MondayMorningInsight - Leadership & Encouragement for Church Leaders

Tim Keller: The Slippery Slope from Religion to Oppression

Posted by: Todd
Posted on: Mon, May 12, 2008
Viewed 263
(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.

DanielR on Wed, May 14, 2008

Eric, I am sorry for the harsh tone I took earlier. I believe you were not purposefully misquoting RW. It just seemed like you were not admitting that the quote was not correct. RW’s assertion that for some churches to change (if they need to change) some people may have to leave or die is a harsh statement, as Warren acknowledged, but it is true.

Warren isn’t saying that all churches need to change, or that all churches need to follow Purpose Driven models, he’s just stating that for churches that have plateaued and need change it is not easy.

The way you (mis)quoted him made it sound like he was saying churches all needed to be PD.

I also think the discussion about Warren bashing fits right in with the discussion about oppression. It seems to me that the “watch dogs” like Ingrid are very much in favor of oppressing Rick Warren or anyone else they disagree with.

The frustration with what is perceived as RW bashing is that we see it every time Warren’s name is mentioned here.

Nice talking with you,
GR Guy on Wed, May 14, 2008

I would have liked to have heard Keller’s entire speech so I could hear his comments in context. Standing alone, they don’t provide a lot of insight.

We all believe in some form of truth. We all subscribe to some kind of religion, worldview, or philosophy of life. And if we’re honest, we’re all “exclusive” in some ways, be it with regard to race, gender, culture, social status, intellectual standing, educational status, politics, religion . . . you name it. So to single out religion as inherently exclusive oppressive is too narrow in my opinion. Getting rid of religion (if that were even possible) would not rid the world of oppression because oppression is not a religious phenomenon but rather a condition of the human heart. There are just as many atheists with elitist attitudes as there are religious people with elitist attitudes. There are just as many poor people with elitist attitudes as there are rich people with similar attitudes.

Jesus actually encourages us to know the truth—- Knowing the truth will set you free from pride and sin. People such as Mother Theresa and Billy Graham have held very strong belief in their faith, yet I doubt many would consider their attitudes oppressive.

I don’t think that believing there is objective truth and oppression towards others are necessarily bound.
Wendi on Wed, May 14, 2008

Eric,

Thank you for acknowledging that you misstated. Though the conversation was long and sometimes frustrating, I do think it has had value (thanks to Todd for providing the platform).

Tonight at bible study someone made a comment that reminded me of this discussion. We were talking about trials and difficulties we all face. This person “quoted” 1 Cor 10:13, saying “God will not allow us to face a trial that we cannot bear.”

Of course we know that 1 Cor 10:13 actually says, “No TEMPTATION has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be TEMPTED beyond what you can bear. But when you are TEMPTED, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”

The book of Acts, church history and even Paul’s own words in 2 Cor 11, make it clear that Christians often face circumstances and trials they (alone) are unable to bear. And there is a big difference between a trial and a temptation. The woman’s comment reflects a common misunderstanding about Paul’s words to the Corinthians, and misrepresent Paul’s intentions.

I submit Eric, that your slight change in the wording of RW’s quote, coupled with your opinions about RW’s motives for saying it, misrepresented RW’s intentions.

Consider this scenario: Say you are called to pastor the church I attend. And say that you and the elders clearly sense from the Lord a particular mission and vision for our church. But a group of us strongly believe in a seeker sensitive, PD type model for church, which you and the elders equally strongly disagree with. As the church’s called and anointed leaders, you lead in a manner that does not feel right to the group I’m part of. Our group sets up a meeting with you. We bring our PDL books and read you many quotes from it to make a case that our church needs to have a 40-Days campaign. We begin talking about how our weekend services are not sensitive to seekers. Finally we issue an ultimatum. We tell you that we cannot stay in the church if you don’t begin leading in the way we describe, which we believe is biblical and right . . . and you don’t. I doubt that you give in to us, so how do you advise us? Even if you don’t say these exact words, our choices are simple, right? Submit to your leadership, leave (or die)?

When we tell people about our meeting, we say “Pastor Eric said that he didn’t care about seekers.” When explaining your position about seeker sensitive services, you probably didn’t actually say “I don’t care about seekers,” but through the filter of our passions and strongly held beliefs, that is what we heard from you.

I submit that that is what you did when reading the Pastors.com article from RW. Because you so strongly disagree with his methods, you read between the lines motives that may or may not have been there when RW penned those words.

We all must be cautious about how our biases influence the way we view reality, especially when the “reality” we’re talking about someone else’s heart. I’ve learned that the best way to guard against this is to remind myself that the “reality” I see is more than likely my perception of reality . . . and nothing more.

Wendi
CS on Thu, May 15, 2008

Wendi:

“Finally we issue an ultimatum. We tell you that we cannot stay in the church if you don’t begin leading in the way we describe, which we believe is biblical and right . . . and you don’t. I doubt that you give in to us, so how do you advise us? Even if you don’t say these exact words, our choices are simple, right? Submit to your leadership, leave (or die)?”

Who, here, in your hypothetical situation, has forced the ultimatum and decision as to whether or not you, as a dissenter, would stay or go? The answer here is: You. Eric, as the “pastor,” never said that you would have to submit or leave. I imagine that any sensible pastor, in this situation, would say that you are welcome to stay, but the church would not change to the seeker-sensitive PDL model.

Now, here’s the problem. In Warren’s article that I (not Eric) cited from pastors.com, there is no one that is clearly identified as the initiator of the ultimatum to “leave or die.” However, given that Warren, in the role of the pastor, wrote the article, and in light of his comments later in the article, such as, “Find out who the legitimizers are; the ones who are willing to go for change,” I would argue that it was Warren issuing the ultimatum here.

Again, to clarify, the article Eric cited was not from pastors.com, and he had quoted from that other source, which may or may not have gotten things wrong.

—

CS
DanielR on Thu, May 15, 2008

CS, the article does not clearly say there even was an ultimatum. What it said was that for churches that need to change (not all do) some (those who refuse to change) may have to leave or die before the church can successfully make the necessary changes. It was specifically about churches that have plateau’d and are in need of change.

NOTHING to do with PD models or even with Rick Warrens methods, it just happened to be Warren saying what many others agree with. Change is not easy for some people and some people will resist and ultimately refuse to change, even when it is necessary.

I don’t think it matters to Wendi’s example who issued the ultimatum or even IF there is an ultimatum, just that the leadership felt change was necessary (or not) and some people disagreed.
Wendi on Thu, May 15, 2008

Daniel is correctly understanding the question I was trying to pose, perhaps poorly.

Pastor Eric or CS are new leaders who feel called to bring about a “change” in the church, away from a PD styled, seeker sensitive model to a more traditional model. I am part of a faction that doesn’t want or agree with the change. We believe our ideas are biblical and right for this church, as we’ve been here for many years, and you, after all, are just a new young buck. We’ve dug in our heels. We talk to anyone who will listen about the wrong direction we think you are taking our church. Because we are a group of longtime and influential members, we are effectively creating congregational resistance to the changes you are trying to implement. Your change efforts are stalled.

If we came to you and said (in effect) “we want it our way or we’re leaving,” I think you would probably say (perhaps under your breath), “don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” The reality is that before the change you are trying to bring about can happen, our influence in the congregation is going to have to go away; either by our leaving or dying.

I believe this is the core of RW’s statement in the article you cited about plateaued churches. It takes change to get off a plateau. Sometimes influential naysayers can frustrate or even prevent change in a congregation. In this case, the naysayer’s voices need to be gone, one way or another, if the change is ever to take place.

RW was simply reminding us of a universal principle which would apply whether a pastor is trying to lead a congregation to become PD (to use Eric’s phrase), or become fundamental, or liturgical, or charismatic, or, or, or . . .

I suspect that if the article had been written by, say, John MacArthur, and was called, say, “Leading a Church Back to the Fundamentals,” you would have agreed. But because people have big time problems with RW, they read things that aren’t there in his article and then (this is where it becomes oppressive) pass on their personal “read” of the facts as though they are facts, when they actually are not.

Wendi
WW on Fri, May 16, 2008

I believe this blog is supposed to be about the Keller video, but since most have chosen to write about Rick Warren—- here is my two cents.

I think I know where Rick Warren was coming from by his comments, but I also think the words he chose left him open to be misconstrued as insensitive (or dare I say “oppressive” —- that seems to be a popular word to throw around these days although I’m not really sure what it means). It could be interpreted that he is implying that those who disagree with a change can be marginalized or ignored. Again, I’m not saying that was his intent, but it could be construed that way. What one says is objective, but what one implies is subjective.

How you make changes in a church is just as important as the change itself. Too much change too fast without getting people on board and sharing the vision for that change can be poisonous to a church, even if the change is necessary. I’ve seen it happen.
ww on Sat, May 17, 2008

The church can be ministering to all kinds of needs, but if it isn’t addressing the spiritual needs of people along with the others, then it becomes just another “social organization” and has lost it’s unique mission.
helen on Sat, May 17, 2008

thank you ww