R. C. Sproul on "the myth of influence"...

Dear T.U...A.D,

By Pastor Keller's standard, the Apostle Paul was wrong to write the book of Galatians. He uses every single tactic that Mr. Keller labels as proud.

I guess Paul, and the Holy Spirit, are trapped in the "moral-performance narrative."

Dear Tim, David, and Stephen,

I thoroughly agree with you all. And I do recall the recent posts about Keller, Ryken, Gleason and the polemics about deaconesses in the PCA.

And there is much, much to commend in Keller's article as well. I shall reproduce in its entirety (only because of my clumsy inability to provide a working link). In that way you can see the entire context of the snippeted quote. Pax.

The Advent of Humility

Jesus is the reason to stop concentrating on ourselves.

Tim Keller | posted 12/22/2008 05:07PM

Innumerable Christmas devotionals point out the humble circumstances of Jesus' birth—among shepherds, in a crude stable, with a feed trough for a bassinet. When Jesus himself tried to summarize why people should take up the yoke of following him, he said it was because he was meek and humble (Matt. 11:29). Seldom, however, do we explore the full implications of how Jesus' radical humility shapes the way we live our lives every day.

Humility is crucial for Christians. We can only receive Christ through meekness and humility (Matt. 5:3, 5; 18:3-4). Jesus humbled himself and was exalted by God (Phil. 2:8-9); therefore joy and power through humility is the very dynamic of the Christian life (Luke 14:11; 18:14; 1 Pet. 5:5).

The teaching seems simple and obvious. The problem is that it takes great humility to understand humility, and even more to resist the pride that comes so naturally with even a discussion of the subject.

We are on slippery ground because humility cannot be attained directly. Once we become aware of the poison of pride, we begin to notice it all around us. We hear it in the sarcastic, snarky voices in newspaper columns and weblogs. We see it in civic, cultural, and business leaders who never admit weakness or failure. We see it in our neighbors and some friends with their jealousy, self-pity, and boasting.

And so we vow not to talk or act like that. If we then notice "a humble turn of mind" in ourselves, we immediately become smug—but that is pride in our humility. If we catch ourselves doing that we will be particularly impressed with how nuanced and subtle we have become. Humility is so shy. If you begin talking about it, it leaves. To even ask the question, "Am I humble?" is to not be so. Examining your own heart, even for pride, often leads to being proud about your diligence and circumspection.

Christian humility is not thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less, as C. S. Lewis so memorably said. It is to be no longer always noticing yourself and how you are doing and how you are being treated. It is "blessed self-forgetfulness."

Humility is a byproduct of belief in the gospel of Christ. In the gospel, we have a confidence not based in our performance but in the love of God in Christ (Rom. 3:22-24). This frees us from having to always be looking at ourselves. Our sin was so great, nothing less than the death of Jesus could save us. He had to die for us. But his love for us was so great, Jesus was glad to die for us.

Grace, Not Goodness

We are on slippery ground when we discuss humility, because religion and morality inhibit humility. It is common in the evangelical community to talk about one's worldview—a set of basic beliefs and commitments that shape the way we live in every particular. Others prefer the term "narrative identity." This is a set of answers to the questions, "Who am I? What is my life all about? What am I here for? What are the main barriers keeping me from fulfillment? How can I deal with those barriers?"

There are two basic narrative identities at work among professing Christians. The first is what I will call the moral-performance narrative identity. These are people who in their heart of hearts say, I obey; therefore I am accepted by God. The second is what I will call the grace narrative identity. This basic operating principle is, I am accepted by God through Christ; therefore I obey.

People living their lives on the basis of these two different principles may superficially look alike. They may sit right beside one another in the church pew, both striving to obey the law of God, to pray, to give money generously, to be good family members. But they are doing so out of radically different motives, in radically different spirits, resulting in radically different personal characters.

When persons living in the moral-performance narrative are criticized, they are furious or devastated because they cannot tolerate threats to their self-image of being a "good person."

But in the gospel our identity is not built on such an image, and we have the emotional ballast to handle criticism without attacking back. When people living in the moral-performance narrative base their self-worth on being hard working or theologically sound, then they must look down on those whom they perceive to be lazy or theologically weak.

But those who understand the gospel cannot possibly look down on anyone, since they were saved by sheer grace, not by their perfect doctrine or strong moral character.

The Stench of Moralism

Another mark of the moral-performance narrative is a constant need to find fault, win arguments, and prove that all opponents are not just mistaken but dishonest sellouts. However, when the gospel is deeply grasped, our need to win arguments is removed, and our language becomes gracious. We don't have to ridicule our opponents, but instead we can engage them respectfully.

People who live in the moral-performance narrative use sarcastic, self-righteous putdown humor, or have no sense of humor at all. Lewis speaks of "the unsmiling concentration upon Self, which is the mark of hell." The gospel, however, creates a gentle sense of irony. We find a lot to laugh at, starting with our own weaknesses. They don't threaten us anymore because our ultimate worth is not based on our record or performance.

Martin Luther had the basic insight that moralism is the default mode of the human heart. Even Christians who believe the gospel of grace on one level can continue to operate as if they have been saved by their works. In "The Great Sin" in Mere Christianity, Lewis writes, "If we find that our religious life is making us feel that we are good—above all, that we are better than someone else—I think we may be sure that we are being acted on, not by God, but by the Devil."

Gracious, self-forgetful humility should be one of the primary things that distinguishes Christian believers from the many other types of moral, decent people in the world. But I think it is fair to say that humility, which is a key differentiating mark of the Christian, is largely missing in the church. Nonbelievers, detecting the stench of sanctimony, turn away.

Some will say, "Phariseeism and moralism are not our culture's big problems right now. Our problems are license and antinomianism. There is no need to talk about grace all the time to postmodern people." But postmodern people have been rejecting Christianity for years, thinking that it was indistinguishable from moralism. Only if you show them there's a difference—that what they rejected wasn't real Christianity—will they even begin to listen again.

Get Your Fresh Humility Here

This is the place where the author is supposed to come up with practical solutions. I don't have any. Here's why.

First, the problem is too big for practical solutions. The wing of the evangelical church that is most concerned about the loss of truth and about compromise is actually infamous in our culture for its self-righteousness and pride. However, there are many in our circles who, in reaction to what they perceive as arrogance, are backing away from many of the classic Protestant doctrines (such as Forensic Justification and Substitutionary Atonement) that are crucial and irreplaceable — as well as the best possible resources for humility.

Second, directly talking about practical ways to become humble, either as individuals or as communities, will always backfire. I have said that major wings of the evangelical church are wrong. So who is left? Me? Am I beginning to think only we few, we happy few, have achieved the balance that the church so needs? I think I hear Wormwood whispering in my ear, "Yes, only you can really see things clearly."

I do hope to clarify, or I wouldn't have written on the topic at all. But there is no way to begin telling people how to become humble without destroying what fragments of humility they may already possess.

Third, humility is only achieved as a byproduct of understanding, believing, and marveling in the gospel of grace. But the gospel doesn't change us in a mechanical way. Recently I heard a sociologist say that for the most part, the frameworks of meaning by which we navigate our lives are so deeply embedded in us that they operate "pre-reflectively." They don't exist only as a list of propositions, but also as themes, motives, and attitudes. When we listen to the gospel preached or meditate on it in the Scriptures, we are driving it so deeply into our hearts, imaginations, and thinking that we begin to instinctively "live out" the gospel.

So let us preach grace till humility just starts to grow in us.

Truth Unites...and Divides,

You say that "Pastor Tim Keller's recent CT article...seems to indirectly undermine and/or rebuke you and your brother's approach." If that approach is summarized by your quootation from Tim ("So here David and I stand, looking for that Biblical doctrine that causes our fellow elders the most embarrassment. And having found it, we focus our attention precisely there."), I don't see any connection at all.

Show me where the Baylys believe they are accepted by God because of their obedience. Show me their lack of humor. Why can't some people, at this point in the game, see the difference between criticizing a person and opposing false theology--which, by the way, it is a pastor's job to do?

Apart from a few one-liners, this piece made me rather queasy. If I have to read the word "radical" from an trendy evangelical's pen one more time, I might develop an ulcer. Keller is obviously looking over his shoulder every paragraph for the reaction to his words back in Manhattan, among those who are impressed by phrases like "moral-performance identity narrative," "pre-reflective" and "radically different." Clearly, he ascribes to himself the "grace narrative identity," whose motto is "I am accepted by God through Christ; therefore I obey."

But I wonder what exactly obedience means and doesn't mean to him. He gives himself away when he writes:

"The wing of the evangelical church that is most concerned about the loss of truth and about compromise is actually infamous in our culture for its self-righteousness and pride."

So--again--it's an easy political dichotomy in which the evil conservatives, as usual, are attacking the friendly liberals. The problem is, he casually associates truth with pride, leading one to conclude that a desire for humility is associated with a disregard for truth. Does that describe Tim Keller? Seems like it. Where's the nuance in that formula? And where's the humility in judging the motives of an entire half of the Christian church ("There are two basic narrative identities at work among professing Christians. The first is what I will call the moral-performance narrative identity. These are people who in their heart of hearts say, I obey; therefore I am accepted by God.")? And his attempt to come off as humble by not offering any practical solutions seems disingenuous, affected and corny to me. That section could have been written better, but only if he weren't so concerned about appearing humble.

The bottom line is, I think Keller fails to define humility and pride in a way that's Bibliical and applicable to the office he holds. Again, as Stephen already said, according to Keller, all the prophets and apostles and even Jesus himself (and, dare I say, God the Father) are guilty of self-righteousness and pride. This failure of definitions must be the result of his immersion in and commitment to a single, non-normative cultural bubble, which has priority in his mind over the Bible and 2,000 years of church history and theology. The latter show that humility in a pastor involves--at least occasionally--being unpopular as he submits to the revealed truth, not to downplaying the truth in order to pander to some nebulous, convenient but ultimately unreal class of "postmodern people." (Who's postmodern? Am I postmodern? Is Tim Bayly postmodern? Why or why not?) I'd like to go into how Keller is too preoccupied by the world's negative perception of Christians, but opining about techniques of evangelism was an unnecessary digression that Keller should have skipped in this piece. That will be for another time.

The first half of my comment above got misformatted. It should be:

"TU: would humility extend to responding to ministers in the same communion to whom you've vowed to submit?"

Dear Daryl Hart,

That seems like a reasonable question. I would think so.

"Could it be that being a churchman is humble, not writing articles about humility for CT?"

Both/And. Keller can both be a humble churchman and simultaneously write articles about humility for CT.

Hi TU...AD,

Thanks for pointing me to that response. I may go over there and reply again.

Just to be more explicit, though, I don't think anybody here opposes the main thesis that Keller argues in his opinion piece--that we should be humble based on our acceptance in God's grace, that we should love liberally and that more humility means less self-regard. (In fact, as I said, he made a couple of points I did like.) The main objections would be that he hasn't defined his terms broadly (Biblically) enough and that it's inappropriate for him (or anyone else) to use the lines of his argument to criticize (by suggestion or implication) the "approach" used here at this blog. I don't think it applies. I wonder if it really applies anywhere, actually. The dichotomy he puts forward (friendly evangelical vs. meanie fundamentalist) reminds me of Rob Bell's "Bullhorn Guy" video, which is fallacious on so many levels that it becomes just a fantasy or projection.

Hi again TU...AD,

Just wanted to let you know that I posted a reply at theologica.

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/12/blessed-self-forgetfulness.html#1...

Also, about your reply to Mark Chambers: doesn't there have to come a time when we all stop considering and start responding? We can't all just go on considering our own sin to the exclusion of ever actually saying anything--no one would ever speak or write another word. And I think people do "consider the message" before they respond. I submit, once again, that you're confusing doctrinal criticism with personal attacks.

>Also, about your reply to Mark Chambers: doesn't there have to come a time when we all stop considering and start responding? We can't all just go on considering our own sin to the exclusion of ever actually saying anything--no one would ever speak or write another word. And I think people do "consider the message" before they respond. I submit, once again, that you're confusing doctrinal criticism with personal attacks.

Exactly and Amen. It is that ubiquitous cultural "paean to niceness" to quote David B. and it has worked its way into the church. People are so self centered and bound up in themselves that any questioning of ideas is considered an attack on the person. It serves to silence all criticism and is at root a veiled form of antinomianism.

TU: I agree, Keller can be a churchman and can write on humility for CT? But has he done both? Has he answered his critics in the PCA? If not, and he's writing for CT, then you might need to modify your answer.