# The King's College, Tim Keller, and Gospel Ecosystems



## sastark (Aug 25, 2010)

*FYI: The Ruling Elder: King's College Post*

New at The Ruling Elder blog: King's College, Tim Keller, and Gospel Ecosystems. 

As you may know, King's College (New York City) has appointed Dinesh D'Sousza as its new president. Dr. Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary, has "kicked up a little dirt" concerning this issue. When I read the Christianity Today article, which in part responds to Dr. Trueman's concerns, I noticed a strange connection: Redeemer Presbyterian Church.

Read the post over at The Ruling Elder, and see if you find this connection as interesting as I do.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 25, 2010)

The hiring of a (still nominally) Catholic to lead King's College makes for intriguing questions and certainly raises concerns. But suggesting Redeemer PCA had a hand in it is connecting more dots than we ought to, and doesn't really make sense unless you're looking for bad things to believe about that church.

That church is, as we know, extremely influential among both reformed believers and evangelicals in New York. Anything that happens in the evangelical world there is bound to involve someone connected somehow to the church.

It is not surprising (much less scandalous) that a leader at the college might also be an elder in that congregation. Nor is it surprising that someone would suggest the incoming president should go hear Keller preach sometime. So what if the provost, who happens to also be an elder at Redeemer PCA, says nice things about his soon-to-be boss? What do you expect him to say? Connecting the hiring decision to the church based only on that is farfetched, unless you really know who took what sides behind the scenes.


----------



## Zenas (Aug 25, 2010)

Has Redeemer been involved in plating non-Reformed churches? I know that not long ago there was a bit of controversey over things Dr. Keller said regarding planting non-Reformed churches, but I never knew if anything came of it.


----------



## sastark (Aug 25, 2010)

Zenas said:


> Has Redeemer been involved in plating non-Reformed churches? I know that not long ago there was a bit of controversey over things Dr. Keller said regarding planting non-Reformed churches, but I never knew if anything came of it.


 
Andrew, according to the article I cite (read it here), yes, Redeemer has been involved in planting non-Reformed churches.


----------



## TimV (Aug 25, 2010)

Redeemer doesn't try to hide the fact that they help plant nonReformed churches.


----------



## sastark (Aug 25, 2010)

Jack K said:


> The hiring of a (still nominally) Catholic to lead King's College makes for intriguing questions and certainly raises concerns. But suggesting Redeemer PCA had a hand in it is connecting more dots than we ought to, and doesn't really make sense unless you're looking for bad things to believe about that church.
> 
> That church is, as we know, extremely influential among both reformed believers and evangelicals in New York. Anything that happens in the evangelical world there is bound to involve someone connected somehow to the church.
> 
> It is not surprising (much less scandalous) that a leader at the college might also be an elder in that congregation. Nor is it surprising that someone would suggest the incoming president should go hear Keller preach sometime. So what if the provost, who happens to also be an elder at Redeemer PCA, says nice things about his soon-to-be boss? What do you expect him to say? Connecting the hiring decision to the church based only on that is farfetched, unless you really know who took what sides behind the scenes.


 
Jack, I ask this honestly and not rhetorically: did you read my blog post? I believe I:

1. Never indicted Redeemer as a church.
2. Pointed out that it is "interesting" to me that an elder from Redeemer was defending the hiring of D'Sousza, because
3. It seems like a good match: Redeemer's "generally-evangelical" church planting efforts match well with King's College's decision to hire a possibly-generally-evangelical President (D'Sousza).

Further, I would point out that the Christianity Today article is where I found out that Marvin Olasky, provost of King's College, is a Ruling Elder and member of Redeemer. I wonder how CT found out that info and why it chose to include it in the article (it really is irrelevant to the rest of the article)?

Lastly, I actually thought I was quite gracious toward Dinesh D'Sousza, and was attempting to take him at his word, that he considers himself more evangelical than Roman Catholic. My question is on the relationship between the "Gospel Ecosystem" model of church planting, and the defending of the hiring of D'Sousza. I think the one may foster the other.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 25, 2010)

TimV said:


> Redeemer doesn't try to hide the fact that they help plant nonReformed churches.



As I understand it, the Redeemer Church Planting Center is huge and provides training and support to many, many church planters form many different denominations all over the world. Keller does believe in being supportive in this way even of efforts outside the reformed tradition, and has written on this in articles about church planting.

But we ought not to think this means Redeemer PCA sets out to plant a church and says, "We'll make this one non-reformed." In fact, they've worked closely with the PCA in planting many Presbyterian churches. But they don't necessarily turn away others, especially within NYC, who come asking for assistance.

I would submit that if there's going to be a leader in such endeavors within the larger evangelical community, I'm glad it's a bunch of Presbyterians and not a gang of Arminians. You can refuse to cooperate with others, or you can play ball and try to be a good influence.


----------



## TimV (Aug 25, 2010)

> But we ought not to think this means Redeemer PCA sets out to plant a church and says, "We'll make this one non-reformed."



Sophistry is too good a word to describe that remark.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 25, 2010)

sastark said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > The hiring of a (still nominally) Catholic to lead King's College makes for intriguing questions and certainly raises concerns. But suggesting Redeemer PCA had a hand in it is connecting more dots than we ought to, and doesn't really make sense unless you're looking for bad things to believe about that church.
> ...


 
Yes, I read your article and noted that you were trying to be careful, and I appreciate that. But you did speak of "the involvement of Redeemer Presbyterian Church and Tim Keller," and that's mostly what caught my eye. It sounded to me like you were trying to suggest, without actually saying it, that the church may in some way have had influence in the hiring decision. At the least, I thought you were suggesting the church may look favorably on it, possibly due to a low regard for doctrinal distinctions. Whether or not we assume the hiring decision is a poor choice (and you didn't do that), I don't think there's sufficient evidence to even suggest these things.

Why did _Christianity Today_ interview Redeemer elder Marvin Olasky? Well, I've worked in both journalism and higher education, and feel pretty good about making four observations:
1. Olasky is the college provost. And when a college is without a president, the provost is temporarily the top guy.
2. When the nation's leading Christian magazine calls for an interview, you make sure they talk to the top guy. That would be Olasky.
3. Olasky _will_ say something nice about his new boss, even if he or his church may have some misgivings (which we don't know). 
4. When the reporter finds out, or maybe already knows because he's covered the NYC scene before, that the guy he talked to is an elder at one of the nation's best recognized churches (Redeemer), he includes that tidbit because it's interesting to the reader. After all, it made you perk up, didn't it?

Given Redeemer's prominence throughout New York, and its instant recognition factor at _Christianity Today_, I don't think it's at all surprising that the church got mentioned in the article. But I wouldn't call that "involvement" in the hiring. The church may indeed have had some influence. But I don't think we should guess, just from the mentions in _CT_, what that might have been if it existed. You didn't quite go that far, but I was hoping to head off such speculation before it happened.


----------



## sastark (Aug 25, 2010)

Jack K said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > Jack K said:
> ...



Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part, and I will consider revising my phrasing of that sentence.



> It sounded to me like you were trying to suggest, without actually saying it, that the church may in some way have had influence in the hiring decision.



This was not my intention. I do not believe Redeemer, as a church, or the Session thereof, as a body, had an influence on the hiring decision. But, my point is that the same "Gospel Ecosystem" way of thinking, which Redeemer does endorse, seems to be at work in the hiring of D'Sousza. That is: downplay any doctrinal differences, and emphasize cultural transformation. The connection between Redeemer and D'Sousza/King's College, that I see, is one of a shared approach to doctrine, which is that doctrine is not as important as "impacting the culture." I do not believe you can do that without doctrine.




> At the least, I thought you were suggesting the church may look favorably on it, possibly due to a low regard for doctrinal distinctions.



This is more along the lines of what I was trying to say.




> Whether or not we assume the hiring decision is a poor choice (and you didn't do that), I don't think there's sufficient evidence to even suggest these things.



I reserve judgment on the hiring of Dinesh D'Sousza. But, I do think there is evidence to suggest a shared ideology between King's College and Redeemer, and there is a link between the two organizations in the Provost of King's College, who just so happens to be an elder at Redeemer.



> Why did _Christianity Today_ interview Redeemer elder Marvin Olasky? Well, I've worked in both journalism and higher education, and feel pretty good about making four observations:
> 1. Olasky is the college provost. And when a college is without a president, the provost is temporarily the top guy.
> 2. When the nation's leading Christian magazine calls for an interview, you make sure they talk to the top guy. That would be Olasky.
> 3. Olasky _will_ say something nice about his new boss, even if he or his church may have some misgivings (which we don't know).
> 4. When the reporter finds out, or maybe already knows because he's covered the NYC scene before, that the guy he talked to is an elder at one of the nation's best recognized churches (Redeemer), he includes that tidbit because it's interesting to the reader. After all, it made you perk up, didn't it?



Fair enough. It did catch my attention.



> Given Redeemer's prominence throughout New York, and its instant recognition factor at _Christianity Today_, I don't think it's at all surprising that the church got mentioned in the article. But I wouldn't call that "involvement" in the hiring.



I agree, and as I said above, perhaps the phrase "involvement of Redeemer..." was a poor choice of words on my part.



> The church may indeed have had some influence. But I don't think we should guess, just from the mentions in _CT_, what that might have been if it existed. You didn't quite go that far, but I was hoping to head off such speculation before it happened.



I appreciate your concern.

---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

Jack, based on your criticism (which I thank you for), I have slightly revised my wording in my blog post. I hope that the post better communicates the link I am trying to point out between the hiring of D'Sousza and the Gospel Ecosystem approach to church planting and at the same time removes any suggestion that Redeemer or Tim Keller were directly involved in the hiring decision of D'Sousza.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 25, 2010)

TimV said:


> > But we ought not to think this means Redeemer PCA sets out to plant a church and says, "We'll make this one non-reformed."
> 
> 
> 
> Sophistry is too good a word to describe that remark.


 
Okay. I'm sure I'm just dense, but I don't get it. What did I say wrong? I agreed with your post. I _liked_ your post. I've read a lot of Keller's church planting materials and I'd say your original comment is correct, for sure. I meant to add more info, but didn't mean to suggest your post said anything more than what it did. If my comment came out that way, I sincerely apologize. Really.

I do realize that by expressing even limited appreciation for Keller, or suggesting we should at most criticize him only for things he's actually done, I'm sticking up for an unpopular kid in this schoolyard. But I'm trying to be nice about it.


----------



## sastark (Aug 25, 2010)

FYI: The Ruling Elder: King's College Post


----------



## Philip (Aug 25, 2010)

> The connection between Redeemer and D'Sousza/King's College, that I see, is one of a shared approach to doctrine, which is that doctrine is not as important as "impacting the culture." I do not believe you can do that without doctrine.



But what doctrine? Is it Christ and Him crucified or is it the Westminster Confession? I agree, it's "creed or chaos"---but it's important to note that the phrase "creed or chaos" is catholic, disregarding denominational boundaries. If D'Sousza is willing to work within an evangelical framework, then by all means let him do so. The doctrine involved in transformation should not be the doctrine that divides RC from Protestant but that which divides both from Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Secular Humanism, and the like.

Kings is not a distinctively reformed school, so confessional subscription is not an issue. The CT article also seems to indicate that D'Sousza is moving away from RC teaching to more of a "Mere Christian" position.

As for Redeemer's approach, I actually would say that their willingness to train non-reformed church planters will be good in the long run. It means that non-reformed folks are going to be influenced by and guided by some reformed principles. The exposure to reformed ideas can only be good. I really appreciate such a catholic (small "c") approach on the part of the church.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 25, 2010)

Thanks, Seth, for a civil discussion and for listening. I think your point about a church-culture mindset in which there's a low regard for doctrinal distinctions is certainly a valid concern, and an important one. I'm still inclined to suspect that, when you take in the big picture, Redeemer PCA is doing more to _increase_ good doctrinal understanding in NYC than it is to erode doctrine, even though that church is by its own admission not as doctrinally oriented as many others in the PCA. But surely some folks here will disagree, and they may be right. It's a valid concern.


----------



## sastark (Aug 26, 2010)

Jack K said:


> Thanks, Seth, for a civil discussion and for listening. I think your point about a church-culture mindset in which there's a low regard for doctrinal distinctions is certainly a valid concern, and an important one. I'm still inclined to suspect that, when you take in the big picture, Redeemer PCA is doing more to _increase_ good doctrinal understanding in NYC than it is to erode doctrine, even though that church is by its own admission not as doctrinally oriented as many others in the PCA. But surely some folks here will disagree, and they may be right. It's a valid concern.


 
I, likewise, enjoyed our exchange. Iron sharpening iron, brother!

Your point about Redeemer is perhaps a topic for another thread, but I have my doubts about anyone (not just Tim Keller) who is "doing good" while espousing bad theology (deaconesses, theistic evolution, "gospel ecosystems", etc). Again, I want to emphasize, that I am not trying to pick on Tim Keller, specifically, but anyone who fits that category. It's too easy to say "Tim Keller is a bad guy!" just because he is a well-known figure.


----------

