Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(295)
-
▼
Apr 2010
(33)
- The Fall of Higher Education?
- Happy Birthday!
- Does Your Doctrine Scare You?
- What Pretty Roses
- Friedman on Greed
- The Meaning of Life
- McLaren Opens Up
- The New Human Right
- The Spoils
- The Limits of Authority
- When Equality Goes Bad
- Free the Dragons
- Placebo Praise
- Are You a Better Logician?
- Everything is Socially Constructed
- The Worst Person in the World
- The Other Wilson on Training Dragons
- Hmmmmmm
- A New Era Begins...
- When Taxes Become Theft
- Morning Has Broken!
- The Death of Education
- Clean Up Your Own Yard First
- Arrested Development
- When Preaching the Gospel Becomes a Backrub
- Recapturing "Social Justice"
- They Don't Actually Believe It
- So Close!
- Confusing Ends and Means
- And We Have a Winner!
- Good Friday
- Through Another's Eyes
- The Tide Turns
-
▼
Apr 2010
(33)
Labels
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Doug Wilson has a helpful critique of something Pastor Tim Keller said recently. Wilson wonders if Keller is presenting the Gospel completely if he ignores an elephant of sin in the room. What is interesting is that by ignoring sexuality, Keller actually sets sin up as unequal, whereas Wilson treats it all equally when he says that it all must be addressed. By not recognizing that people need just as much freedom from enslavement to sexual sins as other sins, Keller unwittingly supports either the idea that people don't need redemption and freedom from those particular sins, or that Jesus is unable (or uninterested) in freeing them in those cases. Either way, it puts sexual sin on a reverse pedestal from the one Scripture puts it on.
But what this does is raise questions about evangelism, faithful witness, and moral courage. It raises questions about the strategic value of an evangelistic and apologetic strategy that is not prepared to confront, directly, some of the central sins of the people you are addressing.
And by "confronting sin," I do not intend to commend the kind of preaching that gets its jollies from calling other people sinners. That is a problem, but it has to be confessed that in this age, this era, it is not our problem. We should want to preach about the central sins because as preachers of the gospel, we have scattered through the dungeons, with our gospel keys. In that circumstance, why wouldn't we want to unlock the biggest and thickest chains?
...
If a surgeon wants to do gospel work on the heart, he has to first open the patient up -- and nothing will do for that but the knife of the law. Without that, evangelical preachers are reduced to applying their treatments of the heart through various forms of accupressure.
Relevant gospel ministry, relevant evangelistic ministry, is willing for the rich young ruler to go away saddened. It is willing for riots designed to get you and your message out of town. I have written recently about the utter irrelevance of an undue concern for relevance. Out of all the practicing homosexuals in Manhattan, are there none who want to hear liberty proclaimed to the captives? Out of all the professing Christians who struggle with same-sex temptations, should they not be able to hear clear, biblical instruction about what they should do with their temptations? Would that not be relevant?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, Keller didn't exactly hit a home run when answering that question, but having read a lot of Keller of late I can say he's a lot better on the subject than he comes across there. Wilson's points are well-taken, though.
I agree, DJ. Keller got caught off-guard and said some dumb things in response... if Keller recognizes the foolishness of what he said (or at least how it could be interpreted as license for a type of preaching that doesn't address sin), then hopefully he'll retract or modify it soon. Keller aside, Wilson's larger point of confronting sin is very good.
Post a Comment