Why Can't Evangelicals Think Theologically?

 

The controversy and commentary surrounding the article by Josh Butler on The Gospel Coalition last week has been fascinating to observe.  The proposal by Butler that the sexual union of male and female is a mystical (possibly even sacramental) expression of the economy of salvation was met with met by loud and spirited condemnation by many voices across the theological spectrum.  For egalitarians, Butler’s views were simply indicative of the patriarchal culture and hierarchical trinitarianism that underpins much of conservative (and particularly Reformed) church structures.  However, should also be noted that there were plenty of those from complementarian circles who were also quick to distance themselves from the central thesis and insist that Butler was not speaking for them.

I do not propose to get into a breakdown of Butler’s arguments.  There are plenty of those floating around, and almost all of the ones that I have seen (even from those who I would disagree with on other matters) make valid points of criticism.  I will simply put forward my own conclusion, coming from an openly generous complementarian perspective, that the article in question (which has now been withdrawn by TGC) was theologically weak, exegetically unsupported, and flat out insulting to women and men, single or married.

Nor do I wish to get into a takedown of Butler personally.  I know very little about him beyond the general observation that he is a pastor with a good deal of experience and seems to have a general talent for communication via the written word.  The information I could glean from his church website leads me to believe that he would hold to a mainstream complementarian perspective (perhaps a little more rigid than myself) but also has a concern for serious social issues such as racism and social inequality.  As to his education (theological or otherwise) or his qualifications to speak on the topic he chose I could not comment.  While the present situation is serious, I don’t think that the article in question was pastorally disqualifying or that he or his church should necessarily be considered “unsafe” although I would absolutely understand if anyone with abuse or trauma in their background would perceive it that way.  It is my hope that Butler will learn from this experience and go on to preach Christ faithfully for years to come.

However, what truly concerns me is the context and systems that operated to make the article public in the first place.  This was, in colloquial terms, a face-plant of epic proportions.  The article did not appear on an obscure blog, but on one of the world’s major Christian online publishing platforms.  Multiple people read the article before the Publish button was pressed.  Distinguished scholars and authors had written endorsements for Butler’s forthcoming (though probably now cancelled) book from which the material was taken.  An online set of seminars to go along with the material was being prepared for launch. 

And nobody stopped it.  Nobody raised the red flag at any point along the way.  This was clearly a Trevor Chappell Underarm Ball level of stupid [note: apologies to any non-antipodean readers who don’t get the reference] and all it got was a smile and a wave through the door. 

What happened to our evangelical (or even a basic Christian) level of discernment?  What does this experience tell us about not just about evangelical blind spots but our collective diminished capacity to Think Theologically when presented with ideas that require careful examination?

I have some thoughts.  Probably ones that some people will perceive as harsh.  What I have to say is not meant to be comprehensive, but I think that we need to start somewhere and this is my best effort.

 

An indication for me as to where the problems start came from the note on Butler’s article that it was a product (along with the upcoming online seminars) of a TGC project called The Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics.  The ministry philosophy and style of Tim Keller shape and permeate the environment in which the current crisis arose.  Therefore, we have to talk about Keller, something that I am rather loathe to do not only because of his many years of Christian leadership but also because of his ongoing serious health issues.  Also, my views might be interpreted as accusing Keller personally of being the cause the current problems, which is far from my intent.  Nevertheless, starting with Keller may enlighten some of the proximate causes of the immediate controversy and point us to the realities of a much broader concern.

I first really started to engage with the thought and methods of Keller back in early 2010.  Keller had, of course, been the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian in New York for a substantial period of time by then and had a local reputation as a church planter, but his role as an international Christian thought leader was still in development.  The Reason For God had only been published in 2008 so in a sense Keller was still an Exciting New Voice.  This was the age of the Podcast Preacher superstars (Piper, Driscoll, etc.), particularly in the Reformed movement, and Keller was right there in the mix as the Serious But Relevant option. 

In 2010 I took part in a short mission by my theological college at a local city church whose relatively new minister had spent several years in New York being trained in the Keller method, which we were given a crash course in over the week.  I left that mission impressed by the organisation and focus of the Keller method – he was certainly keen to see the greatest impact possible for Jesus personally and culturally.  Yet at the same time I had some misgivings.  I wasn’t sure that Keller’s city-centric approach could stand up to close systematic scrutiny, and what the impacts might be for our broader ecclesiology.  I got my answer over the next few years as every hot young church planter with cool hair and skinny jeans fell over each other to plant churches in every available warehouse space within 5km of the city centre while the growing populations in the outer suburbs received little attention or investment.  Perhaps it is unsurprising that I (who was never able to pull off either cool hair or skinny jeans!) was drawn to rather different ministry options.

Over the last decade and a half Keller’s profile has risen though his extensive published works, his preaching (still a popular public download choice), and consistent comments regarding the issues of the day (theological and practical) on Twitter and other platforms.  Keller is a clear and likeable communicator in person and in print.  He has sought to make the message of Jesus relatable to modern Western culture, and by and large he has been very successful in that.  The impacts of his church planting philosophy and materials throughout the world via organisations such at City To City have been tremendous.  The worldwide church is undoubtedly much stronger that it would have been because of the ministry of Tim Keller.

What Keller lacks, on the other hand, is a robust theological method.  This is not to say that he is unorthodox, but that when questions arise that require careful systematic reflection he can tend to be vague or imprecise.  If you follow the commentary on his articles or Tweets you can pick up the regular pattern – Keller fudges some point, there is a load of pushback that Keller is unorthodox/apostate/going woke/etc., Keller puts out clarifying language, and everyone moves on until a few weeks or months later when the whole cycle begins again.  On the one hand the criticism can become tiresome because it can perceive devious motives where it is not clear they exist, but on the other hand the frequency with which Keller gets pushback could be pointing to a more fundamental problem.  Let’s take another cricket analogy – every bowler will bowl no-balls.  In and of itself a no-ball is not a cause for concern about a bowler, as everyone makes mistakes and so adjustments can be made.  However, if a bowler has a consistent problem with dropping his front foot over the crease once an over or so you may need to look at adjusting his entire action, stride, or run-up no matter if his fair balls are of good quality.

At his heart Keller is not a systematic theologian but a cultural apologist.  His intent is to present the message of Jesus as relevant within cultural contexts that have drifted far from their originally Christian moorings and will no doubt drift further as the years go by.  If our neighbours and friends are to put their faith in Jesus they will need to hear his message in a manner and within cultural frames of reference that are intelligible and meaningful.  And praise God that we are gifted with cultural apologists like Keller who can dedicate themselves to this work!  The fact that there is a Keller Center For Cultural Apologetics is a wonderful thing, because our churches need more and better resources for reaching our communities for Jesus (I know I certainly do).  But our cultural apologists also need to have stronger systematic groundings than just orthodox confessionalism.

Keller’s weaknesses also are reflected, I contend, in the Center that bears his name and the article by Josh Butler that it approved for dissemination.  I am not blaming Keller or anyone associated with the Center for the current issue who was not named as being directly involved because it is not clear to me to what extent they were aware of what was being put out.  But those who were there and involved did not see the issue because they were not looking at the article through the broader lens of systematic theology but through the more limited one of apologetics.  What was of first priority was not faithfulness to historic orthodox formulas but presenting "Christian ideas" in a way that would be viewed as challenging and relevant.  They read an article that sought to speak Christ into a sex-saturated world by reinterpreting biblical sex as a metaphor for salvation and thought, “Wow, what a unique and incredible take!  People are going to read this and really get thinking about Jesus.  Let’s get it out there and prepare a whole lot of resources for Christians to take it further.”  They didn’t stop to think about the exegetical or theological foundations behind it because they either uncritically accepted them as sound or deemed them unimportant (or, I suspect, both).

I want to make it clear again that I don’t consider this to be primarily a Tim Keller problem.  I don’t even consider it a TGC or Keller Center problem.  This is a problem with evangelicalism across a number of different streams and traditions losing the ability to engage in creative theological thinking or to exercise appropriate theological discernment.  The Butler instance is a very prominent one, but personally I witness the same mistakes being make within evangelicalism ALL THE TIME - in the USA and Australia, by Reformed and Arminian, in serious articles and in throwaway Facebook comments.  Partly, I suspect, the issue lies in our theological formation.  I was very privileged to study at a theological college of a very high calibre at both bachelor and masters level, but it wasn’t until I was in my fourth year of full-time theological education that I truly grasped what it meant to “think theologically”, and only then because I had a particular interest in certain systematic electives that required a solid grounding in theological method. 

The outcry against the Butler article demonstrates that as a collective the Church has a good instinct to recognise obviously poor theological thinking when it comes along (perhaps in the same way that it doesn’t take a trained chef to know when somebody has made your omelette with rotten eggs) without necessarily being able to diagnose where the problems originated.  However, more often than not the theological concerns are far more subtle and thus more difficult to spot, and it requires that those charged with defending the faith in whatever capacity should have consistency and integrity in both life and doctrine, for their own benefit and for others (1 Tim 4:16).

The cultivation of renewed theological thinking in evangelical culture will be a broad and multi-layered task.  However, in my follow-up to this article I will address three major facets of our shared theological method that I believe merit serious attention if we are to avoid a repeat of the hurtful and divisive events of the last several days.