Tim and I dialogued a bit last night and this morning about his Newsweek profile. (See my comments yesterday for context.)
Some have been discussing a few problems with the story, and a couple have mentioned the reference to evolution in the article.
Tim wrote (with permission for me to share).
We should be charitable to the writer on the issues mentioned. They are pretty minor.Yes, it isn't my first book, but the last one was over 20 years ago. I don't preach at all 5 services--I preach 4 and every week someone from the preaching team preaches the fifth one.
I wouldn’t in the least style myself a new C.S. Lewis (who would want a new one when the old one is still so great) but she got that from publicity copy written by well-meaning people at Penguin.
I wouldn't want to characterize myself as another Rick Warren but she likes Rick and wouldn't see that as a negative statement.
I believe in the historicity of Gen 1-11 and Adam and Eve and I don't believe in young earth-creation or six 24-hour day creation, but, as far as she's concerned, that means I believe somewhat in evolution. She's not used to the fine distinctions on these things we make inside the church.
Also, I've never lived anywhere near Georgia (but maybe I've spent so much time in the airport it's affected my accent!)
And even the statement that my book disappointed her in comparison to my preaching is actually true—I’m a better speaker than writer, and always will me. That was more a compliment to the preaching than a criticism of the book.
Despite this list of nits to pick, it was an overall positive, even warm article, especially considering it comes from someone whose beliefs are so different. The writer clearly likes the church and appreciates the ministry in many ways. So I'm glad for her efforts.
Remember, we should not assume that secular reporters get the distinction between 6-day creation and evolution. And, yes, there are some minor story details that are incorrect. But, as I told Tim, I thought it was a strong article that I believe will bring glory to God.
Finally, the (mild) criticism in the article is normal-- no reporter writes a nice piece without a few critical comments. And, Keller is a great speaker, so the book will have to be very good to keep up.
Thanks, Tim, for the update and for your humility.
Comments (9)
Thanks for getting the clarifications Ed. Like you stated, overall it was a great article. There were a few things in there that didn't seem quite right though. I am glad that Tim was able to speak into this through you, especially since most of your readers can't just pick up the phone and call him.
It gets me thinking: This writer was sympathetic, even in admiration, of her subject and missed enough of the facts to give some readers pause. It is scary to think of articles written by people who either dislike their subject or are hostile to them.
Thank you again.
Posted by Jacob Vanhorn | February 10, 2008 2:13 PM
Posted on February 10, 2008 14:13
Jacob,
Glad to help.
It is remarkable to me how quickly people start up the talk. My preference is to give the benefit of the doubt.
Having been misrepresented in the press, I understand what it is like.
And, you make an important point that if sympathetic writers make mistakes in reporting, how do you deal with those who intentionally distort? I have seen such distortion in many watch-blogs and even some "christian" news publications.
First rule: read with discernment and don't believe everything you read.
Second rule: everyone writes with a perspective and you should take that into account.
Third rule: when in doubt, ask.
Ed
Posted by Ed Stetzer | February 10, 2008 2:26 PM
Posted on February 10, 2008 14:26
I really can't wait to read Dr. Keller's new book and pass it along to some friends. NO one has helped me work through more junk in my life and come to a greater understanding of the Gospel than him. Listening to his sermons and hearing him at a conference has literally been life changing.
Posted by Dan | February 10, 2008 2:53 PM
Posted on February 10, 2008 14:53
I've never heard of this "framework" view of creation thing that some PCA folk hold to. RC Sproul holds to a literal 6 day creation, who knew that he didn't represent everyone in the PCA ;-) ?
Tim Keller's church is really a blessing. There is so much unsound doctrine in NYC, what a beautiful thing it is to know that there are sovereign graces, calvary chapels and pca churches in NYC.
Posted by Jason Atkins | February 12, 2008 9:34 AM
Posted on February 12, 2008 09:34
Ed
I always enjoy your website musings. I just wanted to comment on how refreshing Tim keller's humility is..the guy is a breath of fresh air.
Posted by Bill Hogg | February 12, 2008 10:24 AM
Posted on February 12, 2008 10:24
I am a Calvary Chapel Pastor and hold to 24 hour day creation therefore disagreeing with Tim Keller. But no one has inspired me more toward being a better preacher. When I e mailed him about the evolution statement in Newsweek i had an answer back in minutes. In heaven he will discover the truth about creation:) in the meantime may God richly bless his significant ministry.
Posted by Carl A Dixon | February 12, 2008 7:16 PM
Posted on February 12, 2008 19:16
Carl Dixon: I'm sure you meant to say, "In heaven we all will discover the truth about creation" ...
Posted by Wolf N. Paul | February 12, 2008 11:10 PM
Posted on February 12, 2008 23:10
I like the comment on Georgia.
Can I quote you?
W
Posted by Wayne Shelton | February 16, 2008 1:10 PM
Posted on February 16, 2008 13:10
Actually, I was surprised at how uncritical the article was. For instance, the notion that Redeemer is a model for churches around the world neglects the fact that Redeemer model did not succede the way the PCA had hoped in Boston and Toronto. But you know the way reporters cover religion: it's either feel good stories -- dog licks man -- or Elmer Gantrys trying to fleece the gullible. Not much of a third way.
Posted by Darryl Hart | February 19, 2008 2:16 PM
Posted on February 19, 2008 14:16