Tags
Is Tim Keller Promoting Roman Catholic Mysticism?
Tim Keller is well known in reformed circles. Founder and pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (RPC) in Manhattan, he is considered one of the leading voices in American Christianity as an author and conference speaker. RPC has been named, incidentally, as one of the top 25 most influential churches in the country.
There is a concern among many that Pastor Keller has been influenced by, and is now promoting CSM, or contemplative spirituality and mysticism, which finds its roots in Roman Catholicism. The concern is a legitimate one, based not on a single instance, but a pattern.
Ken Silva, of Apprising Ministries has been following this concern and has expressed some questions of his own. I encourage you to read Ken’s posts on Keller here and here for the details.
Please know that I am not taking ‘pot-shots’ at Tim Keller. The concern is real because CSM is polar opposite of the biblical, reformation principle of Sola Scriptura – and the concern doesn’t stop with Tim Keller. This practice of Roman mysticism is showing up throughout the ‘reformed’ camp, and when leading evangelicals – reformed pastors – begin to promote books, speakers and media pushing this stuff, it’s easy to grow comfortable with it’s presence in our bodies of fellowship, and therein lies the danger.
So get out of here, and head on over to Apprising.org and be informed.
- Joel
Joel & friends,
I am afraid that many and maybe even most of pastors have been influenced by stealth heresies just like we all have. It is almost impossible to talk to anyone who does not incorporate at least some type of half-truth or false belief. Look at how many people think that ‘judge not’ means that we should not expose any false teaching…
Also, look at how many people salivate over the attendance numbers of Joel Osteen or Relevant Rick and say, “We have to get up-to-date”. That means they think we have to change to be like the apostates or we will cease to survive.
Where in the Bible does it say that man has any control whatsoever over the growth of God’s body of believers? I haven’t been able to find it either.
This whole idea that unless we change to be like the world or to be what the world will accept has led the church down a rabbit trail. The power to grow the body of Christ rest entirely with God. Unless we realize this and repent from our methods and relational gobbly gook, God may allow us to wander in the desert until the next generation comes along…
Anyway, it is difficult to find many people that are not corrupted by non-Biblical thinking. I say we should read the Bible more and men less…
T.
Amen Brother!
Two things:
1. That something might have its “roots” in Roman Catholicism does not prove it is unhelpful, unhealthy, dangerous, or wrong. That’s called the genetic fallacy, and it tends to create boogeymen rather than thoughtful argumentation.
2. Read Silva with a careful eye. His aggrandized bark is typically more plentiful than his intellectual bite.
“That something might have its ‘roots’ in Roman Catholicism does not prove it is unhelpful, unhealthy, dangerous, or wrong.”
It depends upon the subject, which in this case is mysticism. This neo-Gnosticism is the antithesis of the proper Christian spirituality of sola Scriptura.
That’s the point. By definition it is Counter Reformation spirituality rightly rejected by God’s Reformers.
“Read Silva with a careful eye. His aggrandized bark is typically more plentiful than his intellectual bite.”
Really Bryan. Well, I’m still waiting for someone who can refute me while dealing with the actual copious documentation regarding Keller’s compromised stance in ths regard.
Greetings to you Mr. Silva,
To your first point–No, falling prey to the genetic fallacy does not “depend upon the subject.” If you point to roots, and then dub that sufficient cause for rejection or most hearty suspicion, that is the genetic fallacy. It’s very popular in some Reformed circles nowadays, and I say that as a joyfully practicing Presbyterian. It’s frustrating to me to see it again and again. It’s different from substantiating how the *present form* of an idea is dangerous or unbiblical. I’m not saying you have failed to provide a critique of the present form, I’m saying Mr. Taylor has failed to do so, and so he has fallen prey to the genetic fallacy.
To your second point–perhaps this is a lesson for me that you really never do know who might read what you put up on the internet! But I think we would probably disagree about the degree of credibility your “copious documentation” gives. Yes, it certainly is copious, but it also is selectively quoted, bringing about a situation where the quantity of quotations might not necessarily match the quality of the interaction or the fairness of the selectivity. Quantity does not equal quality.
I’m also highly skeptical of this idea that just because we’ve found a sort of modern day manifestation of a reformation-era debate (assuming we have), that such a discovery automatically warrants a dismissal of the supposedly Roman side of that debate. I think such an approach misunderstands Reformation contexts and assumes that all the contours of those fights and debates must continually be upheld by Protestants today. The rather alarming assumption is that we–in all our 16th century faithfulness–have nothing to learn from the Holy Spirit’s pre-1517 activity. Certainly, the devil was also active during those years too, I am just a bit weary of the undefended assumption that we must continue to grow our never ending library of things (and people) that we get to dub “Roman” and therefore “dangerous.”
As to your general approach, yes, I am skeptical of your selective use of quotations, and your attempts to encapsulate a multifaceted and decidedly nuanced debate in a few blog posts. I’m puzzled by the need to use ALL CAPS to title your posts–it just seems a bit overdone (to me). I’m uncomfortable with the “guilt by association” approach in pointing to an author’s sources, then indirectly suggesting total agreement with that source. All of this sometimes enables you and me and anyone else to stack up quotations and sources without ever really proving that we have fairly represented both sides of the debate or that we’ve fairly treated sources and authors in their context. So then that permits the reference to “copious documentation” as if that–by itself–evinces a sound argument (it doesn’t).
Honestly, I don’t really care about this particular Keller debate, and if he is promoting that kind of mysticism, then you and I both disagree with him on that point. I’m just skeptical of the approach here in making that point, which seems to me to be as dubious as it is uncharitable.
Peace to you.