Tim Keller: The Slippery Slope from Religion to Oppression
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, May 12, 2008
- Viewed 262
- (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.
CS on Mon, May 12, 2008
MikeS:
“doing the right things in the right order and living according to the do’s and don’ts raher than truly living out life as a Christ-follower. “
Not to get too tangential or legalistic here, but in following Christ, aren’t there certain things we choose to do and to not do? For example, in relevance to Keller’s comments, by following Christ, we should not make caricatures of people, because this could be seen as showing respect to certain types of people, right? I just notice that there are many people who throw these kinds of sentences around, yet do not qualify how following Christ frees them from certain obligations or things we should or should not do.
—
CS
MIkeS on Mon, May 12, 2008
CS - Good point. While Christians do have some do’s and don’ts (do not murder, do not commit adulterey, do share the gospel, etc), I believe Christians are free to focus on the why we do them. For instance, we are free to focus on the grace God extends to us and we are to extend to others, rather than just a set of rules and regulations.
Does this help?
Peter Hamm on Mon, May 12, 2008
Eric writes [Peter, again I question, is this genuine biblical Christianity? You mention a “correct list of doctrine” - I thought this was about believers oppressing non-believers - not about people of like precious faith having doctrinal variances?]
However, isn’t it obvious that people of like faith with doctrinal differences have the whole separation and superiority thing going all the time?
Eric on Mon, May 12, 2008
Peter - yes absolutely - however I thought the intent of Keller was concerning Christians v. non-Christians.
CS on Mon, May 12, 2008
MikeS:
“For instance, we are free to focus on the grace God extends to us and we are to extend to others, rather than just a set of rules and regulations.
Does this help? “
Yes, this makes more sense. By keeping rules, we will never earn our way into God’s grace. Yet, we should still follow God’s Law and His Commandments regardless.
This makes more sense than the original interpretation I had, which was, “As Christ-followers, we do not have to follow under DO and DO NOT lists.” (antinomianism) Thank you for the clarification.
—
CS
Jim on Mon, May 12, 2008
I don’t know who this man is, but he defines himself as an Orthodox Christian. His delineation of the problem with religion and the world’s problems are, I believe, gross over generalizations. For example, to take the reactions of a few, and then to generalize them to the whole is an inaccurate portrayal of the issue. Plus, the orthodox positions on many issues leaves out the passion many Churches and Believers have for evangelism and outreach programs to the lost-food banks, homeless shelters, rescue missions, just to name a few. This is not a position of moral superiority he is describing, as it is more often a position of a liberal view of not taking Scripture as the inerrant Word of God, and taking seriously the command to go and tell a lost world about the saving grace offered through Jesus.
Can religion become opressive? Sure it can, but so can irreligious people. Take Communism, Socialism, and the Liberation Theology crowds, they suppress speech, freedom of Conscience, and anyone who disagrees with them by jailing them, or even by murdering them. Few people remember that Stalin, an atheist, killed an estimated 30 million of his own people to maintain his control of Russia, and Chairman Mao Tse Tung, the atheistic ruler of China after WWII, killed 100 million of his people to stay in power. History reminds us that both of these men kicked out the Christian missionaries and shut down the Churches before doing so. If the Church is so oppressive, then why did these atheists kick out the missionaries and close down the Churches, and jail the Christians? So, to lay oppression at the feet of the Christian religion is to grossly misrepresent and over generalize the problem. What causes oppression and wars among us? Sin! Pure and simple.
Plus, how does he separate various religions? Chrisitianity certainly has had a lot of terrible things done in its name, but to do something in the name of Christianity doesn’t mean that Christians were the ones doing these things. The Crusades, for example, were conducted by many who claimed to be doing it in the name of Christianity, but they only claimed it, they were not Christians living out the teachings of Jesus. Many unbelievers do things that are very unChristian but claim the lable of Christian, just as many individuals sit in churches on Sunday claiming to be Christians, but they are not truely following Christ’s teachings.
If we want to look at the slippery slope of oppression and superiority can also be open-minded liberals. If you don’t agree with them, then you’re wrong. Period! Besides, how many Muslim hospitals and food banks are being started in neighborhoods across America or the rest of the world? When there are disasters across the globe, who rushes in with aid? Americans, or western Europeans, who still have a Christian mindset about helping others. You will never see the Muslims, Confuscious, or Hindus’ sending in the amount of aid. So, to blame the Church for the “slippery slope of oppression” is aggravatingly wrong. Plus, Adolph Hitler was an avid occultist, who not only slaughtered 6 million Jews, but also 7 million Christians in his death camps. He also had plans, after he won the war, to kill 10 million Christians a year until he wiped out all of Christianity, because he planned to establish a world religion built on his occultist beliefs. How anyone can associate WW II with Christianity is lacking in historical fact. If Keller looks across the history of our nation, all most every hospital and inner city program to the needy were initially started by Churches, even the AA program. This doesn’t seem to be a sense of the Church’s moral superiority, but of service and concern for others. At the present moment, however, it is easy to blame the Church for all of the world’s ills, but it is usually means one doesn’t have an answer, so blame those with whom you’re familiar.
Eric 2 on Mon, May 12, 2008
For those who are unfamiliar with Tim Keller, one of the ways that he communicates the gospel is by setting up three differing ways to live: 1) legalism, 2) libertinism and 3) Biblical Christianity. When he is attacking “religion” in this clip, he is using it as an illustration of something opposed to Biblical Christianity.
And absolutely, radical athiests can fall into the same “slippery slope” that religious people can. It’s very much a religion.
Mark A. on Mon, May 12, 2008
Hey Jim…
Last time I checked, there were Orthodox Christians and orthodox Christians. Keller’s a Prebyterian, and PCA at that, qualifying him as an “orthodox” Christian I think (as opposed to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church).
Thanks for all that though…
Wendi on Mon, May 12, 2008
Todd’s question [do we sometimes use Tim Keller’s ‘slippery slope’ even within different segments of Christianity?]
Absolutely, and Ingrid’s response to RW’s invitation is a perfect example. Her posture is clearly superior, even oppressive. She and others are dedicated to wiping everyone they disagree with off the landscape. If this was medieval Europe , I think their methods might resemble the crusaders.
Whenever we battle against those we’re called to reach, or those with whom we should be partnering, the real enemy wins.
Wendi
Eric on Tue, May 13, 2008
I have to disagree with Wendi. Just because there are doctrinal disagreements let’s not make irrational leaps of calling those who disagree ‘crusaders’. The same thing could then be said for RW for statements he has made such as ‘those who resist the pd movement will have to leave the church or die off’ - if any statement sounds ‘crusader’ like that does.
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
Page 2 of 5 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Post a Comment