Thank you for tolerating this diversion from my normal writing topics.
It’s strange how certain realities—even those which are obvious and expected—strike with such jarring force.
Tim Keller’s pancreatic cancer, diagnosed in the summer of 2020, was no secret to the general public. When his son Michael posted a Facebook update nearly three years later that his dad was “being discharged from the hospital to receive hospice care at home,” it seemed clear the end was imminent.
Nevertheless, I was ill prepared to read Michael’s follow-up post the next day:
Timothy J. Keller, husband, father, grandfather, mentor, friend, pastor, and scholar died this morning at home. Dad waited until he was alone with Mom. She kissed him on the forehead, and he breathed his last breath. We take comfort in some of his last words, “There is no downside for me leaving, not in the slightest.” See you soon, Dad.
The news came like a sucker punch to my gut. Much of that weekend was spent in grief and tears.
Why did Keller’s death affect me so strongly? Maybe it’s an example of not fully appreciating someone until they’re gone. Maybe it’s because Keller’s work had a greater impact on me than I recognized. Maybe it’s because I, as someone who lost his father to cancer, can tend to react more strongly to the loss of public figures I respect who succumb to cancer as well.1 I can’t readily discern the cause of my acute grief. In any case, as Samuel D. James notes, “It’s possible to genuinely mourn someone you never met, especially if that person showed you some glimpse of God.”
A Gentle and Lowly Presence
I’ve been encouraged by the sheer number of people coming forward with stories of personal interactions with Keller that serve to confirm the reality of his genuine humility and Christian charity. Below are a few examples.
From Tony Reinke:
Fifteen years ago I published a discernment blog post on my site warning of Dr. Keller’s “great errors.” . . . . The language pointed, the tone uncharitable, within an hour a friend texted to say while I may have landed a point or two worthy of consideration, my approach was wrong. He was right. I deleted the post immediately. In that moment I saw my own self-righteousness with a clarity I’ve rarely experienced. I didn’t sleep that night. In the early morning hours, I wrote an apology email and sent it to Dr. Keller, our first contact. I pasted my deleted post at the end, assuming (rightly) that he never saw it and wouldn’t know what I was talking about! He responded in fifteen minutes and accepted my apology in the first sentence. And then said, “I assume you still hold your views. Are you open to talking about those?” Which led to an email exchange that lasted a few days. He couldn’t have been more riveted on the truths and errors to discuss. He and I both hit the commentaries and responded to each other with sources. It was a glorious exchange, sharpening, and eventually led to mutual understanding, all due to his eagerness to push past any personal offense. Personal offense was never going to be a hangup for Tim Keller with truth at stake. A snapshot of the man we lost today, and the man I aspire to be.
From Dr. Josh Chatraw (in a private Facebook post that he gave me permission to share, but which can also be pieced together by reading this article):
The first time I met Tim Keller, we had a meeting in his office in NYC. I was there to interview him. He walked in the room and wanted to talk about my work, which was absurd. But that was Tim. He deeply cared about others. He was a pastor first. Until the end, he was shepherding others and pointing to Jesus.
From Kevin DeYoung:
Amazingly, I never got a whiff of pretension with Tim, never a hint of moral impropriety, and never a sense of superiority or entitlement. I know many other young(ish) men who probably thought the same thing I did, “Why is Tim so kind and encouraging to me?”
From Don Carson:
[N]ot once did I ever see Tim on the verge of “losing it,” still less of descending to catty or condescending assessments of others. More broadly, a large part of Tim’s attractiveness in his apologetic preaching turned on his ability to summarize an opponent’s argument with more accuracy and evenhandedness than the opponent could. The temptation to score points among one’s acolytes sometimes destroys our ability to win over an opponent. That is a pitfall into which I’ve never seen Tim stumble—not once. I wish I could make the same claim about myself.
A Discerning Expositor
Even though I’ve read and listened to other contemporary pastors more than Keller, he has notably helped me better discern the state of my own heart unlike any other preacher. His book Counterfeit Gods especially equipped me to recognize (and more effectively fight against) my idolatries, through quotes like this:
[W]hen you pray and work for something and you don’t get it and you respond with explosive anger or deep despair, then you may have found your real god. . . . [W]hen you ‘pull your emotions up by the roots,’ as it were, you will often find your idols clinging to them. (pp. 169, 170)
Additionally, Keller has helped me see the multifaceted glory of Christ more clearly. One stellar example is the following excerpt from his 2007 sermon, “Gospel-Centered Ministry”:
Do you believe the Bible’s basically about you, or basically about [Jesus]? Is David and Goliath basically about you and how you can be like David…or basically about him, the one who really took on the only giants that can really kill us (and so his victory is imputed to us)? . . .
Jesus is the true and better Adam who passed the test in the garden—his garden, a much tougher garden—and whose obedience is imputed to us.
Jesus is the true and better Abel who, though innocently slain, has blood that cries out, not for our condemnation, but for our acquittal.
Jesus is the true and better Abraham who answered the call of God to leave all the comfortable and familiar and go into the void, not knowing wither he went.
Jesus is the true and better Isaac who was not just offered up by his father on the mount but was truly sacrificed for us all. While God said to Abraham, “Now I know you love me because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love, from me,” now we, at the foot of the cross, can say to God, “Now we know that you love me because you did not withhold your son, your only son, whom you love from me.”
Jesus is the true and better Jacob who wrestled and took the blow of justice we deserved so we, like Jacob, only receive the wounds that wake us up and discipline us.
Jesus is the true and better Joseph who, at the right hand of the king, forgives those who betrayed and sold him and uses his new power to save them.
Jesus is the true and better Moses who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a new covenant.
Jesus is the true and better Rock of Moses who, struck with the rod of God’s justice, now gives us water in the desert.
Jesus is the true and better Job, the truly innocent sufferer, who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends. . . .
Jesus is the true and better David whose victory becomes his people’s victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.
Jesus is the true and better Esther who didn’t just risk losing an earthly palace but lost the ultimate and heavenly one; who didn’t just risk his life, but gave his life; who didn’t just say, “If I perish, I perish,” but “When I perish, I’ll perish for them—to save my people.”
Jesus is the true and better Jonah who was cast out into the storm so that we could be brought in.
He’s the real Passover Lamb, and he’s the true temple, the true prophet, the true priest, the true king, the true sacrifice, the true lamb, the true light, the true bread.
The Bible’s not about you.
No Stranger to Criticism
Anyone familiar with Keller will know he had critics on both the left and right. As Katelyn Beaty notes,
From the right, his “winsomeness” is now perceived as weakness in a heightened cultural battle that demands warriors. From the left, his teachings on gender and sexuality are seen as oppressive and a tool of exclusion for already marginalized people.
Some of Keller’s critics (especially those on the right) have made legitimate points. I publicly published a critique of my own back in 2022. Even so, and as I noted in my critique, many mistook Keller’s “third-wayism” for a “milquetoast middle ground-ism.” The two are not the same.2
Keller himself shared a sentiment many of his critics espoused3—that of avoiding “middle-of-the-road centrism”:
Ideologies force “ethical package deals” on Christians. (See James Mumford, Vexed: Ethics Beyond Political Tribes.) Biblically, Christians ought to be equally and energetically concerned about guarding the life of the unborn, about racial injustice, about the plight of the poor, and about promoting sexual morality and the health of the family. We should not have to choose among these. We should not have to play down (not talk so much) about some of them in order to promote others. But across the West, the dominant political parties call its members to do just that.
Nevertheless, since Christians can and must work for the good of society as our biblically-informed consciences direct us, they will often have to work in or support others in the dominant political parties. But because of the ideological nature of politics and the “package deals”, we must not identify Christian faith closely with any of them, insist there is only one truly Christian way to vote.
Thus, in much of his cultural commentary, Keller sought to point his readers, not to a compromise between two political or ideological sides, but to absolute Biblical truths:
…the main problem in life is sin, and the only solution is God and his grace. The alternative to this view is to identify something besides sin as the main problem with the world and something besides God as the main remedy. That demonizes something that is not completely bad, and makes an idol out of something that cannot be the ultimate good. . . .
“Ideologues believe that their school or party has the real and complete answer to society’s problems. Above all, ideologies hide from their adherents their dependence on God. . . .
In any culture in which God is largely absent, sex, money, and politics will fill the vacuum for different people. This is the reason that our political discourse is increasingly ideological and polarized. Many describe the current poisonous public discourse as a lack of bipartisanship, but the roots go much deeper than that. As Niebuhr taught, they go back to the beginning of the world, to our alienation from God, and to our frantic efforts to compensate for our feelings of cosmic nakedness and powerlessness. The only way to deal with all these things is to heal our relationship with God.4
Keller also received criticism for imagining a world that was less hostile to Christianity than it actually was. But as evidenced by a 2021 Q&A with World Magazine (among other examples), Keller thus addressed the following question: “Do you see the world’s culture as becoming increasingly hostile toward Christian values (or perhaps it’s just always been hostile)?”:
Absolutely, yes, the culture is more hostile to Christianity. Whether speaking of the academy, the media, government, business, popular entertainment, the arts, or social media—our culture is growing more hostile toward Christian beliefs and values. It is not the same as it has always been.
The question, “How do you respond to this?” requires a week’s answer or a sentence. I opt for the sentence: First, repent for the ways Christians’ inconsistent lives have harmed the Church’s credibility. Second, love your neighbor as yourself. Third, let people know you are a believer—don’t hide it. Fourth, make sure you are not harsh or clumsy in your words (be sure it’s the gospel that offends and not you). And last, don’t be afraid of persecution. Jesus promises to be with you.
A Profound Legacy
recently wrote that, while many politically conservative Christians “understandably parted ways with Keller,” it nevertheless…would be foolish to deny the combinatorial explosion of gospel influence that traces directly to Keller’s ministry. It’s impossible to number the souls who would never have so much as heard Christ preached were it not for his drive to reach them. And more, it’s impossible to number the souls reached through the ministry of the countless other churches he planted and younger leaders he mentored. Many are alive in Christ today who have good reason to thank God for Tim Keller. . . .
Much more than a celebrity pastor, he was a down-to-earth man who frequently went out of his way to engage with people who had no platform, paying genuine attention to their needs and questions. Even while undergoing treatments for pancreatic cancer, he continued to give generously of time and energy he didn’t have. We can only aspire to this sort of generosity in our everyday, cancer-free lives.
I myself will be forever grateful for the ministry of Tim Keller, and the ways in which God has used him to enrich my Christian walk. While I grieve that Keller is no longer with us, I take comfort knowing he is now in the joyous presence of Christ, experiencing the reality of what he himself said:
“All death can do to Christians is make their lives infinitely better.”
I remember mourning the death of Christopher Hitchens back in 2011. In spite of his radically anti-theist worldview, Hitchens was someone I grew to like more and more with each new exposure to his work, not the least of which was the 2009 documentary Collision.
As Christopher Watkins puts it, “Rather than crudely splitting the difference [between two extremes], third-way thinking is about letting the Bible set its own table—unfold its own categories and tell its own story in its own way—rather than squeezing it in awkwardly between existing ideologies at a table set by others.”
Even James R. Wood, author of the First Things piece “How I Evolved on Tim Keller,” later clarified that “[My] piece was intended as a defense of Keller against his harshest critics,” and “I am largely concerned about the way [Keller’s] framework is broadly appropriated by his disciples” (emphasis added).
Counterfeit Gods, pp. 100, 104, 107.