I remember, in my early years at seminary, there was a set of lectures on preaching by Tim Keller and Ed Clowney that were being passed around the student body.
I appreciate your efforts here. I am speaking from my own limited perspective.
I was part of a CCP church for almost 10 years, but it was tilted more toward legalism than anything else. The pastor placed a heavy heavy burden on church members to pursue holiness at all costs. This was valuable to me for many years but after leaving the church (hence the anonymous user name) we were shunned in all ways.
At least in my context and in my new church family context, I don't see CCP (even taken to it's furthest conclusion) as a relaxing of the law. I see many people around me who pursue holiness precisely because Jesus gives them rest.
I guess I'm saying I don't see the connection. A pastor leading his people to rest in Jesus will naturally teach them to obey all Jesus has commanded.
In fact, I see more of a subtle church movement toward pietism as described by the pastors in the blog post above. That our works don't save us, but by golly, we must self-improve ourselves and obey obey obey lest we lose our footing for Jesus.
Seems like a strawman argument at best and does a great disservice to the movement of CCP in the historical-theological backdrop of the 20th century. For example: you fail to mention that the advent of CCP in the 20th century through preachers like Lloyd-Jones and Boice was taking place during a time and theological landscape that had to answer against competing voices like the modernists, neo-orthodoxy, process theology, Vatican II, growing Pentecostalism, liberal ecumenical movements, and growing trends towards liberation or social-awareness theology. Further, you also fail to mention the evolution of CCP from greater developments in biblical theology that were tied to covenantal theology, especially against the growth of dispensational theology in the 1970s. All that to say, Chapel's book, especially because of its focus on the Fallen Condition Focus, did so well, and would still do well, to change the preaching of many evangelical churches because it placed the focus of preaching back on Christ. Let's be honest: is it better to talk about how Christ emerges from the story of David and Goliath as a conquering hero that saves God's people from an enemy they cannot defeat on their own, or are we going to jettison CCP, because of our obvious dislike of Keller, so that our megachurches can continue to teach how Goliath represents our biggest obstacles to happiness in life? I don't know about you, but as someone who grew up in churches much more like the latter and who is seeing peoples' lives changed through CCP, especially those who have never heard the gospel before, I think I'll stick with it. Should preaching stay there? No. But this article feels like punching at the normal suspects to get clicks. We get it...you don't like Keller.
I'm aware of how CCP evolved (expounding all those trends with any rigor would take a book-length treatment, not a Substack article), but it doesn't make the effects less damaging. The example of Goliath is telling - because mega-churches have obviously abused the text with wish-fulfillment empowerment fantasies, we have to swing to the other extreme and suggest the text has nothing to say about courage and trusting the Lord when faced with an enemy. Both readings come across as absurd to an honest reader. It isn't better to just talk about Christ if you have to abuse the text and your credibility to do so, especially when there are so many fruitful applications of the text entirely in line with the gospel. Keller's explanation (if you listen to that first lecture) borders on silly, because he has a certain argument he wants to make.
I don't like Keller because Keller is deep in my DNA, and deep in the DNA of the preachers of my generation. This is as much wrestling with my own demons as anything else. I increasingly see good, gospel-preaching churches around me succumb to cowardice on moral issues, and it confuses and frustrates me. This is an attempt to find an explanation.
I appreciate your efforts here. I am speaking from my own limited perspective.
I was part of a CCP church for almost 10 years, but it was tilted more toward legalism than anything else. The pastor placed a heavy heavy burden on church members to pursue holiness at all costs. This was valuable to me for many years but after leaving the church (hence the anonymous user name) we were shunned in all ways.
At least in my context and in my new church family context, I don't see CCP (even taken to it's furthest conclusion) as a relaxing of the law. I see many people around me who pursue holiness precisely because Jesus gives them rest.
This post (and coincidentally, their book on Rest) were very helpful when I began detangling the web of legalism vs rest in Jesus. https://theocast.org/blogs/theocast/how-pietism-ruins-good-works
I guess I'm saying I don't see the connection. A pastor leading his people to rest in Jesus will naturally teach them to obey all Jesus has commanded.
In fact, I see more of a subtle church movement toward pietism as described by the pastors in the blog post above. That our works don't save us, but by golly, we must self-improve ourselves and obey obey obey lest we lose our footing for Jesus.
Seems like a strawman argument at best and does a great disservice to the movement of CCP in the historical-theological backdrop of the 20th century. For example: you fail to mention that the advent of CCP in the 20th century through preachers like Lloyd-Jones and Boice was taking place during a time and theological landscape that had to answer against competing voices like the modernists, neo-orthodoxy, process theology, Vatican II, growing Pentecostalism, liberal ecumenical movements, and growing trends towards liberation or social-awareness theology. Further, you also fail to mention the evolution of CCP from greater developments in biblical theology that were tied to covenantal theology, especially against the growth of dispensational theology in the 1970s. All that to say, Chapel's book, especially because of its focus on the Fallen Condition Focus, did so well, and would still do well, to change the preaching of many evangelical churches because it placed the focus of preaching back on Christ. Let's be honest: is it better to talk about how Christ emerges from the story of David and Goliath as a conquering hero that saves God's people from an enemy they cannot defeat on their own, or are we going to jettison CCP, because of our obvious dislike of Keller, so that our megachurches can continue to teach how Goliath represents our biggest obstacles to happiness in life? I don't know about you, but as someone who grew up in churches much more like the latter and who is seeing peoples' lives changed through CCP, especially those who have never heard the gospel before, I think I'll stick with it. Should preaching stay there? No. But this article feels like punching at the normal suspects to get clicks. We get it...you don't like Keller.
I'm aware of how CCP evolved (expounding all those trends with any rigor would take a book-length treatment, not a Substack article), but it doesn't make the effects less damaging. The example of Goliath is telling - because mega-churches have obviously abused the text with wish-fulfillment empowerment fantasies, we have to swing to the other extreme and suggest the text has nothing to say about courage and trusting the Lord when faced with an enemy. Both readings come across as absurd to an honest reader. It isn't better to just talk about Christ if you have to abuse the text and your credibility to do so, especially when there are so many fruitful applications of the text entirely in line with the gospel. Keller's explanation (if you listen to that first lecture) borders on silly, because he has a certain argument he wants to make.
I don't like Keller because Keller is deep in my DNA, and deep in the DNA of the preachers of my generation. This is as much wrestling with my own demons as anything else. I increasingly see good, gospel-preaching churches around me succumb to cowardice on moral issues, and it confuses and frustrates me. This is an attempt to find an explanation.