Keller’s 5 Distinctions Of The Early Church

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” ¹

A quote that never seems to go away, this iconic line is known almost universally, yet it seems as if history continues to repeat itself. Despite the near-universal acknowledgment of history as a guiding force for the present, the same inevitable issues arise, plaguing the same people that saw it coming. In eccumenical circles, the church historian is essential – digging into the past for truths that can be useful for today. There are many modern Christians who have attempted to understand this early church wisdom in order to apply it to their modern times, and there are many modern Christians who have failed. In general looking to the past for guidance is good advice , but in order to do this correctly you must fulfill two requirements:

You must understand the past
You must understand the present

Understanding history is useless if you cannot apply it today. Likewise, understanding the present is useless if you have not learned from the pitfalls of the past. With those two requirements in mind, allow me to introduce the topic of this post: a write-up from Tim Keller.

I recently came across his article from 2017, where he analyzed some of the distinctive features of the early church. Keller specifically mentioned books by Larry Hurtado that influenced his understanding of this historical period, who saw Christianity as a unique “social project” – an offensive, yet attractive, counterculture. The article looks at 5 specific features of the early church (listed below), and at how that made Christianity unique. A healthy understanding of what makes Christianity distinct would be invaluable for today’s world. After all, what good is a church if it looks exactly like it’s pagan surroundings (Matthew 5:13)? After reading the article, however, it is obvious that Keller is unable to properly relate his accurate assessment of the past to the culture that is present today. It seems as if Keller understands step one – the history, but fails at step two – the present. At the end of the article, Keller asks: “Could essentially the same social project have a similar effect if it were carried out today?”

Good question.

1) The early church was multi-racial and experienced a unity across ethnic boundaries that was startling

The first early church distinctive Keller was impressed with was the cultural diversity that Christianity embodies. The fact that Christianity can unite people of all races is indeed a wonderful thing, and was likely impressive in ancient times. In today’s world, however, this doesn’t appear to be a valuable distinction. Since the passage of the civil rights act, the current culture will accept nothing less than diversity. With government enforced “affirmative action” plans, every business, group, or community appears to be racially diverse. With the addition of federal hate crimes, minority races are given special protections to ensure that anything violating the diversity-driven social dogmas are given more severe penalties.

Within Christianity, a quick glance at the statistics show that there is a mostly even percentage of Black Christians to White Christians.² Despite this, many churches are very aware of diversity statistics in their own congregation, and look to denounce racism at every possible opportunity. Anything that could be perceived as xenophobic is quickly addressed, while churches hire women pastors in order to combat claims of misogyny.

Keller’s first observation on this distinctive has little to no value for today’s world. Racial diversity is a value the secular culture holds very dearly, and the modern church does not appear to have a very distinct message for them. Despite the fact that they have no moral basis at all, even today’s atheists would be happy to support the formation of an ethnically diverse community! In today’s world, a church that prides itself on it’s quantity of races will not make an impression on the surrounding culture. I am glad that the gospel transcends race and culture, but this is not unique to Christianity in the present age.

2) The early church was a community of forgiveness and reconciliation

In his article, Tim Keller mentions the radical forgiveness that the early church applied to their opponents. “…Christians taught forgiveness and withheld retaliation against opponents. In a shame-and-honor culture in which vengeance was expected, this was unheard of.” It’s not entirely clear what Keller means by opponents, although the principle would definitely apply to a culture where saving face is everything. But is that where we are today? Would forgiving and forgetting make the church distinct in today’s world?

This is a difficult metric to survey, but I am inclined to doubt Keller’s assessment of today’s culture. In order for a shame and honor culture to exist, there must be a general understanding of what is shameful, and what is honorable. The culture must have a general consensus of what consists of good, and what consists of bad. Most surveys today reveal that the United States can’t even agree on those categories. In fact, only around 48% of people say that it is possible to separate issues into good and evil.³ In the culture of today, forgiveness may be a radical, counter-cultural idea, but it also might not be! When people outside the church aren’t even sure that forgiveness is necessarily a good thing, being committed to it might not be the cultural distinctive you expect.

In addition, a large majority of Christians today believe people are born generally good. Ligonier’s “State of Theology” survey results indicated that 71% of Christians today believe that everyone is born innocent in the eyes of God.⁴ If a culture believes that people are generally good, or that good doesn’t even exist, the Christian community that looks to be distinct with a radical forgiveness may not make much cultural progress.

3) The early church was famous for its hospitality to the poor and the suffering

In the third point, Tim Keller notes the early church was famous for its hospitality to the poor and the suffering. Noting in particular that “Christians’ promiscuous help given to all poor—even of other races and religions… was unprecedented.” Keller also noticed that: “During the urban plagues, Christians characteristically didn’t flee the cities but stayed and cared for the sick and dying of all groups, often at the cost of their own lives.”

Part of the reason this comparison article is so difficult to understand is due to the complete lack of awareness. If you recall, the latest “urban plague” (COVID) was a source of great division, to say the least. On one side, some Christians thought that caring for the sick and dying meant closing down their church and sharing sermon links on Facebook. On the other side, some Christians thought that caring for the sick and dying meant keeping the church doors open, continuing to call all people to worship. How can a church be distinct from the world if the Christian community shows no sign of concordance? In an article looking at evangelical leader’s responses to COVID-19, Megan Basham scrutinizes Keller’s more recent opinions.

“Former megachurch pastor Tim Keller’s joint interview with Collins included a digression where the pair agreed that churches like John MacArthur’s, which continued to meet in-person despite Covid lockdowns, represented the “bad and ugly” of good, bad, and ugly Christian responses to the virus.”
Megan Basham, “How The Federal Government Used Evangelical Leaders To Spread COVID Propaganda To Churches” – 02/02/2022 ⁵

It should be evident that Christianity’s divided response to COVID-19 was only the evidence of a larger community fracture in the church. It is laughable to think that Christians could be distinct in today’s culture by promoting a radical hospitality when Christians can’t even agree on what that means. The article seems to leave us with a meaningless platitude, devoid of any practical application.

4) It was a community committed to the sanctity of life

In the article, Keller point out that abortion was actually very rare in ancient times, as it was very dangerous. Instead, being pro-life meant rescuing unwanted babies from exposure – infants that were left to die. A Christian’s unrelenting commitment to the sanctity of life is indeed one of the greatest distinctives of Christianity. While being anti-abortion is essential to today’s Christianity, Keller notes that this pro-life battle looked more like a pro-adoption battle in the early church.

But the Christian distinctive of being pro-adoption may look very different with in today’s environment. About a year ago, a Catholic adoption agency won their court case against the state of Philadelphia when they refused to place children into the care of homosexuals.⁶ Despite the Supreme Court victory, a bill making it’s way through congress could change everything. The ~~Desecration of Marriage Act~~ Respect For Marriage Act has Catholics around the country worried, and for good reason.⁷ A practical application of these events looks more like a question: does being pro-adoption in today’s world also mean being homophobic?

For political and reproductive reasons, the answer is yes.

5) It was a sexual counterculture

Tim Keller has some interesting thoughts on this subject, but it’s once again unclear how this early Christian distinctive would apply today. He writes: “Roman culture insisted that married women of social status abstain from sex outside of marriage, but it was expected that men (even married men) would have sex with people lower on the status ladder—slaves, prostitutes, and children. This wasn’t only allowed; it was regarded as unavoidable. This was in part because sex in that culture was always considered an expression of one’s social status.”

The Christian sexual ethic is definitely distinct today, but I have a strong feeling that Keller and I would disagree on the why. As an example, I have never once encountered someone that considered sexual intercourse to be an integral part of their social hierarchy. If anything, the United States has a casual approach to sex, with co-habitation being seen as a valid moral choice. Only about 25% of the population would say that sex between unmarried adults in a committed relationship is morally wrong.⁸ Based on Keller’s descriptions, the early churches sexual ethic would have freed slaves, prostitutes, and children from a sort of caste system. In today’s world, it seems as if a Christian sexual ethic would be seen as oppressive and strict towards “consenting adults.”

Another significant point to mention is the comparative normality of heterosexuality. To illustrate, look at two general statistics. First, you should remember that only about 4% to 5% of all US adults identify as LGBTQ+, making homosexuality a very small percentage of the total population.⁹ In general, heterosexuality is normal in practice. Second, you should understand the cultural opinion of this minority sexuality. In 2017, the same time Keller’s article was released, support for same-sex marriage was around 62%.¹⁰ Despite the fact that most Americans are not practicing homosexuals, the current culture is one that supports these sodomy unions.

Therefore, a church today that promotes marriage between a man and a woman is not culturally distinct UNLESS that same church speaks AGAINST homosexuality.

The Cultural Analysis

Reaching the end of the article was like seeing the credits of a disappointing movie. The exciting finale never happened, and the big pay-off didn’t arrive. Every time it seemed as if Tim was reaching an impressive point, it seemed as if he steered away and went the opposite direction. I have no doubt that Keller was accurate in his portrayal of the past, but his lack of present day awareness was painful to witness.

If we are to properly apply the features of the early church to today’s world, we must understand the current culture. Failure to understand these church/culture distinctions will result in a syncretized church, no different than any other religion or movement. Christians must avoid this and act as a people who were called out of darkness and into the light (1 Peter 2:9-10).

A church that loves the darkness is a flavorless salt.

Useless.

Keller’s 5 Distinctions Of The Early Church

1) The early church was multi-racial and experienced a unity across ethnic boundaries that was startling

2) The early church was a community of forgiveness and reconciliation

3) The early church was famous for its hospitality to the poor and the suffering

4) It was a community committed to the sanctity of life

5) It was a sexual counterculture

The Cultural Analysis

Sources:

Author Information:

Christian Life

The Church

Leave a Reply Cancel reply