The demarcation point

It has been amazing to witness the ecumenical outpouring related to the death last week of Rev. Tim Keller. I have seen much of Protestant Christianity write positively of Tim Keller. But I have also seen several notable Catholic and Orthodox leaders praise Keller’s contribution to the Christian dialogue.

Keller was not flashy or extroverted. His preaching style was expository and professorial. He was no self-help motivational speaker dancing across a stage that many churches use now. Redeemer relied on hymns, not contemporary music. He grew a multi-thousand-person church in Manhattan that unapologetically accepted the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and preached that marriage is between a man and woman. Keller was so faithful to scriptural sexual ethics that Princeton Theological Seminary withdrew an award to Keller after the alphabet gang complained.

His church drew in professionals and the working class to listen to a man tell them about Jesus. Keller always told them about Jesus. Not many men could grow a multi-thousand-person Bible-believing church on Manhattan Island let alone without flash and theater. Keller did it, which makes him so remarkable.

Keller’s success fostered suspicion. He reached out to many groups, in and out of the church, to engage them. He tried to reconcile the Bible and science to help overcome the skepticism of many he encountered in his local community. That caused him more than a little grief from others, many of whom believed Keller rejected a literal Adam and a literal Eve, which he did not. In one of our last conversations, he told me about a presbytery that had filed a request to investigate Keller over his beliefs in creation because some in that presbytery, to which Keller did not actually belong, were convinced that Keller rejected Adam and Eve as historical figures. Keller believed both walked the earth.

Keller also engaged the contemporary world around him. He adamantly insisted that the church should take sides on Biblical issues but not take sides in politics. He eschewed the idea that Christians could not vote Democrat for a lot of reasons, including sometimes in places like New York it was far better to vote for a good Democrat who can win than refuse to participate and get an even worse Democrat elected. He also angered a lot of young politicos who have woven their faith and politics together by admonishing Christians not to make the fight against abortion their idol. We’re to worship Jesus, not a cause. Jesus is for life. We should be for life. But Jesus was Himself life, and we should preach Jesus and let Him change people’s hearts and minds. If, after all, our God is living, we can lead people to Him and let Him regenerate them.

What is notable after Keller’s death is what I think we must use as a point of demarcation. For all the praise directed toward Keller’s legacy, some highly online mostly male Southern Baptists intent on seizing control of the Southern Baptist Convention and using it as a political instrument in American culture wars have criticized Keller. They could not just express sympathy for his death. They decided they needed people to know Keller was bad and wrong for refusing to engage in politics and for having the audacity to build inroads into the world and connect with and build friendships with those Keller might disagree with.

As so many do in politics, they strung together political phrases — it’s not just the establishment, but “evangelical establishment.” Instead of Big Pharma or Big Brother, it is “Big Eva,” “eva” for evangelical. To these people, Keller was an establishmentarian who compromised with the world instead of fighting for God’s kingdom.

They got Keller precisely wrong in their zeal to turn their faith into a political weapon. And we should pay attention to those who used Keller’s death to attack the man and how he conducted himself. It should be a point of demarcation between those whose views are worth considering and those who’ve fallen into idol worship.

Keller could engage with the left precisely because Keller knew Christians have already won. He could build friendships with those who rejected his faith because Keller knew his faith reigns supreme. Keller could engage for Jesus with a smile because he knew Jesus is coming back. Keller could ignore calls for Christian nation-building because he knew God is building His kingdom and Tim wanted to be a faithful instrument of that building project, not a repackaged America run by sinners.

So many of those who criticize Keller and how Keller functioned forget Mary and Martha both played useful, but different, roles. They do too and should not condemn Keller for playing a different role. But their anger and gracelessness chase people away from the church. Keller never wanted to chase people away from the church because they might not have the opportunity to meet his friend Jesus, who could change them. And, let’s be honest, we are at a point of anti-intellectualism among a portion of the right, highly reflected in this group. They are suspicious of a man who would engage secularists and use secularism’s idols and philosophers to point them to Jesus.

There are too many people clinging to idols and ideas that weaponize their faith against their neighbor instead of loving their neighbor. Keller knew the fight we fight is a fight against the unseen realm and the weapons we must deploy are different from the weapons of the world, namely Christian love and selflessness and humility in service to Christ. He also knew the fight is already won and we do not need to use the tools of the world to fight when God Himself fights for us.

Tim Keller’s death and the reaction to his death provide a clear line of demarcation between idol worshipers among us in the church and those who serve the Lord instead of politics masquerading as God’s command.