This broadcaster has 385 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
October 12, 2018 8:00 pm
Seller in the act theory that is the problem will discuss today right here on the Christian world view radio program were the mission is to sharpen the biblical worldview of Christian and also to share the good news that all people can be reconciled to God through repentance of their sin and putting their faith in Jesus Christ, who he is and what did for us on the cross. I'm David Wheaton, the host of the program and our website is the Christian world you.or will thanks for joining us today. Just a quick word to our listeners down in the Florida Panhandle. We have seen the devastation and we are just thinking and praying for you and listeners we have down there and maybe not even able to listen today because of the devastation so much blood that we encourage other listeners other parts of the country to pray for help those who have been just devastated by this hurricane another one is the shores of the United States but them really talk today about Tim Keller and speech act theory.
And the reason that the framers of the statement on social justice in the gospel.
We talked about that recently.
In recent weeks in the program wrote the document is spelled out right in its introduction. They say we are deeply concerned that values borrowed from secular culture are currently undermining Scripture in the areas of race and ethnicity manhood and womanhood in human sexuality. The Bible's teaching on each of the subject is being challenged under the broad and somewhat nebulous rubric of concern for quote social justice" so as we have recently discussed on the program.
A division has taken place within the more biblically conservative side of evangelicalism over this issue of social justice. For instance, Tim Keller, the highly regarded evangelical founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. The vice president of the Gospel coalition, author of numerous influential books. He said this about the statement quote. You can't just analyze words by what they say. You also to analyze words by what they do when I go through the statement.
If you go really really strictly I think just about anyone would take about 80% of it. But in the end. What concerns me most about it is not so much what it's saying, but what it's trying to do is trying to my trying to marginalize people who are talking about race injustice is trying to say you're really not biblical and is not fair. In that sense unquote a Keller referenced the speech act theory as is basis for his view that words can't just be analyze what they say but also for what they do.
So I guess this week on the Christian real view was Cameron butyl. He's a researcher, researcher and writer for Grace to you.
He's going to join us to discuss his recent column on the ramifications of speech speech act theory. Here's the first segment of that interview were going to be getting into a conversation on a column that you recently wrote for Grace to use blog called assaulting the nature of truth and it was written in response to something that the well-known pastor of founder of the Gospel coalition Tim Keller had to say in response to the statement on social justice in the gospel just want to read a short paragraph from that statement on social justice in the gospel sometimes called the Dallas statement because it was written in Dallas. It says this in the introduction, in view of questionable sociological, psychological, and political theories presently permeating our culture and making inroads into Christchurch. We wish to clarify certain key doctrines and ethical principles prescribed in God's word and it goes on to say the apostle's warning to the Colossians is greatly needed today.
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ. Mr. Colossians 28 so this document that follows they say is an attempt to heed that apostolic command and it goes on to give affirmations and denials on some of the major subjects of the faith to do with Scripture. Justice, God's law, sin gospel salvation.
The church heresies sexuality and marriage complementarity and is him and race, ethnicity and culture and racism so give affirmations of certain biblical perspectives on those things and denials of what those things are not, and you say Cameron at the beginning of your your column on assaulting the nature of truth. What is surprising, even disappointing about the pushback against this statement on social justice in the gospel is the widespread failure of critics to engage with the actual content of what is been stated clearly in the articles sermons in the Dallas statement many evangelicals have chosen to argue against what they perceive those declarations to represent not what they actually say and you going to say Tim Keller, founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan is candid enough to admit his complicity in not dealing with the substance of the arguments set forth in the document, but that's because he believes how he feels about the Dallas statement is more important than what it actually says Keller appeals to secular philosophy in order to make his case using speech act theory as the key to his interpretive approach is like a player soundbite where Tim Keller is asked about what he thinks of the statement on social justice in the gospel and then get your response to that.
Here's the audio is is is is is is so you know and you as is, so you and a you and is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is super happy to start out Cameron by just giving your response to Tim Keller's remarks about the statement on social justice in the gospel. One thing I would use I would've written this article even if I didn't agree with social justice statement. The Dallas statement I have signed the statement and I'm happy to do so.
I totally agree with it. Now Wally doesn't count propositional truth, he subjugates it to his own feelings and as such he's invalidating words what words assigned just the plain meaning of words and projecting his own meaning onto it. What he's really saying is, the words in this document, I can agree with those but as a motive behind that that I don't like what does that do to make just regular communication difficult. Well, it might be old out of the decision-making process into what things might.
The hero becomes the one who gets to define what things might you not play in the whole interview he never engages with a single statement in the whole document he bypasses that, and project design meaning onto it and deals with that and the implication is that he has made himself the sovereign interpreter. In this he gets project meaning and he's very definite about. He says don't like this emphasis don't worry about the pool don't care about the injustice. It's not really that important. And then he says that's what it is sign very definite. His meaning that he project honor is nowhere said there's nothing even remotely resembling those words in the Dallas statement so let me give an example of this is a mention. There's about 12 or 13 more than that.
There's 14 points that it gives affirmations and denials on and one of them is race and ethnicity.
Since this is such a central one in the whole social justice movement that there's an oppression going on against people of color, particularly black people in this country one of the.
The point is on race and ethnicity in the statement on social justice in the gospel.
Here's what they say.
We affirm God made all people from one man though.
People often can be distinguished by different ethnicities and nationalities. They are ontological equals before God in both creation and redemption. Race is not a biblical category but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority. All that is good, honest Justin beautiful in various ethnic backgrounds and experience can be celebrated as the fruit of God's grace all sinful actions and the results, including evil perpetrated between and upon ethnic groups by others are to be confessed as sinful repented of and repudiated. That's of the affirm about race and ethnicity in his or they deny about it, we deny that Christian should segregate themselves into racial groups to regard racial identity above or even equal to their identity in Christ, we deny that any divisions between people, groups from an unstated attitude of superiority to an overt spirit of resentment have any legitimate place in the Fellowship of the redeemed. We reject any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as privileged oppressors or entitled victims of oppression. While we are to weep with those who weep. We denied that a person's feelings of offense or oppression necessarily prove that someone else is guilty of sinful behavior, oppression or prejudice, just in reading that I think most at least Christians who have a theologically conservative understanding of Scripture rose right on. There's only one race or the human race are are different ethnicities different skin colors were all valued and in the sight of God and most people say right, but I think Tim Keller is saying here that well. I can agree with that but it's doing something it's really there's a motive there's an intent behind what's being said there is really denying the fact that certain minority groups feel oppressed and therefore I do want a part of this right and that's what Mike did so at right David not what an indictment is fine and he signed it were allowed to buy the plain meaning of words, if we feel badly about it. I had James White, Dr. James what time recently when talking about going on university campuses that one of his great frustration that that today's generation cannot reason I can only emote and wearing a scary situation today where truth is being determined by how people feel about things. Robin facts themselves to deal with us today here in the Christian really talking about Tim Keller. In the speech act theory you give the example of Genesis chapter 3 verses one through five is an example of the, the reader, or hearer of words being that the determiner of the meaning of the words rather than the author.
This is where Satan tempts Eve on this, read the passage here now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field was the Lord had made. And he said the woman. Indeed, has God said, you shall not eat from any tree of the garden. The woman said the serpent from the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has set you shall not eat from it or touch it or you will die. The surface of the woman you surely will not die for God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil will talk about how that was the first example social justice is the gospel that this is become the mantra of many evangelical rectifying perceived inequities of race, gender and sexuality, poverty, immigration, amongst others, is considered a top priority.
But what exactly is social justice is working for social justice. The biblical mandate and application of the gospel.
Caleb Eisner has written an insightful booklet entitled social justice. How good intentions undermined justice in gospel. Also included in this revised 44 page booklet is a copy of the just-released statement on social justice in the gospel.
You can order the social justice booklet or donation of any amount to the Christian will go to the Christian world.or call one AAA 46 2233 right to Box 401 Excelsior, MN 55331. The mission of the Christian world is to sharpen the biblical worldview of Christians and to share the good news that all people can be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ for when Christians have a stronger faith.
And when unbelievers come to saving faith lives and families and churches, even communities are change for the glory of God.
The Christian world you as a listener supported ministry. You can help us in our mission to impact hearts and minds by making a donation of any amount or becoming a monthly partner.
All donations are tax-deductible. You can give firstname.lastname@example.org or calling us toll-free 1888 646-2233. When you give like to thank you by sending you a current resource. Monthly partners can choose to receive resources throughout the year, one AAA eight 646-2233 or go to the Christian world you.org. Thank you for your support Tim Keller in the speech act theory.
That's what were discussing today here on the Christian world you radio program am David Wheaton, the posterior website is the Christian world you.org. I want to before get back to the interview with our guest today.
Cameron butyl. He is a researcher and writer for Grace to you and just to be full disclosure. Here he works for an organization who was headed by John MacArthur and Don MacArthur is one of the signatories on the statement on social justice in the gospel so anyway when you do know that in the were talking about Tim Keller's response to that statement and that she said that if somebody starts to go down with me that the statement says. Would you agree with this. Would you agree with that. I would say you're looking at the level of what is says what it says and not at the level of what it's doing.
I do think that's what it's trying to do was really trying to say is don't make this emphasis. Don't worry about the poor don't carry about the injustice it's really not that important. That's what it is saying even if I could agree with most of it I don't like it.
It's what it's doing that.
I don't like and so what he saying there is. He understands the motives behind the documents is not a thing is that we don't care about the poor. When a carbon injustice is that she says some the opposite of those things, but he saying were going to impugn the motives of those who ride I'm going to is that what they're saying it's what this document is doing. I know what it's doing, he saying now. That's called speech act theory.
I want to read from Wikipedia. What just the general definition of speech act serious again. Wikipedia has a bias in it because people near regular people can just fill in but this is a pretty straightforward definition of what speech act theory is it is a speech act in linguistics in the philosophy of language is an utterance that has performative function in language and communication. According to a man named Kent Bock quote almost any speech act is really the performance of several acts that once distinguished by different aspects of the speaker's intention, there is the act of saying something out what one does in saying it, such as requesting a promising and how one is trying to affect one's audience. For much of the history of linguistics in the positivist philosophy of language. Language was viewed primarily as a way of making factual assertions and the other uses of language tended to be ignored as often states at the beginning of one of his lectures quote. It was for too long. The assumption of philosophers at the business of a statement can only be to describe some state of affairs or to state some fact which it must do either truly or falsely a man name Wittgenstein came up with the idea of don't ask for the meaning ask for the use showing the language as a new vehicle for social activity, speech act theory hails from Wittgenstein's philosophical theories Wittgenstein believe meaning derived from pragmatic tradition, demonstrating the importance of how language is used, to accomplish objectives with specific situations.
By following rules to accomplish a goal. Communication becomes a set of language games. Thus utterances or writings do more than reflective meeting their words designed to get things done unquote. That's what speech act theory is you don't take a writer but at just what they're saying and find the meaning of what the author intends you look beyond that and try to do fine, or understand what is the author trying to do with this was their motive behind this.
Okay, so you can ascribe a positive or negative motive that that's not clearly written, sometimes motive is written is working to get into this thing with Cameron butyl but when a motive is written. Actually, the statement social justice. The motive is to I can get into it later wherever you respect is that there to read it, but it gives a clear motive at the beginning of introduction what Tim Keller's saying is that's not really the motivated humans find where it says boards doing is what he doesn't like he doesn't agree with so before the break. I was asking Cameron butyl about the first instance of someone using really the speech act theory and not taking God for what he actually told Adam and Eve. He said you can have fruit from all the trees in the garden but there's just one that I don't want you to eat from Doni from otherwise.
If you eat from it you will die and so when Satan comes to tempt Adam and Eve. What is he do. He doesn't take God at his word for what he says he changes the words.
Many impugn God's motive from the words he originally used Adam and Eve now. To be clear, I'm not comparing Tim Keller to Satan. I'm just saying the linguistic methodology here is similar with get back to the second segment with Cameron butyl. So how is that an example Cameron of the reader. The hearer in this case, Satan determining the meaning of the author's words, God is the author rather than finding the meaning of what God actually intended to frighten reject motive on God, which is untrue and a full right that trap to get what the plain meaning of the would concern yourself with why he said that and he's climbing the guard said that because I know you'll become like him. You eat that fruit again we see with Kelly here. He saying don't worry about what it is worry about the motives behind those who said it, so does motive matters in she we be looking for an author's motives when we read something in Scripture, or someone else.
I do think motive matters. Some of the critics have tried to point out that would be wet annoyed David and people can do things in a way that is intended to hurt. I'm not disputing that. But when we interpret something when we look at motive.
It helps to bring out for the meaning and what he said but another case we find is that words still have value, apart from motive and we see in Philippians chapter 1 where Paul talks about there were people who were preaching the gospel with false motives. The pole rejoiced that the gospel was preached anyway.
And then he is affirming value in the propositional content of the message regardless of the motives behind us preaching.
It that the gospel still has value regardless of the fallen messenger who preaches it. That should be encouraging to all of us but bottom line words matter and we have to deal with those words. That's why we see the inscription. That's why the church is dealt with through history throughout creeds and confessions.
What I like their written statement of objective truth apart from how we feel about them. We are looking at what they actually say is what matters. That is the why the church is done it throughout history and Tim Keller is trying to project design, meaning onto this and then condemn the statement reject the statement based on design projected meaning in the Bible we don't guess motives when we dealing with Scripture.
We use the Scripture to help us understand the motives behind letters.
I'm thinking of John's Gospel which John explicitly cites his motive at the end of the 20th chapter he says, but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the son of God and that believing you may have life in his nine it's important when we read the Gospel of John to consider John's motive why he's writing that helps us to understand a little better but again we we don't find that meaning by imagining it, or projecting it onto what we find in Scripture itself. We should not go beyond that and we should not go beyond what statement site over what we can know about it okay that was Cameron butyl from Grace to you and talking about speech act theory with regards to Tim Keller's comments about the statement social justice in the gospel now just a reminder that we actually have researched resource right now that contains the statement social justice in the gospel that we would highly encourage you to get is a social justice booklet we call it is held by snares we had them on recently is entitled social justice versus biblical justice. How good intentions undermined justice and gospel.
That's what the book was about but it also includes because Kalb Eisner was a signer on the statement social justice. The gospel also includes that they've they've they've revised it made it new and we have it for a donation of any amount to the Christian really is.
44 pages long and I would love to get you a copy and if you even want to to give to someone else.
We be glad to have you do that to so you can just get in contact with us. The usual ways through website the Christian world you.org calling us at her office at one AAA 646-2233 or writing to us a Box 401, Excelsior, MN 55331 and those are the contact information is given, other times throughout the program so back to the idea of impugning motive for one a different motive instead. That's exactly what's taken place here, the designers of this statement, social justice, the gospel wrote there motive in the introduction is right there. They said specifically they talked about in view of questionable sociological, psychological, and political theories presently permeating our culture and making inroads in a Christchurch with that.
We wish to clarify certain key Christian doctrines and ethical principles prescribing God's word clarity on these issues will fortify believers in churches to withstand an onslaught of dangerous and false teachings that threaten the gospel misrepresent Scripture and lead people away from the grace of God in Jesus Christ. There is the first paragraph of that of the statement. It gives their motivation for writing this statement. Think Tim Keller comes along is asked about is that no no that's not what it is I can agree with the that the points in their but what is really trying to do is according to him, quote don't it sees that what is really trying to say is don't make this emphasis don't worry about the poor don't care about the injustice. It's not really that important. That's what it's saying that speech act theory describing a motive or meaning to an author's words that he didn't say or didn't mean we come back from this next break were going to just flip the scenario a little bit.
Tim Keller was using speech act theory on the statement social justice in the gospel just the opposite. He wrote he wrote a recent op-ed in the New York Times were going to look at two things. What is the mean in his op-ed and then try to use speech act theory to define what he's trying to do through it that's coming up next on the Christian world view. I'm David. We DVD the death of discernment. Mike Gendron uses this apt analogy from AW tells red cells are like faith. They carry life-giving oxygen to every part of the body white cells. On the other hand, are discernment they pounce upon dead and toxic matter and carry it out of the body. Each member in the body of Christ is white blood cell, we need to identify doctrinal error and make sure it gets out of the body. That's the only way that the body of Christ can remain strong in the death of discernment DVD contains two messages by Mike Gendron. You can order it for donation of any amount to the Christian worldview. None of the tale is $15 plus shipping.
Go to the Christian world you.org or call 1888 646-2233 or right Box 401, Excelsior, MN 55331. Be sure to take advantage of two free resources that will keep you informed and sharpen your worldview. The first is the Christian world weekly email which comes to your inbox each Friday. It contains the upcoming radio program along with need to read articles feature resources, special events and audio the previous program.
The second is the Christian world annual letter, which is delivered to your mailbox. In November it contains a UN letter from host, David. We had a listing of our store, including DVDs, books, children's materials and you can sign up for the weekly email and annual by visiting the Christian world you.calling one AAA 646-2233. Your email and mailing address will never be shipped and you can unsubscribe at any time. Call one AAA 646-2233 or visit the Christian world.Tim Keller and speech act theory that if the topic were discussing today here on the Christian rule you radio program. I'm David Wheaton, the Houston just by the way, I was the one who came up with each act. This is what Tim Keller referenced himself in that soundbite we played of his in the first segment of the program that was the basis for how he was evaluating the statement on social justice in the gospel he used it. So now what we want to do is flip the scenario, whereas Tim Keller was analyzing the statement social justice in the gospel, not just according to what the authors of it are actually saying trying to understand what they mean. The traditional way of understanding any kind of writing you read words to understand what the author is saying but then taking it beyond that to saying what is the author trying to do what's his motive ascribing a motive to an author that may not be specifically listed but is listed in the statement social justice in the gospel. I just mention that he comes up with his own as we we talked about the first two segment that they don't really care about these things is doing something else than what they're actually saying is doing now it's flip the scenario and let's read something that Tim Keller just recently wrote in the New York Times in an opinion piece.
The New York Times just recently in late September and so I wanted. Think about two things.
The two things we've been discussing here as I'm reading just portions of the column. The first thing to listen for his try to understand what Tim Keller is actually saying what what is the meaning of the words okay secondly let's just for the example of it lets you speech act theory to try to understand what his column is trying to do what is his motive for the column beyond what he's actually writing. So what is he saying and what is he trying to do those little questions was try to keep in mind as we read some samples from here of his column.
The column is titled how do Christians fit into the two-party system. They don't subtitle the historical Christian positions on social issues don't match up with contemporary political alignments. So trying to understand what he's saying there is that Christians shouldn't be wetted to one party or the other Democrats or Republicans.
Because historical Christian positions on certain social issues which will bring out and that the column they don't match up with one party or the other Christians could go either way guide. That's what he saying there if I'm understanding him correctly. The first paragraph says what should the role of Christians in politics be more people than ever are asking that question. Christians cannot pretend that they can transcend politics and simply quote preach the gospel. Those who avoid all political discussions and engagement are essentially casting a vote for the social status quo.
American churches in the early 19th century that did not speak out against slavery, the cat, because that was what we would now call getting political were actually supporting slavery. By doing so, to be political, to not be political is to be political. Now this is a little sad to confess your agree with all that that that's that's his opinion the Bible shows he goes on to say believers as holding important posts in pagan governments think of Joseph and Daniel in the Old Testament. Christians should be involved politically as a way of loving our neighbors. Whether they believe as we do or not to work for better public schools or for a justice system not weighted against the poor, or to and racial segregation requires political engagement Christians have done these things in the past and should continue to do so. That's the first few paragraphs of his column.
And just as an aside, not to do with will talk must be Jack theory, but where is the example of Christ in the up and possibles being engaged politically in their time. He says it's a year you're compelled to do this.
Your be. I personally think you should be involved with the opportunity America but I don't see that that command in Scripture or in the example of Christ and the apostles that they were engaged politically at all in their particular timeframe. What they did was preach the gospel and I think the reason they did that is because repenting and believing the gospel is the most powerful means of societal change when people's heart changes through conversion regeneration being born again however you want to describe it. Then there worldview changes and they start to live and act differently. They start to treat people with justice that don't treat people based on the identity of their ethnicity. There better people because they're following the goodness of God.
Okay, next portion of the column by Tim Keller. He goes on to say nevertheless well. Believers can register under a party affiliation and be active in politics. They should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party, as the only Christian one. There are number of reasons, to insist on this one is that it gives those considering the Christian faith. The strong impression that to be converted, they need not only to believe in Jesus, but also become members of the quote fill in the blank party.
It confirms what many spec skeptics want to believe about religion that it is merely one more voting block aiming for power. Another reason not to align the Christian faith. With one party is that most political positions are not matters of biblical command but of practical wisdom. This does not mean that the church can never speak on social, economic, and political rent realities because the Bible often does racism is a sin violating the second of the two great commandments of Jesus to love your neighbor the biblical commands to lift up the poor and to defend the rights of the oppressed are moral imperatives of four believers for individual Christians to speak out against egregious violations of these moral requirements is not optional. However, there are many possible ways to help the poor should be shrink government and let private capital markets allocate resources or should we expand the government and give the state more of the power to redistribute them or redistribute wealth or is the right path. One of the many possibilities in between. The Bible does not give exact answers to these questions for every time, place and culture and now he moved to an anecdote he says I know the man from Mississippi who was a conservative Republican in a traditional Presbyterian he visited the Scottish Highlands and found the churches there as strict and as Orthodox as he had hoped no one so much as turned on the television on a Sunday, everyone memorized catechisms in Scripture.
But one day he discovers the Scottish creek. His Scottish Christian friends. He admired were in his view socialists their understanding of government economic policy in the state's responsibility was by his lights very left wing, yet also grounded in their Christian convictions.
He returned to the US, not more politically liberal but in his words humbled and chastened, he realized that thoughtful Christians all trying to obey God's call could reasonably appear at different places on the political spectrum with loyalties to different political strategies just rip off your back to our questions. Were asking. By reading this, what is Tim Keller saying in this article were the meanings of his words. What is it what is the point he is making and what is he trying to do to use the speech act theory on it. What is he trying to do with this column I think it probably pretty clear what is trying to do, but we have one or two more paragraphs to get to goes on to say. Another reason Christians these days cannot allow the church to be fully identify with any put particular party is the problem what what the British ethicist James Mumford called package deal ethics.
Increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them. If you don't embrace all of their approved positions.
This emphasis on package deals puts pressure on Christians in politics.
For example, following both the Bible and the early church. Christian should be committed to racial justice and the poor, but also to the understanding that sex is only for marriage and for nurturing family.
One of those views seems liberal and the other looks oppressively conservative. The historical Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments and others point out one way the use of words here that are seeking racial justice and helping the poor.
That's considered a liberal issue.
But he says that understanding sex for marriage and for nurturing family. He describes it as oppressively Christian that got perceived as oppressively Christian since that is hit me as an odd choice of words when I just conservative as he used no modifier with liberal Jesus forbids us. He goes on to say, last paragraph to withhold help from our neighbors, and this will inevitably require that we participate in political processes.
If we experience exclusion and even persecution for doing so. We are assured that God is with us and that some will see our good deeds and glorify God. If we are only offensive or only attractive to the world and not both.
We can be sure we are failing to live as we ought. The gospel gives us the resources to love people who reject both our beliefs and us personally Christians to think of how God rescued them.
He did, he did it not by taking power, but by coming to earth, losing power, losing glory and power serving and dying on the cross.
How did Jesus save, not with the sword but with nails in his hands unquote.
That was about 75% of the article by Tim Keller in the New York Times and is linked at our website the Christian world viewed.org you can read it for yourself, just as a little point before we go to the break here. Jesus didn't lose as he said lose any power in the cross, he chose not to use it.
Scripture said that he could've called legions of angels to have everyone killed and got himself out of the situation, he didn't lose power.
He chose not to use it so the questions we had for this column were what is Keller saying in this column.
What is he actually saying and what is he trying to do what is the speech act theory that he applied the social statement on the just unjust to social justice in the gospel. What is he trying to do was take your phone calls and have some concluding discussion after the spinal break of the day. The studio number is 187-7655 XT 755 is 1-877-655-6755 more on speech act theory coming up next.
Here is my kindred fee, kneeling his DVD and apostasy will see how apostasy is the result of Satan's relentless attacks on the church will also look at four steps that characterize a churches drift into apostasy, then will look at the history of the church, a chronological development of the Roman Catholic religion and its drift into apostasy and lastly and most importantly, what are you and I to do in the midst of this great apostasy on the growing ecumenical movement. The DVD is titled Roman Catholicism's drift into apostasy and contains two messages, you can order it for a donation of any amount to the Christian world you normal retail is $15 plus the Christian world you.or or call one 846-2233 or write to Box 401, Excelsior, MN 55331.
Social justice is the gospel issue. This is become the mantra of many evangelicals rectifying perceived inequities of race, gender, sexuality, poverty, immigration, amongst others, is considered a top priority. But what exactly is social justice is working for social justice.
The biblical mandate and application of the gospel Kalb Eisner has written an insightful booklet entitled social justice. How good intentions undermined justice in gospel. Also included in this revised 44 page booklet is a copy of the just-released statement on social justice in the gospel.
You can order the social justice booklet or donation of any amount to the Christian will go to the Christian world you.or call one AAA 46 2233 or write to Box 401 Excelsior, MN 55331 final segment of the day here on the Christian just want to wish my mother today is her 80 birthday and mama just so thankful to God for you that he's given you to us mentally as her mother but has given you to us for many years and we are so grateful and blessed because of that, looking forward to spending part of the day with you, happy birthday to my mom as we get into this last segment here talking about this issue of Tim Keller and speech act theory would just read an article from the New York Times that Keller wrote on how to Christians fit into the two-party system. They don't. He says the historical Christian positions on social issues doesn't don't match up with contemporary political alignments, and so we read the article or most of it and you can read its link to the website the Christian world you.org but were trying to understand what is Keller saying in this article, so we should try to be doing read anyone's words, what is the author mean what they're saying and then were going to do what Tim Keller did to the statement on social justice, the gospel, even though I don't think we should do this unless the motive is clearly written and try to find out what was he trying to do what is motive behind writing this article because he didn't write a clear motive in here for why he wrote this article he's writing things that about what he what he thinks Christians should how they should approach politics. The first thing is, what is he trying to say what is Tim Keller saying in this article.
He said that Christians are first of all, compelled, they should be. It's a command command to be impolitic not see that in Scripture. I think that we should be involved. Christian should be when we have the opportunity and in this great nation we live in, but also I don't see the command words that command in Scripture, Joseph and Daniel that that's they were involved in the politics of the day, but that doesn't mean every Christian is to be involved in politics in the way they were anywhere else so I don't think there's a biblical chapter and verse to say Christians must be involved in the political process, but what is Keller's thing on some of the other issues. Basically, I think what he saying is the Democrat party are more biblical when it comes to issues of race, poverty and injustice. While he says the Republican Party is better known or better affiliated with issues of sexuality and gender, and therefore, Christians were evangelicals shouldn't be wedded to one party because there are issues in both parties that Christians can support. I think that's what he saying us going back you look at the all the examples he gave in this article he talks about Christians being up all involved politically as a way of loving our neighbor. She says to work for better public schools or justice system not weighted against the poor, or to end racial segregation requires political engagement.
Notice the examples he's using better public schools a justice system not weighted against the poor, ending racial segregation which political party tries to associate itself with the champion of those issues.
The Democrat party does look of the other and further down. Racism is a sin violating the second of the two great commandments to love your neighbor the biblical command to lift up the poor and to defend the rights of the oppressed or moral imperatives for believers individual Christians dispel wants to speak out against the egregious violations of these moral requirements is not optional. Again which political party tries to say they are the champion of the poor and the rights of the oppressed, the Democrat party is the one that tries to do that now nothing is true at all but just think that's that's the insinuation here that the Democrat party is more biblical and it comes to race, poverty, and issues of justice, while Republicans are more known for. But there considered to be oppressively conservative with issues as on sexuality and gender. So is it true that the Democrats are more biblical on race, poverty and injustice.
I would say definitely not on the on the issue of race everything they see is turns people into seeing themselves as her primary identity of what their of what their ethnicity or skin color is. I think it actually reduces people to consider themselves or to see everything. It divides people to see each other and themselves through the identity of their skin color or ethnicity on the issue of poverty is the Democrat party better and that they believe and basically taking through taxation, which is inherently coercive.
Taxation is an incredibly powerful active you think about it that you can you can legally take money from someone that's a huge powerful is not theft because is not against the law. The law is on your side with the force of law, the background, the power of violence in the background to say unless you pay your taxes or else you go to jail or or worse.
So taxation is a very very powerful thing is completely coercive so the Democrat party says word and take money tax people who are income producers and were going to give as much as we like to those who don't produce income who we consider to be needing it and then you if that's a question. Is that good for people or what degree should we be doing that.
Is it more the better. I just give, give, give. Does that help people get them out of poverty disorders that enslave them to the government or are there variations of how that should be enacted. The third issue is done just as he talks about issues of justice, of people being the poor being hurt in our society, and so forth. But it's want to point out one issue that you probably noticed that he didn't bring up anywhere in this column, the one elephant issue in the room. What issue did he choose not to write about in this column, which is the greatest example of injustice in our society.
Abortion did you notice that there was nothing about pro-life issue in this whole article.
He didn't say anything about conservatives or Republicans are generally socially more pro-life than what greater injustice is there in life than not being able to than having them being told are being forced to lose your life in the womb.
There is no greater injustice than that any other perceived injustice does not even compare to the injustice of Lou having no say in losing your life, which is what abortion does. So we go from what is Keller saying to what he's trying to do so if we use the speech act theory on this column with a what is the motive behind why is he writing this column while I was all ascribed the motive not get.
I don't know it for sure. But all that you do what he did to the statement social justice in the gospel out that he's trying to move some Christians to vote Democrat in the upcoming election. He saying that you need to be wedded to one part that that's not the right thing to do. Christians can vote both ways and be legitimate and have a good conscience. In doing so, not knowing that 81% of evangelicals voted for Trump for Republicans in 2016. The tone of this column is in trying to get the other 19% to move the way of the Republican side, no return, take some of that 81% in saying look, don't be so wedded to one party you can. There issues on the Democrat side that Christians can be fully supportive even look at the anecdote he used about the man from Mississippi, the conservative Presbyterian who want to the Scottish Highlands and discovered that those who have similar theology were very liberal. They were socialist in their economic policies.
Every anecdote, every example he used was on people on the right, moving to the left makes me wonder whether this whole evangelical social justice movements is a means of softening evangelicals to depart from their support, more Republican politics believe you thinking about that question today. Thank you for joining us on the Christian rule of unit we do live in a changing and challenging world, but there is one thing we can always trust in encounter on Jesus Christ and his word are the standard and they are the same yesterday today and forever until next weekend. Everyone think biblically and live accordingly. We hope today's broadcast turned your heart toward God's word and his son to order a CD copy of today's program or sign up for our free weekly email or to find out how you can be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ go to our website the Christian world dawdle. Call us toll-free at one Tripoli 646-2233.
The Christian worldview is a weekly one-hour radio program that is furnished by the over comer foundation and is supported by listeners and sponsors request one of our current resources with your donation of any amount go to the Christian world dawdle or call us toll-free at one Tripoli 646-2230 3.2 a set Box 401, Excelsior, MN 55331 that's Box 401, Excelsior, MN 55331.
Thanks for listening to the Christian world.
Until next time think biblically and live according