked. Instead, believers were being sent out to join with unbelievers in their various community and artistic projects. Consequently, they would become one with the world. Instead of serving as the light to the world (John 3:19-20), they would partake of its darkness and disdain for evangelicals.

 

Wood writes that there is a danger that when we hold hands with the world, we will also grasp hold of its worldview:

 

·       And I started to recognize another danger to this approach: If we assume that winsomeness will gain a favorable hearing, when Christians consistently receive heated pushback, we will be tempted to think our convictions are the problem. If winsomeness is met with hostility, it is easy to wonder, “Are we in the wrong?” Thus the slide toward secular culture’s reasoning is greased. A “secular-friendly” politics has problems similar to “seeker-friendly” worship. An excessive concern to appeal to the unchurched is plagued by the accommodationist temptation.

 

Accommodation has become the rule for many of the Redeemer church plants, which have adopted LGBTQ and CRT to seek acceptance in the growingly hostile secular culture.

 

Wood also warns against Keller’s equal time strategy:

 

·       By always giving equal airtime to the flaws in every option, the third way posture can also give the impression that the options are equally bad, failing to sufficiently recognize ethical asymmetry.

 

“Are we in the wrong?” The younger generation seems to answer in the affirmative and wants to remake the Church into a congenial partner. Consequently, they are no longer heeding Biblical warnings:

 

·       Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:12-13)

 

Instead, persecution suggests that we might be doing something right.