Chris Rosebrough and Dan Kimball

On his radio program, Chris vigorously defended his description of Dan Kimball as a "Christian brother," by which he meant that Kimball believes, teaches, and confesses Christian orthodoxy (i.e. the primary truths that must be affirmed in order to be Christian, and the denial of which makes one a heretic). At the same time, he stressed that Kimball teaches and acts in a way that is not always consistent with the orthodox doctrine he believes (he uses the term heteropraxy to describe this). He didn't go much into detail, however; several times he mentioned that some of what he and Dan spoke about was private.

Chris's show has created confusion and a fair bit of anger and frustration in the circles in which I spend time. There have been a few responses, and some attempts to clarify, and I'm sure that an episode next week on CrossTalk will be used in part to rebut what Chris is saying (or at least the manner in which he's acting).


As I've been reading through things, I haven't found anyone saying some of the things (pro and con) that come to my mind in this.

Caveat: I don't have a good understanding of Dan Kimball's theology, so I'm not going to try to refute Chris on that basis. That may be possible, and it might be the best way to handle this in the long run, but it's not an option for me right now. So instead, I'm going to deal mainly with what Chris's statements made me think about, given the way he's handled his show in the past to talk about false teachers, heresy, bad sermons, the gospel, etc. Also, I haven't heard anything of Chris's shows since he first spoke about Kimball, and I haven't read anything he's written since, so if he's added detail or nuance, I'm ignorant of it.

I have four observations.

#1: I accept Chris's distinction between the validity of Kimball's salvation and the accuracy of all his teachings and practices, but I find the way he's using terms in making that distinction (e.g. heresy, Christian brother) naïve.

Certainly, we don't have the ability or authority to judge the heart of another person. I agree with Rod Rosenbladt in his talk "The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church", when he describes how we'll all be surprised at who's in heaven:

There are going to be in heaven believers in Jesus who never darkened the door of a church. Now that's no encouragement not to attend, not to be baptized, and not to receive the Lord's Supper. It's just saying that faith in Jesus saves. Saves by itself, nude, apart from works. There are going to be scads of Roman Catholics, people who never listened, not really, to the theology preached by their priests, just believed in the sufficiency of Jesus' blood no matter what their priest was preaching. People of all sorts who just believed in Jesus and His blood shed for their sin as complete payment. There are going to be call girls, there are going to be drug dealers, maybe even a couple of lawyers... There are going to be members of the cults who never got what the cult leader was teaching but trusted in Jesus blood and cross, and that it was for their sin and for their hatred of God and their wickedness. Surprises, lots of surprises....

In heaven we will meet cowards, scum, bottom of the barrel, reprehensibles, jerks, deadbeat dads, murderers, all sorts of rabble. And they died believing in Jesus, and His blood as their only hope.

I think Dr. Rosenbladt is saying that sola fide will make such surprises inevitable; in this world we are simul iustus et peccator, so judging the salvation of others is a fool's game.

So, Chris calling Dan a Christian brother, given what he claims Kimball confesses of the faith, isn't a problem for me, assuming that narrow definition as the context. To be fair, Chris has tried to be very clear that is his definition; he's speaking solely of Kimball's faith as he's judged it from speaking with the man. So, his position is that to say Dan is not a brother would be to bear false witness against him, since it would be judging his heart. Therefore, he's not a heretic, though he could be seriously mistaken in his practices, where they are inconsistent with Christian orthodoxy.

However, there are other reasonable definitions of "Christian brother," such as endorsement of his teachings (or at least acceptance of them as reasonably orthodox). Even though he tried to clearly state his definition, I don't think it's fair for Chris to expect everyone to make that assumption, especially given my second point:

#2: I think Chris is ignoring the Scriptural and social repercussions of Kimball being a teacher, especially one with a significant public profile.

This is a huge gap because it essentially makes the way he's defining Kimball as a brother in Christ irrelevant. For anyone who doesn't know Kimball personally, the man's teachings, especially their impact on others, will provide the context for Chris's comments, not whether Dan is saved. I think that is as it should be; a man's salvation has no bearing when examining his teachings.

I think Chris's chart doesn't take the idea of someone being a teacher into account. In the Orthodoxy/Heteropraxy quadrant (which is where he seems to put Kimball), he gives two options. Either the person is a Christian who's potentially misguided, or they are a wolf who's deliberately trying to corrupt the Church.

I'm still a little fuzzy on the scope of "potentially misguided," but I think if the person being considered is a teacher, then whether they are misguided or malefactor isn't as important as the question of how their teaching (misguided or deliberately poisonous) is going to affect the Body (James 3:1). The reason for the teacher's error might be important in deciding how to approach them about it, but the role of the teacher will dictate the need for a confrontation that is as public as their teaching.

#3: I'm uncomfortable with the shading and nuance that Chris is using in discussing Kimball.

I'll grant that one can explain Kimball's position in a way that remains orthodox, but I'd argue one could do the same with Warren, and probably even with Osteen (though I get a headache even thinking about that). At some point, you play the fool by giving too much benefit of the doubt.

Again, I've only watched a few clips of Kimball and I've not read him at all. But in my limited exposure, I've seen a few things that were troubling, that I could only rationalize by assuming "what he meant was..."

My issue with Chris here is that in the past he hasn't granted this sort of benefit (and been right not to do so, IMO). His critique of Dr. Warren's talk at Desiring God 2010 comes to mind; I've rarely heard Chris as angry as he was in that show. Yet in discussing Kimball, he seems to be careful to interpret things in a favorable light. It's hard to say more here, because he really didn't provide much detail and seems to rely on the content of private conversations several times.

My point isn't that it's possible to interpret Kimball's teachings as proper, but whether it's reasonable to do so, and that requires a defense that was not provided. Chris mentioned that Dan initially contacted him after he'd written something about Dan with which Kimball disagreed. I'd say that original contact (and discussion of the post which produced it) was tailor-made to provide an example for why being so favorable toward Dan was warranted, when it is not with Warren or others. I'd invite Chris to do so; I think it would help clarify things.

#4: Chris asserts a move toward orthodoxy/orthopraxy in Kimball's positions, but neither he nor Kimball provide any evidence of it.

Much of Chris's comments imply that there is a positive trend in Kimball's position, and that he doesn't hold the same theology and practices today that he did five and ten years ago. That could be. I would rejoice that the gospel is rightly proclaimed. However, I have two issues with Chris's assertion.

First, much of the basis for Chris's claim is privileged conversation with Kimball, and there is no way for anyone other than Chris to judge that. I don't think it's fair for Chris to essentially say, "Trust me. If you say something against Dan, then you're bearing false witness."

Second, if Kimball is making this transition, then as a teacher, he needs to make his new position clear and separate from those who hold to the old one. I think about how Mark Driscoll did this, clearly drawing a distinction between his theology and practices and those of others that came out of Terra Nova. Whether one approves of Driscoll or not (and I'm more favorable toward him than many, I know), the fact is that he made his case in an address to a public forum. Public teaching, public response.

That is lacking in Kimball's case; his silence is hard to understand in any way that would support Chris's claims.

What now?
My hope is that Chris clarifies what he means and why he's said what he's said. Even better would be for Chris to have Dan on his show, so that Dan could speak about what he really believes and teaches; I'd be very interested in getting it directly from him.

Clarity is so important; without it we cannot be discerning and we cannot judge rightly. Confusion is the enemy of truth. At present, I fear what Chris has said just muddies the water and doesn't aid in making good, Scriptural distinctions between truth and error. I pray that next week, he takes time in his show to address that. I've said before that I've found his show extremely valuable, and I treasure his emphasis on the Gospel and his sensitivity to misuse of the Law. His clear message in that regard just makes this current confusion more frustrating to me.