TCC
Well-known
Thanks Hol. I appreciate your concern. I used to like Frances Chan. To me he demonstrated maverick essence because he actually was one of very few if any who left a huge congregation for a different path. He stepped down from his own mega church. On one level we could say this is "radical." And by today's standards for sure it would be just that. For me this would be similar to how I felt about Tim Keller. His unique approach to scripture actually is very much appreciated by me. But his deference to the Gospel Coalition (a left of center leaning delegation of the church) and his views on evolution (not even taking into account how some would have concerns with him on the issue of sin) kind of put a check in my heart.
This was no small issue for me. Because at the time while I was at Macarthurs church, I was told by my direct pastor that I should not trust Keller (he even stated it in a sermon) because he was missional (meaning he used modern concepts to redefine the bible -- of which I would say that is not exactly an accurate rendering but can understand why to some it may come across that way). Meanwhile I attended another fellowship group while at Macarthur's church where the pastor with a doctorate lauded Keller and did a whole series in respect to his views. At the time I really appreciated that. And it helped me to see on one hand how GCC (Macarthur's church) did allow for diversity of views even though they would tow a very conservative line. It was because of Tim Keller I actually stayed at GCC. Because i was thinking mega churches might not be the best for me. But what I felt lacking at GCC, Keller seemed to address. And I do believe where Keller detailed approaches to scripture I was not really seeing at GCC, they could stand on their own as right doctrinal approaches even many of the doctorates at GCC could not weather. Yet, even still, Keller's take on evolution resonated with me as a man who can be led by the spirit of the age...which introduced a much larger concern of him.
So I say all that because what was valuable about what Keller delivered is what it is. But I believe we live at a time where there is a convergence of ideology (not just end time signs). Categories seem to be tested and redefined in ways. Almost as if there might be something to CERN derailing our time line into other versions of our own reality. Which of course I do not ascribe to because there are no other dimensions of possibilities of our reality. There are no alternative demensions of our selves somewhere had we made different decisions. There are no versions of us on one time line going to hell. And on another going to heaven. God created us. And we are that creation. There are no other versions. And as odd as it is to seem to bring this up, I would say however, categories and ideologies do seem to be colliding in our day as if there were other dimensions like that (just to underscore the level of how intense category crashing has become in our age). Men can be woman and have babies? lol Or government has the right over childrens choice of gender. Just to name two very high profile versions of this.
So if we take that into consideration, we can also see it in many areas of life. And we also see it in the church. Fundamentalism is a solid stance against evolution in the church. But unchecked, fundamentalism can also be seen to become controlling, devisive, and conveyer belt Christianity. Does that mean no good thing comes from Fundamentalism? Heavens no. Does that mean since they are right on afew things we should just consider the whole package? Truly heavens no. So we live in an age where tribalism can increasingly be understood as antithetical to John 15:15. Yet, it is wise, as you well bring up, that we should sort out things with discernment the best we can.
Andy Woods is pretty much of late the only pastor I would binge sermons on. Even so, his take on the mustard seed is very concerning that a man at his level of biblical insight would not permit a bid more depth in his view on that. Almost to a point of concern I might have had for Keller and evolution. However, misapplied views on parables, however theologically problematic as they may be, would not introduce the same level of biblical disruption as evolution I would believe. Andy's stance on the mustard seed does enter, for me, some specific danger categories I see rising in general in the church that would be moving away from an appreciation of exegesis and lean more into categories of celebrity tribalistic thinking (which to me is in the top 5 concerns of modern evangelicalism). But even so, if I throw Andy out like a baby with the bathwater, and practice that level of discernment in operation, that, for me, kind of brings it down to nomad Christianity...which obviously can't be right. So I believe there is, in the quagmire of it all, a premium to behold on not letting pet peeves or biases limit our exercise of discernment, nor become similar to an ideology for us. Its challenging and humbling. And in that way must have significant biblical street cred.
So yeah, I agree we should be grateful for remnant biblical perspectives in those we can in the pulpit today. And we should protect those views they hold that do resonate with actual biblical premise. But I believe an equally healthy practice in our day is the John 15:15 principle. Learning how to see those we might not agree with through as much of an adult filter as we might (given our days and season we find ourselves in). For Platt for example, I would want to extend every consideration. While at the same time holding to a spirit filled paradigm perspective that may challenge my own views to myself as much as I might have concerns towards others. Quite a tight rope to walk. But it would seem to me, given where factions seem to surely arise out from, the most spiritually mature course -- not easy. Not always pleasant. But it would seem a gateway to broader perspective at a time where categories are literally colliding. If that makes sense. Blessings.
Blessings.
We wouldn't want that now. We need Perry 
