Brilliant analysis. These sorts of issues within modern evangelicalism always make me appreciate the relative stability of Confessional Protestantism, even though we don’t get spoken of very much in media circles.
As I was reading, I was thinking “I don’t really fit into any of these” until you name dropped some of the people I read from and listen to the most- the classical Protestants. We’re not loud and the most popular, but I have a strong feeling that the fruits of this camp will be something to be proud of.
This exact issue is what drew me towards classical/historic Protestantism. Evangelical circles tend to create celebrity pastors (which I don’t think is always a good thing) because they have become oversimplified to the point of (typically) not having unifying creeds or confessions. The benefit of these historic sources is that they are free from the political baggage from our current age and instead invite us to engage with Christianity from another time. At this point, I think most of my evangelical or charismatic friends would benefit more from reading the church fathers than following the latest American Christian leader, however well-intentioned he may be.
Thank you for your analysis. A group of us are reading Collin Hansen’s biography of Keller right now, which is opening up very fruitful conversation. I appreciate your categories. I might add some descriptions: center-set confessional, catholic reader (not narrow or parochial), generously and generatively orthodox, his reformed understanding of common grace was an asset that allowed him to live and minister in a secular city (neither over nor under adaptive to the host culture). The closest hints I see of Keller are in Alan Noble, John Mark Comer, and Rich Villodas.
What do you think of DeYoung’s taxonomy of evangelicalism?
1) the contrite: (primary cultural voice used to acknowledge the sins/failures of the church to the world. Ex: DuMez)
2) the compassionate: (primarily concerned with caring/loving the world and avoiding accusations of hatred/bigotry.)
3 the cautious (primarily concerned with maintaining doctrinal clarity and acknowledging extremes on both sides of cultural issues (ex: DeYoung?))
4 the courageous (primarily concerned with faithfulness to Scripture, primarily by recognizing sin and evil in the culture and calling out liberal drift in the church)
Such a fascinating question and I greatly appreciate and admire your willingness to write such a thoughtful response. I think I’m most on board with the gist of your tweet that you screenshotted in this essay. I don’t think Keller’s successor will be a single individual as much as a small group of righteous intellectuals who imbibe the spirit, social imaginary, or overstory of Keller’s life and thought. And I’m also not necessarily convinced that academia will be the place to look for these kinds of figures. I see people like Jon Tyson (who was mentored by Keller), Mark Sayers, AJ Swoboda, Alan Noble, and perhaps to a further extent JM Comer, Jamey Smith, and Dane Ortlund.
I’m thankful that anyone is even having this conversation though. Keller’s legacy is a beautiful thing and it’s a wonderful idea to track its offshoots.
I am somewhat amused by the classifications and names mentioned. With so many voices from so many places nationally and internationally, it is difficult to point out a successor, nor do I think Keller was the Evangelical Leader. I appreciated him but was no ‘follower.’
The Evangelical Tent is far too wide, varied, and theologically different to fit in one camp. In my own ministry I question the notion that it needs a successor.
I am a bit put off by the lack of mention of a leader with an international emphasis instead of people who focus more on American issues and politics.America is losing its incredible influence and position of power/money in the world. The rest of the Christian world does not wrestle with the same cultural and historical issues as we do. Christianity is bursting in many places and we seem oblivious to how God’s Spirit is accomplishing so much without us.
As someone who falls squarely in that classical protestant camp I can only hope that evangelicalism as a whole would be influenced in that direction as opposed to any of the other groups in Dougherty’s taxonomy. I have to say I was really happy with your list of theological institutes, I’ve been devouring the stuff coming out of Davenant and Greystone for a while and working my way through the mere-fidelity podcast. I’ve also been reading some of Theopolis’ stuff, but their links to federal vision, full-preterism, and the presence of Steve Wilkins in their organization give me pause. Liethart and Roberts put out good stuff so there’s meat to chew, but there’s also a lot of bones to spit out. All that to say I really enjoyed this breakdown and hope that these institutes (and Just & Sinner of course) can help steer evangelicalism in a healthy direction.
Thank you for this very reasoned and thoughtful article and, in particular for noting the fourth division made up of classical (confessional) Protestants. Based solely on posts I read on X and Bluesky, that fourth division’s voices too often are drowned out by the cacophonous battle cries from myriad would-be spokespeople vying for primacy in the other divisions, as well as those from countless sub- and non-divisions. I believe you’re right that Keller’s successor may well be one or more of the institutes, rather than any particular individual. But if someone is ultimately seen as his successor, chances are they will have demonstrated their bona fides both at the institutional level and in field ministry. Most importantly, they will have the gift of spreading the Gospel by being able to effectively communicate with people from every division, denomination, creed, etc. A tall order, to be sure.
That is a pretty fair and insightful analysis. I think what made Keller stand out was that he was a real “public theologian.” People had forgotten what it was like to have someone with solid theological and philosophical knowledge, who was also acting as the pastor of a church, and not sequestered off to the academy speaking in the scholarly echo chamber. I see guys like Mohler as Keller’s intellectual equal (possibly superior), but they are, as you allude to, of the same generation. Trueman is interesting because he is a professor, an author, and a clergyman. His recent work on the history of ideas has been really excellent.
At the end of the day though, you are right, institutions are needed, not individual ministries. We have suffered greatly as Evangelicals on account of the great moral failures of the men named in the article. Zacharias was especially tragic. At the end of the day Keller was not off on his own, an ecclesial entity unto himself. He was still a pastor with a church to lead, and an elder board to hold him accountable. Of course, all this said, most of our truly genius theologians and philosophers are still obscure figures to the public. You mention a few (Sanders, Swain, etc), but theologians like these, or Oliver Crisp, or any of those that give papers regularly at conferences like ETS/EPS or AAR are hardly known figures. Yet, it was their work that pastors like Keller were able to access, repackage, and communicate.
I think you are entirely correct on all points. The people I listen to are all the ones that you mentioned positively—you and Barrett being my favorites. But I am not an evangelical, I am a member of the Anglican church in North America and myself more of an intellectual (PhD in OT).
This is helpful. I think it may have been Dever or Leeman who offered this schema for evangelical leaders (and if it was someone else I apologize), according to emphasis/area of interest:
Theological
Cultural
Evangelistic/Missional (I believe this was the third one)
So the top one would probably be filled by people like you, Barrett, Dolezal, etc. The second one would be Wilson and probably Keller too. The third would be guys like David Platt, Francis Chan, probably Piper.
I doubt Keller desired for there to be ‘one successor’ any more than we find that kind of thinking in Paul’s own discipleship of others. On the one hand, “imitate me as I imitate Christ.” On the other, “fan into flame the gift God has given you.”
I don’t believe Christian discipleship functions well/as Christ intended if we approach it thinking, ‘those I disciple must be clones of me’ or ‘I must become a clone of the one discipling me.’
How much better is it to say, ‘learn from me - take the good (that which imitates Christ) and disregard the rest’ and ‘don’t try to be my clone/successor - be the uniquely gifted individual that God is equipping you to be for the times and places He has called you to.’
What would be better for the church today - one clone/successor of Keller OR 50+ brothers and sisters who have learned from Keller in His imitation of Christ and yet are all in different places and gifted in different ways? I’m quite inclined to the latter being the biblical model.
Brilliant analysis. These sorts of issues within modern evangelicalism always make me appreciate the relative stability of Confessional Protestantism, even though we don’t get spoken of very much in media circles.
As I was reading, I was thinking “I don’t really fit into any of these” until you name dropped some of the people I read from and listen to the most- the classical Protestants. We’re not loud and the most popular, but I have a strong feeling that the fruits of this camp will be something to be proud of.
Me, too!
This exact issue is what drew me towards classical/historic Protestantism. Evangelical circles tend to create celebrity pastors (which I don’t think is always a good thing) because they have become oversimplified to the point of (typically) not having unifying creeds or confessions. The benefit of these historic sources is that they are free from the political baggage from our current age and instead invite us to engage with Christianity from another time. At this point, I think most of my evangelical or charismatic friends would benefit more from reading the church fathers than following the latest American Christian leader, however well-intentioned he may be.
Thank you for your analysis. A group of us are reading Collin Hansen’s biography of Keller right now, which is opening up very fruitful conversation. I appreciate your categories. I might add some descriptions: center-set confessional, catholic reader (not narrow or parochial), generously and generatively orthodox, his reformed understanding of common grace was an asset that allowed him to live and minister in a secular city (neither over nor under adaptive to the host culture). The closest hints I see of Keller are in Alan Noble, John Mark Comer, and Rich Villodas.
@O. Alan Noble !
What do you think of DeYoung’s taxonomy of evangelicalism?
1) the contrite: (primary cultural voice used to acknowledge the sins/failures of the church to the world. Ex: DuMez)
2) the compassionate: (primarily concerned with caring/loving the world and avoiding accusations of hatred/bigotry.)
3 the cautious (primarily concerned with maintaining doctrinal clarity and acknowledging extremes on both sides of cultural issues (ex: DeYoung?))
4 the courageous (primarily concerned with faithfulness to Scripture, primarily by recognizing sin and evil in the culture and calling out liberal drift in the church)
Such a fascinating question and I greatly appreciate and admire your willingness to write such a thoughtful response. I think I’m most on board with the gist of your tweet that you screenshotted in this essay. I don’t think Keller’s successor will be a single individual as much as a small group of righteous intellectuals who imbibe the spirit, social imaginary, or overstory of Keller’s life and thought. And I’m also not necessarily convinced that academia will be the place to look for these kinds of figures. I see people like Jon Tyson (who was mentored by Keller), Mark Sayers, AJ Swoboda, Alan Noble, and perhaps to a further extent JM Comer, Jamey Smith, and Dane Ortlund.
I’m thankful that anyone is even having this conversation though. Keller’s legacy is a beautiful thing and it’s a wonderful idea to track its offshoots.
I am somewhat amused by the classifications and names mentioned. With so many voices from so many places nationally and internationally, it is difficult to point out a successor, nor do I think Keller was the Evangelical Leader. I appreciated him but was no ‘follower.’
The Evangelical Tent is far too wide, varied, and theologically different to fit in one camp. In my own ministry I question the notion that it needs a successor.
I am a bit put off by the lack of mention of a leader with an international emphasis instead of people who focus more on American issues and politics.America is losing its incredible influence and position of power/money in the world. The rest of the Christian world does not wrestle with the same cultural and historical issues as we do. Christianity is bursting in many places and we seem oblivious to how God’s Spirit is accomplishing so much without us.
As someone who falls squarely in that classical protestant camp I can only hope that evangelicalism as a whole would be influenced in that direction as opposed to any of the other groups in Dougherty’s taxonomy. I have to say I was really happy with your list of theological institutes, I’ve been devouring the stuff coming out of Davenant and Greystone for a while and working my way through the mere-fidelity podcast. I’ve also been reading some of Theopolis’ stuff, but their links to federal vision, full-preterism, and the presence of Steve Wilkins in their organization give me pause. Liethart and Roberts put out good stuff so there’s meat to chew, but there’s also a lot of bones to spit out. All that to say I really enjoyed this breakdown and hope that these institutes (and Just & Sinner of course) can help steer evangelicalism in a healthy direction.
Thank you for this very reasoned and thoughtful article and, in particular for noting the fourth division made up of classical (confessional) Protestants. Based solely on posts I read on X and Bluesky, that fourth division’s voices too often are drowned out by the cacophonous battle cries from myriad would-be spokespeople vying for primacy in the other divisions, as well as those from countless sub- and non-divisions. I believe you’re right that Keller’s successor may well be one or more of the institutes, rather than any particular individual. But if someone is ultimately seen as his successor, chances are they will have demonstrated their bona fides both at the institutional level and in field ministry. Most importantly, they will have the gift of spreading the Gospel by being able to effectively communicate with people from every division, denomination, creed, etc. A tall order, to be sure.
That is a pretty fair and insightful analysis. I think what made Keller stand out was that he was a real “public theologian.” People had forgotten what it was like to have someone with solid theological and philosophical knowledge, who was also acting as the pastor of a church, and not sequestered off to the academy speaking in the scholarly echo chamber. I see guys like Mohler as Keller’s intellectual equal (possibly superior), but they are, as you allude to, of the same generation. Trueman is interesting because he is a professor, an author, and a clergyman. His recent work on the history of ideas has been really excellent.
At the end of the day though, you are right, institutions are needed, not individual ministries. We have suffered greatly as Evangelicals on account of the great moral failures of the men named in the article. Zacharias was especially tragic. At the end of the day Keller was not off on his own, an ecclesial entity unto himself. He was still a pastor with a church to lead, and an elder board to hold him accountable. Of course, all this said, most of our truly genius theologians and philosophers are still obscure figures to the public. You mention a few (Sanders, Swain, etc), but theologians like these, or Oliver Crisp, or any of those that give papers regularly at conferences like ETS/EPS or AAR are hardly known figures. Yet, it was their work that pastors like Keller were able to access, repackage, and communicate.
I think you are entirely correct on all points. The people I listen to are all the ones that you mentioned positively—you and Barrett being my favorites. But I am not an evangelical, I am a member of the Anglican church in North America and myself more of an intellectual (PhD in OT).
Trueman
This is helpful. I think it may have been Dever or Leeman who offered this schema for evangelical leaders (and if it was someone else I apologize), according to emphasis/area of interest:
Theological
Cultural
Evangelistic/Missional (I believe this was the third one)
So the top one would probably be filled by people like you, Barrett, Dolezal, etc. The second one would be Wilson and probably Keller too. The third would be guys like David Platt, Francis Chan, probably Piper.
I wouldn’t worry about it.
I have it on good authority, that Keller had the heart of an Anglican. So there’s that.
I doubt Keller desired for there to be ‘one successor’ any more than we find that kind of thinking in Paul’s own discipleship of others. On the one hand, “imitate me as I imitate Christ.” On the other, “fan into flame the gift God has given you.”
I don’t believe Christian discipleship functions well/as Christ intended if we approach it thinking, ‘those I disciple must be clones of me’ or ‘I must become a clone of the one discipling me.’
How much better is it to say, ‘learn from me - take the good (that which imitates Christ) and disregard the rest’ and ‘don’t try to be my clone/successor - be the uniquely gifted individual that God is equipping you to be for the times and places He has called you to.’
What would be better for the church today - one clone/successor of Keller OR 50+ brothers and sisters who have learned from Keller in His imitation of Christ and yet are all in different places and gifted in different ways? I’m quite inclined to the latter being the biblical model.