Tim Keller: The Slippery Slope from Religion to Oppression
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, May 12, 2008
- Viewed 361
- (69) comments so far
Scoll down to watch this video:
This is an interesting short video of Tim Keller, taken from a recent speech he gave at a Veritas Forum on the campus of UC Berkley. In this clip, Tim shares that he does think that religion has caused a lot of damage in the world; and he describes what he calls the 'slippery slope' of going from religion to oppression. Take a look; and let me know what you think. Next up, watch Rick Warren describe his PEACE plan in our next post today; then see the response when Rick Warren invited Ingrid (our friend from SliceofLaodicea) to an all expense trip to Saddleback, along with a place on his stage. I think all three of these posts work together. I'm wondering, do we sometimes use Tim Keller's 'slippery slope' even within different segments of Christianity?
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Wendi on Tue, May 13, 2008
Eric –
I love respectful disagreement within the body of Christ and in no way suggested that everyone who disagrees with me, or you or RW is a crusader. But when someone dedicates their life and ministry to taking down the person with whom they disagree . . . that is indeed crusading. Ingrid and others have made their life mission crusading AGAINST RW and others, which is a far cry from the mission assignment we’ve all been given by Jesus.
RW on the other hand, has for the most part ignored the flood of unsubstantiated and out-of-context critics, keeping his eye squarely on the universal Christian mission. He demonstrates this (in abundance through his written and spoken word) by his passion to reach the lost and his care for the poor and disenfranchised. Furthermore, he has shown a great deal of humility in the way he has leveraged his significant international platform to point people to enormous global needs, which the American church has the resources to solve.
And also, please cite the exact source and context of the so-called quote you attribute to RW.
Wendi
CS on Tue, May 13, 2008
Wendi:
“And also, please cite the exact source and context of the so-called quote you attribute to RW.”
You can find the quote on Warren’s own pastors.com website at: http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/default.asp?id=263&artid=4533&expand=1
“But when someone dedicates their life and ministry to taking down the person with whom they disagree . . . that is indeed crusading. Ingrid and others have made their life mission crusading AGAINST RW and others, which is a far cry from the mission assignment we’ve all been given by Jesus.”
I see it a different way. These people have dedicated their lives to ensuring that what is being taught, preached, shown, and displayed by pastors and churches is doctrinally sound. Sometimes it is taken to a heavy-handed degree, but we were warned in the Bible that towards the latter days people would turn away from sound doctrine (2 Tim 4:2-4).
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Tue, May 13, 2008
[You can find the quote on Warren’s own pastors.com website at: ][url=http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/default.asp?id=263&artid=4533&expand=1]]http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/default.asp?id=263&artid=4533&expand=1][/url]
Huh? I find nothing objectionable in that article. If you want to change your church, some people will have to either die or leave seems to be the gist of the article. What’s wrong with that sentiment? It’s true. One day I might have to be the guy who has to die or leave for a church to stay relevant to the people it’s trying to reach…
This is one of those cases where I’m afraid, once again, RW has been misquoted or quoted out of context.
Peter Hamm on Tue, May 13, 2008
Also, originally ERic said that RW said “those who resist the pd movement will have to leave the church or die off”
He didn’t say those words in that article. He said “I’m saying some people are going to have to die or leave.” (His exact words)
Is RW being misquoted again? Please provide the actual place Rick said the words you said he said. If he didn’t actually say those words (which YOU put in quotes) please apologize for misquoting him and then we can move on.
CS on Tue, May 13, 2008
Peter:
“Huh? I find nothing objectionable in that article. If you want to change your church, some people will have to either die or leave seems to be the gist of the article. What’s wrong with that sentiment? It’s true. One day I might have to be the guy who has to die or leave for a church to stay relevant to the people it’s trying to reach…”
That’s the rub. There are those who believe that churches have to stay relevant to the culture by changing their methods, at the sacrifice of members, perhaps through adopting things like the Purpose Driven (TM) programs. Then there are those who believe that churches do not have to stay relevant to the culture or change methods, who do not sacrifice any members in the process, because the Bible and Gospel are enough in any circumstance. You can guess by the wording of my thoughts on which side of this matter I stand.
—
CS
Wendi on Tue, May 13, 2008
Peter beat me to the punch – but I’ll chime in since I was the one who first asked Eric to cite the source for the “exact quote” he put in his post.
The article CS offered is a great article, nothing RW says is unbiblical or even questionable. He is talking writing to pastors whose churches have plateaued (which is biblically unhealthy). He is offering advice and practical reminders of what we all know. People will resist change, its human nature. Getting off a plateau will require change, that’s a no brainer. The reality is that some people will never change, and so they will have to leave or die (or eventually change).
He never even implies “change your church into a PD church.” His only encouragement is that pastors lead their churches from unhealthy and plateaued to growing and healthy.
Again Eric, please cite your source or apologize for misquoting and unfairly disparaging RW.
Wendi
Peter Hamm on Tue, May 13, 2008
CS,
First off, let’s admit the ridiculousness (dare I say “sin”) of misquoting Rick (unless you can find a link to where he actually said “those who resist the pd movement will have to leave the church or die off”). The argument dies right there, and yes, I’m rather irritated at this constant misquoting. It’s what I’ve been belly-aching about all along, and the fact that it’s done again on these pages adds fuel to the fire of those who have legitimate complaints about those who are bashing RW, based on misinformation that they themselves disseminate.
Second, the article you cited was about churches that plateau, and what to do to change things when it becomes obvious to leadership that things need to change. It was NOT about purpose-driven ANYTHING. And, there are NO purpose-driven programs. “purpose-driven” is NOT a program. Never was. I don’t think he even mentioned “purpose-driven” in the article you referenced.
The argument totally falls apart on both these counts, and I think I’m done engaging it. You don’t appear to be listening (except possibly for a “proof-text” to go further on the attack), and you are simply continuing the same straw-man arguments that have been mentioned time and time again by those who have a pre-set agenda and seem to be willing to say anything to further it, whether it’s accurate or not.
Last thought from me. You write [Then there are those who believe that churches do not have to stay relevant to the culture or change methods, who do not sacrifice any members in the process, because the Bible and Gospel are enough in any circumstance.] I’d put RW in that category.
Wendi on Tue, May 13, 2008
Really CS, you can’t be that naïve about human nature. A church becomes plateaued because there are many members have become comfortable with the status quo, complacent about growing by reaching lost people. A visionary leader who is responding to the Lord will get many on the train with him, albeit some running down the track and hopping on at the last minute. Those who insist on waiting at the station miss the train themselves, the pastor doesn’t sacrifice them.
With your model, Moses would have been faulted for sacrificing the generation of Israelites he led out of Egypt because he didn’t get them to buy into the idea of a promised land . . . but we know that they sacrificed themselves because they wanted things the way they were. Same with some members in a plateaued church.
Can you see yourself sliding down the slippery slope Keller is talking about? Because you disagree with RW, you hunt for and concoct theological or biblical problems that aren’t in order to be sure he remains the enemy. If he’s just a Christian brother whose methods you disagree with, he’s not the enemy you need to protect us all from.
Wendi
CS on Tue, May 13, 2008
Wendi:
“Can you see yourself sliding down the slippery slope Keller is talking about? Because you disagree with RW, you hunt for and concoct theological or biblical problems that aren’t in order to be sure he remains the enemy. If he’s just a Christian brother whose methods you disagree with, he’s not the enemy you need to protect us all from. “
You’ve got it backwards. It would be wrong to capriciously disagree with someone and then try to find faults, and I think you and I can both agree to that. That is nit-picking and rude.
I disagree with Warren because of the theological, doctrinal, and Biblical problems he has in his writings, speeches, interviews, and sermons. Over the years, starting with receiving a copy of PDL for my birthday from my grandmother, I went at things with an open mind and heart, and examined things in light of Scripture. I found that many things ran contrary to the Bible, I did additional research about him, his church, and his programs, and then I determined that his teachings are wrong.
—
CS
A. Sinner on Tue, May 13, 2008
Who determines how a teaching, doctrine, theology is correct?
If two people use their God-given reason to analyze the same Scripture and come back with two different answers, who decides who is correct?
The person who shouts the loudest? The most followers? The best-educated? The greatest faith? The better blogger? The largest army?
When we realize that God is the only one with that answer, and we treat those who disagree with us with Christian love and tolerance, then the Kingdom of God grows.
CS on Tue, May 13, 2008
A Sinner:
“Who determines how a teaching, doctrine, theology is correct?”
You take the teaching, doctrine, or theology, look for what the Bible says about it, in light of grammar and historical information, and make a conclusion about if it is right or wrong. It may not work all the time for the most fine details, but it should bring out the most obvious things about what is right or not.
For example, if someone said that Jesus was never crucified, we can look in the Bible, see where it says he was, and then declare that that person was wrong.
“If two people use their God-given reason to analyze the same Scripture and come back with two different answers, who decides who is correct?”
This thinking creates doctrinal relativism, and leads to cults like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism. If your answer can be seen the same as anyone else’s answer, then you can get away with interpreting things any way you see fit. Which leads to…
“When we realize that God is the only one with that answer, and we treat those who disagree with us with Christian love and tolerance, then the Kingdom of God grows.”
In this case, you have taken an answer from the Bible you believe is right and applied it to something. If we use your standard of all answers being the same, then your statement here could suffer a logical hit, when someone else says that no one, not even God has that answer.
—
CS
Wendi on Tue, May 13, 2008
I have no issue with you disagreeing with RW or even it you find him to be wrong, but I do have an issue when you and others point out his “wrongness” by misquoting and misrepresenting him. Here on MMI several of us point out misquotes over and over, and those of you who have issues with RW conveniently ignore those parts of our posts.
On this thread I asked Eric to cite the source to back up his quote of RW, and you responded to my request by directing us to an article on Pastors.com where RW says nothing of the sort. Neither you nor Eric apologizes or even acknowledges that we have caught you misrepresenting and misquoting. You just jump in grabbing another part of our post that you can proof text to make your point. Peter indicates that this could well be a sin problem. I think it is. Pride is what generally keeps from acknowledging when I’m wrong and apologizing.
Wendi
CS on Tue, May 13, 2008
Wendi:
“Neither you nor Eric apologizes or even acknowledges that we have caught you misrepresenting and misquoting.”
I posted the article because I knew that was the one to which Eric was referring and likely going to cite as his source. So, I apologize for providing a source that someone else was likely about to use, and perhaps following in suit when it comes to using it.
That comment aside, I’ll stand by my other assertions about Warren being wrong with proper contextual quotes and citations.
—
CS
Eric on Tue, May 13, 2008
Wendi - here’s Warren’s comment from the source - from the light house trails research website, it originally came from a Warren article on his website:
“According to Rick Warren, these people are resisters and are standing in the way of Purpose Driven progress. In a June 14th article written by Rick Warren on his website (What Do You Do When Your Church Hits a Plateau? ), Warren told pastors and church leaders not to be discouraged about slow change in their churches. He told them it would take time ... and in many cases it would take these resisters either leaving the church or simply dying. Warren stated:
“If your church has been plateaued for six months, it might take six months to get it going again. If it’s been plateaued a year, it might take a year. If it’s been plateaued for 20 years, you’ve got to set in for the duration! I’m saying some people are going to have to die or leave. “
Eric on Tue, May 13, 2008
Wendi - additionally, why would I need to apologize for reporting a fact, regardless of how palatable it was to you?
Page 2 of 5 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Post a Comment