Tweet

More from @timkellernyc

Timothy Keller

@timkellernyc

31 Oct

https://twitter.com/timkellernyc/status/1322179959625056259

As anyone knows who has listened to my preaching over the years, I have always, incessantly, equally critiqued the positions of the Left and the Right, not one more than the other. To claim that I am mainly a proponent of one side or the other is amply refuted by looking at 1/6

https://twitter.com/timkellernyc/status/1322179959625056259

at my books and sermons.

But I deny that this is middle-of-the-road centrism. The gospel critiques all ideologies, & all the main political platforms since the Enlightenment have been dominated by reductionism and idols. (See David Koyzis, Political Visions and Illusions.) 2/6

Those who deny this are unaware of the genealogy of their own political thought. (See Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue and Whose Justice? Which Rationality?)

Ideologies force “ethical package deals” on Christians. (See James Mumford, Vexed: Ethics Beyond Political Tribes.) 3/6

Read 6 tweets

Timothy Keller

@timkellernyc

18 Oct

I haven't seen a lot of negative criticism with the last article that came out a few weeks ago. Here's a thought: when someone uses biblical justice to critique the ideologies of both the political Right and Left, they are often assumed to be centrist or a moderate who is 1/6

...looking for a “middle way” that is neutral or just “above it all.”

But Christopher Watkin argues that Christianity “diagonalizes” its alternatives. “To diagonalize a choice…is to refuse the two (or more) alternatives it offers and elaborate a position that is neither 2/6

...reducible nor utterly unrelated to them.” (Thinking Through Creation, P&R, 2017, 28) To “diagonalize” is not to find a mid-point on the spectrum. It is a position off the spectrum, yet one that addresses the concerns of those on the spectrum.

In Romans, Paul pointed to... 3/6

Read 7 tweets

Timothy Keller

@timkellernyc

25 Sep

Its here! But first a summary of the main argument of the last two articles in my series on justice.

1) If you think talk of oppressive social systems or white advantage automatically makes you a Marxist, then you may be a secular individualist who reduces everything to...1/4

...result of personal choices & you may be more indebted to Hume, Mill & Hayek than to the Bible.

2) If you think a sharp critique of Critical Race Theory automatically makes you a white supremacist, then you may be a secular collectivist who reduces everything to the result 2/4

...of group struggle and power, and you may be more indebted to Rousseau, Marx & Foucault than to the Bible.

The churches in every nation of the world have the same struggles that we do. First, how to maintain their biblical and theological independence from their... 3/4

Read 5 tweets

Timothy Keller

@timkellernyc

24 Sep

Biblical justice does not “split the difference” or create a Middle Way or posit a moral equivalence between Left and Right. The Bible “diagonalizes” reductionistic secular alternatives. For example, the gospel is not a middle way between legalism and anti-nomianism. 1/5

It escapes the spectrum.

Likewise biblical justice does not give an abstract “Middle Way” between systemic/corporate responsibility and individual responsibility. They both exist and are both important but ultimately individual responsibility is decisive (Ezekiel 18). 2/5

For a fascinating presentation of this in sociological terms, see Christian Smith, To flourish or Destruct, p30, where he argues against individualism (that is generally blind to systemic racism) as well as the Marxist/collectivism that sees all things in terms of social power. 3

Read 5 tweets

Timothy Keller

@timkellernyc

22 Sep

On Social Media, I'm seeing a lot of guilt-by-association (GBA) arguments. It goes like this: Person A recommends Person B’s Book #1 as good and helpful (without agreeing with it fully). But Person B has a Book 2 which Person A would not recommend and in which B says things...1/6

Person A would not agree to at all. No matter. The person using GBA says that by A affirming anything B says in any book, A is now affirming of and responsible for everything that B has ever said or taught. I respect the great concern over the danger of theological compromise...2

However, using the GBA approach means we can’t learn from anyone who doesn’t agree with us totally. That’s not only a recipe for intellectual stagnation, it’s a denial of
the historic Christian doctrine of common grace...3/6

Read 6 tweets

Timothy Keller

@timkellernyc

20 Sep

I’ve been asked why it is especially wrong for Christians to speak of their opponents in a demonizing and dehumanizing way. Historic Christians believe that our sin has made us worthy of condemnation and hell. 1/6

From those living respectable lives to those leading criminal lives, all of us fall infinitely (and therefore equally) short of loving and serving God in the way that is due him. Therefore, we can only be saved through Christ by sheer grace. 2/6

The Westminster Confession of Faith 15:4 say “As there is no sin so small, but it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great, that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.” (Rom 6:23; Gal 3:10; Is 55:7; Rom 8:1) 3/6

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Timothy Keller

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @timkellernyc

Timothy Keller

Timothy Keller

Timothy Keller

Timothy Keller

Timothy Keller

Timothy Keller

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?