Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html
Joe Wurzelbacher has become the poster child for middle class Americans who haven’t been dumbed down to cow like stupidity. With Wurzelbacher’s insistence that stealing from people just because they’ve worked hard is always wrong Wurzelbacher defied class envy. Note how shocked the ABC people are.
Joe, if I ever meet you, I’m buying you a beer.
Question — Why do you believe that your economic plans is superior to your opponents?
McCain — Middle America victims of greed of Wall Street and Washington. They deserve to be angry. (Note, immediately Americans are victims.) Blames crisis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for economic distress. Proposes again to take 300 billion to buy up mortgages of people that can’t afford their mortgages.
Obama — “Worst financial crisis since the great depression. McCain and I were right in bail out. Proposes four specific ideas
1.)Tax companies sending jobs overseas
2.)Tax breaks for middle class families — no penalty on withdrawl from 401k
3.)Disagrees with McCain on mortgage buy out because it might help banks
4.)Need to help students
McCain — Pins Obama on his Plumber comment in Toledo. Why did you tell the plumber that you wanted to spread his wealth around? I won’t do that to you Mr. Plumber. I won’t increase the taxes of the small businesses.
Obama — Insist that his tax plan is more fair. Says that McCain’s tax breaks go to Corporate rich. Lies again about the whole idea of 95% of the American population getting a tax break. Defends his comment to the plumber. Says he really wants to help the plumber.
McCain — Pushes Obama on his statement to plumber. Insists that it was a classic example of class warfare. Asks Obama why he wants to increase anybodies taxes right now given this climate?
Obama — I want to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Says he is going to take from Exxon Mobile and Warren Buffet and give it to Joe the plumber. Obama doesn’t say that Exxon Mobile pays more in taxes then it makes in profits. Basically a “it’s not fair” argument.
McCain — Insists that Obama wants to tax companies that are already taxed to much. Insists that those Obama wants to tax should have tax cuts.
I think McCain got the better part of this exchange.
Question — Deficit. What will you do about coming trillion dollar deficit. Both of your plans, as assessed by neutral number crunchers, will add to deficit.
Obama — Say’s we’ve been living beyond our means. Obama says he has proposed net spending cut.
Moderator — Exactly what?
Obama — I insist that we must pay as we go. Want’s to get rid of programs that don’t work. Wants to invest in America which translated means he wants to tax America. Wants to invest in young people which means he wants to give tax provided education. Dodges the question as far as providing particulars.
McCain — Home ownership again. My idea has roots in the past. Will cut expenses of energy.
Will bring in across the board spending freeze.
Then take out scalpel to start whittling away on the budge. Save on defense spending. (Marketing assistance program. Subsidy on Ethanol) I saved taxpayers 6.8 billions by opposition to defense project.
Obama has asked for giant earmarks.
Obama — Is against across the board spending freeze. Insists that he wants to fund some programs that are now underfunded. Insists that earmarks are not that big of deal. Says we had budget surplus when ‘W’ came into office. Blames problems on ‘W’ and then tries to tie McCain to Obama.
Moderator — Do either of you think you can balance budget in four years?
McCain — Not Bush. If you wanted to run against Bush you should have run four years ago. Says he can balance budget in four years. Defense budget freeze.
Is trying to identify with angry hurting Americans. Second time he has said this already.
Slams Obama’s voting record on economics. Cites watchdog groups who have rated Obama badly.
Obama — I bucked my party in tort reform bill. I am bipartisan. Shows anger at Fox news bias. Tries to tie McCain to Bush again on economic policies.
McCain — I have disagreed with Bush over and over. Bush becomes central to debate already. Obama tries to tie McCain to Bush. McCain keeps distancing himself from Bush. This is all about change. Who is going to bring the real change.
Moderator — Campaign has gotten mean and in the mud.
Here is McCain’s chance to nail Obama on his association.
McCain — Been a tough campaign. Faults Obama for not participating in more townhall meetings which would have bled the toughness of the current campaign off. Cites how mean that John Lewis was for saying that McCain / Palin were George Wallace clones. Rebukes Obama for not repudiating Lewis. Says absolutely nothing to Obama’s face about Ayers, Wright, ACORN, or any of his cronies. This is a overwhelming failure on McCain’s part.
Obama — Cites poll of 66% Americans say that McCain has been negative. Says he will put up with being attacked for next three weeks if he can bring help to middle class America. Prediction — If Obama becomes president you can look for Government to pay for all college expenses.
McCain — Cites nasty Obama adds that he saw on television. McCain insist that he has been positive.
Obama — Congressman Lewis’ comments have been nothing compared to things that Palin has said. Cites Palin rallies where people shouted ‘terrorists’ and ‘kill him.’ Cautiously repudiates Lewis. Insists that American people are cynical because of nasty campaign. I have tried to rise above it but it is tough.
McCain — I’m proud of people who come to our rallies. Whenever you gather 20,000 people you’re going to have fringe elements shouting strange things. My supporters are great citizens. “I’m not going to stand for Obama insulting my supporters.” McCain is such a wussy. Call OBAMA ON HIS TERRORISTS FRIENDS. QUITE DODGING THE ISSUE.
Obama — We need to disagree without being disagreeable. How profound.
McCain — Finally calls Obama on Ayers, and ACORN. Tell us about your relationship with Ayers. Cites Obama giving 800K to ACORN.
Obama — Mr. Ayers has become centerpiece of McCain campaign. Trots out Ayers being a education teacher canard. Trots out that he was 8 years old when Ayers bombed. Implies his Annenberg project was an upright project. Ayers has nothing to do with my campaign.
ACORN — apparently what they’ve done is to illegally register people. I’ve only represented them in motor voter laws. Obama is such a smooth liar. See Kurtz article. Insists that the people he will surround him in the White House are great people.
McCain — Cites Ayers and Obama’s connection. Sat on boards together which gave large amounts of money to ACORN. McCain then goes positive. I will do great things.
The issue finally became public. I don’t think McCain hammered enough and Obama was smooth in his self-defense. Americans have to check the record in order to find the truth here.
Moderator — Why would the country be better off if your running mate was to become President as opposed to your opponents running mate.
Obama — Biden is a great guy. He shares my convictions. Definitely a Blah, Blah, Blah, answer. Brings up the necessity of kids getting to go to college again. Look for this to be a centerpiece policy for Obama if he becomes President.
McCain — Palin is a great gal. She shares my conviction. Definitely a Blah, Blah, Blah, answer.
Moderator to Obama — Do you think she is capable to be President?
Obama — That’s for the American people to decide. Says that government needs to spend money in order to help special needs people. Says that McCain’s budget spending freeze will not allow the government to spend money on special needs children.
Moderator to McCain — Do you think Bide is capable to be President?
McCain — Biden is qualified but he has been seriously wrong about things. Slams Obama for continuing to want to spend taxpayer money at every opportunity.
Moderator — Dependence on foreign oil. Would each of you give a number on how much we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
McCain — We can eliminate dependence on Middle East and Venezuelan oil in 7-10 years by building 45 nuclear plants and developing alternate energy plans.
Obama — Agrees with McCain that 7-10 years is a good estimate. Insists that we can’t drill way out of problem. (I don’t think I necessarily agree with this.) Insists that we need to develop alternative energy sources.
Brief discussion on NAFTA. Obama believes that NAFTA has large portions that need to be renegotiated. McCain says that we must have reeducation program for people put out of work. Obama seems to be saying that while he has no problem with free trade he would like it to be fair trade as well. I agree with this point. Obama keeps talking about the government responsibility to see that fuel efficient cars are made.
McCain — Obama wants to restrict trade and raise taxes. Implies that Obama is pursuing Herbert Hoover policies.
Moderator — Health Care.
Obama — Wants to nationalize health care. Obama says that the Government will make it so health costs will be 25% less. Yeah, right. If the government gets involved look for the costs to increase by massive amounts. Obama’s plan will replace your doctor’s decision with government decision.
McCain — Government needs to make sure that employers provide incentive for their employees to be healthy and follow healthy living.
Obama — Describes how broken the system is but fails to note that the system is broken because of government involvement. Proposes fixing the problem with the solution that broke the system to begin with. Accuses McCain’s plan of being worthless and geared for the rich. Class envy.
McCain — Defends his system. Accuses Obama of pushing big government solutions. Says that his proposal advocates freedom while Obama’s advocates the Nanny State.
Moderator — Roe vs. Wade — Could either one of you appoint to the bench somebody who disagrees with you on Roe vs. Wade.
McCain — I don’t believe in litmus tests. Brags on being part of gang of seven (groan). McCain cites how mature he was for voting for Breyer and Ginsburg and faults Obama for not voting for Roberts and Alito (groan).
Obama — SCOTUS is an important issue in this election. No litmus test, but I do believe in Roe vs. Wade. Strongly implies that he wouldn’t nominate someone pro life.
So vote McCain and you’ll get someone who might appoint pro life judges. Vote Obama and you’ll know you won’t get pro-life judges. Some choice.
Obama cites the necessity to appoint judges who believe in “fairness.”
McCain — Cites Obama’s record in Illinois in his anti-life positions.
Obama — Insists that he didn’t vote to withhold life saving treatment to and infant. Liar. Insists that Doctors supported his position. Says he supports a ban on late term abortions as long as exception when there is a danger to mother’s life.
Tries to be sophisticate on Abortion. Says it divides us. Now Obama wants the Government to become involved in providing sex education.
McCain — Defends unborn. Admits that Americans must work together on this issue.
Moderator — Education — Why does our system suck so badly given how much we spend on education?
Obama — Promises to get our education system right. Advocates early childhood education. Wants to spend more money. Need army of new teachers. Give them more pay in exchange for better standards. Says the Government must pony up more money for college education. Offer four thousand dollar education credit in exchange for national service. Parents need to be more responsible.
Note — New army of teachers means continued largest government make work project in America. New army of teachers means teachers continue to control the Democratic party. New army of teachers means trouble for private schools and homeschooling. They are not going to hire an army of teachers and let people opt out.
McCain — Civil rights issue of 21st century. Advocates marketplace competition to make schools better. Lower loan rates.
Obama — Says more money is need from the government. Accuses Bush of not financing “No child left behind.” Early childhood education. More teachers with better pay. Says he agrees with fostering competition within the government school system. This is like saying that your for competition as long as there isn’t any competition. Fault’s McCain for supporting vouchers programs.
McCain — Slams Obama for not supporting vouchers. Defends “No Child Left Behind.” We need to examine it and reauthorize it (groan). Let’s reform “head start.” (How about we just get rid of head start?) Insists that he will be a reformer of education who won’t throw money at problem.
Obama — Disagrees with vouchers because data doesn’t support it. I think this is going to be a big part of a potential Obama presidency. Obama understands if you control education you control the future.
McCain — Mocks Obama saying that his position amounts to “because we don’t have enough vouchers we shouldn’t use the ones that work.”
Summary Statements
McCain — The issue is trust. Americans have to ask themselves which candidate they can trust the most to keep their word.
Obama — Ties McCain to Bush again. Cites current economic disaster. Cries for change. Calls for investing in American people. (Whenever you hear ‘invest in America’ you can be sure that increased taxation is coming.)
Below is duplicated an e-mail I received from a very intelligent and young professional woman who claims Christ as her savior. All of her education has been spent in State sponsored schools.
Below I interact with her response to my challenging her on her intent to vote for Obama. The conversation came in the context of challenging her on abortion.
Believe it or not, abortion is not the only murder that America condones.
What other murder does America condone? Are you thinking of the death penalty?
Still, even if America does condone other murder why would the existence of murder in other areas justify voting for someone who advocates murder in the one area of policy where more legalized murders happen by far then in any other area?
You really need to explain your reasoning here if only for your own clarity.
Personally, I value the ability of a person to choose what they would do rather then legislate morality that would not accomplish the goal of turning people toward Jesus– which is what will really affect change.
I agree that what really will affect change is seeing people converted by the Gospel. But such a agreement between us here does not mean that we vote for those who will implement policy completely contrary to God’s revealed word. God’s Word teaches, “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” How do you justify voting for somebody who so completely murders as Obama?
Second, it is not possible to not legislate morality. All legislation is, by definition, a legislation of morality. If people decide not to legislate against a certain behavior they are pronouncing it moral. If people decide to legislate against a certain behavior then they are pronouncing its opposite behavior is moral. All legislation is, by definition, a legislation of morality.
If you were to be consistent on this score you would have to oppose any laws forbidding murder or kidnapping or pedophilia because it is legislating morality. Do you oppose such laws? And if you do not oppose those laws which legislate morality why do you oppose legislation against abortion? Laws against murder, kidnapping and pedophilia do not turn people toward Jesus and yet if I were to guess you would think it insane if legislators suddenly started saying, “We value the ability of a person to choose what they would do rather then legislate morality that would not accomplish the goal of turning people toward Jesus– which is what will really affect change.”
It’s not only about abortion. It is also about alleviating … read more poverty, about standing up for the rights of people in America who do without healthcare, who have to choose between heating their homes or paying their rent or for gasoline to go to work. I believe it is the job of the government to provide basic services like healthcare and subsidized education because those things are a right, not a privilege.
It’s not only about the slaughter of 1.3 million people every year? I bet that each one of the slaughtered 1.3 million people would beg to differ with your analysis.
Second, health care is no more a right then owning a three bedroom house in the suburbs. Show me in the Constitution or in the Bible where health care is a human right. Now, certainly we need to do all we can to make health care affordable but socializing health care will make quality health care more difficult to obtain for non poor people while doing nothing to improve the lot of poor people. Your good intentions are getting in the way of reality.
Third, you are completely entitled to believe that it is the role of the Government to serve as the Nanny but it would be nice if people like you could show where in the constitution that right comes from. Further, it would be nice if people of your persuasion could realize that nothing is ever free. It would be nice if you realized that for every freebie the government gives away somebody else working a real job has to pay for it. It would be nice if your realized that every dollar you advocate being stolen in order that people may have their “rights” satisfied is a dollar that somebody else doesn’t have to satisfy some of the things they might think are rights.
Fourth, your reasoning does not hold. If it is wrong to legislate morality because the legislating of it won’t turn people to Jesus then why are you advocating that legislators should legislate freebies for people. Certainly, you can’t believe that the morality legislation that you are supporting is going to turn them to Jesus. In case you are the statistics 40 years after the great society are very against you.
Finally, I hope you realize that what you’ve said is that making sure that people can live off of other people’s hard work is more important then making sure that 1.3 individuals are not slaughtered annually.
It is about paying down the national debt so that my children and grandchildren will not have to pay for the mistakes of this administration.
I agree that the Bush administration has been horrid, but the national debt cannot be uniquely laid at his feet. Such a policy goes back 70 years and it is a policy that both parties have pursued with vigor. Indeed, I agree with you so much that I am not voting for either of the major parties.
There will always be a divide between what I believe and what exists because we live in a fallen world. As it is, I vote Obama.
Yes, there will always be a divide and as long as you remain disobedient to Christ by voting for child killers the divide will never get any smaller. The fact that we live in a fallen world gives you no excuse to perpetuate that fallen(ness).
below is a link that you may choose to ignore on the issue of abortion. It is written by a Princeton academic.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/10/robert-p-george-voting-for-most-extreme.html
The link below provides the final exclamation mark on a theory I’ve been considering for quite some time. That theory is that the major supportive infrastructure in Obama’s campaign for President is racial.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ0YjhlOGVhYjQ0OWRhZjI2MmM4NTQ4NGM5Mjg0MzU=
When you combine the information in the article above with who is predominately behind ACORN’s activities and with who most abused the sub-prime mortgage mess it becomes the case that only someone committed to not seeing the underlying realities could not see that this election is about the division between White America and Black Marxist America. This is not to say that many white people have not helped in the destruction of their people. Some people like Bill Ayers, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and others have chosen their ideology (Marxism) above their race and ethnicity. You don’t have to be black to hate white people and white culture. Other white people, like those people who will vote for Obama choose their candidates like they choose their toothpaste. In short they are to stupid to realize that the ascendancy of Obama means the ascendancy of non-white peoples above white peoples. This will be the triumph of cultural Marxism where the “oppressed” people of color, and the “oppressed” people of perversion unite to attain victory over white people and white Christianity.
The triumph of Obama will mean redistribution of wealth, which in turn means great largess for minorities. Obama will grant amnesty to illegal aliens and make borders disappear. Obama will embrace global warming policies which have at their core the idea of redistributing America’s wealth to the non-western, non-white world.
Another piece of evidence I see for this is the oft repeated idea that Bush should be tried for war crimes. Now, don’t get me wrong … it may be very possible that Bush is guilty of war crimes, but the purpose of this will not be primarily to persecute the lawlessness of Bush but it will be to communicate to the non-white people of the world that America is now on their side. A Bush trial will be a trial of white America and the crimes of Bush will be the crimes of white America and the conviction of Bush would be the conviction of white America.
Obama’s promise to meet with rogue dictators fits perfectly into this theory. The rogue dictators, in Obama’s world, are only rogue because of how the evil white Western world has oppressed them.
It should be understood that it is the Obama support network that has turned this into what amounts to be a race election. They are the ones who are dividing people by means of black Marxist political theory and the black Christianity of James Cone and Jeremiah Wright. What I am doing here is just observing objective facts.
My observations will be accused of being racist but only in order to deflect from the racist character of Obama’s campaign. That racist character has been seen time and time again as every objection raised to Obama along the way has elicited charges of “racism.” This is the ploy of the Marxist.
The unfortunate thing is that white America so much wants racial issues to be finished that they will refuse to see the racial dynamic that the Obama campaign has foisted upon the electorate.
Tim Keller is a big name in Pop Christianity. He Pastors a large Church in NYC. With popularity, comes influence. Keller recently wrote something on evangelism that I think merits a close look.
Tim Bayly brought this to my attention and he took his own shot at this but in reading his insights I decided to have a go at this myself.
Dr. Keller was asked,
“Religion-less Spirituality” (How do you reach people who think church is the problem, not the answer?)
In the blockquotes below I will give part of Dr. Keller’s response. Keller’s full response can be accessed here,
Click to access Religionless%20Spirituality.pdf
I want to make it clear that some of what Keller says is thoughtful and commendable. However, some aspects of what Keller says is quite bad.
Second, we must demonstrate the difference between religion and the gospel in our deeds—how we embody the gospel in our community and service. Even more than Marx, Jesus condemned religion as a pretext for oppression: “If you only greet your brothers, what do ye more than others?” (Matt. 5:47). Lesslie Newbigin makes the bold case that Christianity is a better basis for true tolerance of opposing beliefs than any other religion or even secularism. Saved only by grace, Christians true to the gospel will not feel superior to those with whom they differ. This must be more than rhetoric. Only
when Christians non-condescendingly serve the poor, only when Christians are more firm yet open to their opponents will the world understand the difference between religion and the gospel.
First, Keller tries to make the case that religion is bad while the Gospel is good. This is an unfortunate distinction because religion is an inevitable category. Keller would have been better served by make the distinction between true religion and false religion. True religion is the outgrowth of the true gospel. False religion is the outgrowth of false religions. Keller’s emphasis on the Gospel is good, but to suggest that the true gospel doesn’t create true religion is misguided.
Second, Keller is correct in saying that “Christians true to the gospel will not feel superior to those with whom they differ.” However, that is not the same as saying that Christians will not believe that Christianity is superior to the faith systems of those with whom they differ. This is a necessary observation since we must steer away from the idea that all faiths are equally good. While Christians understand they are but sinners saved by grace, they also understand that unless those who are not Christians convert they will be eternally lost. Our whole desire to see people converted communicates the idea that Christians do believe that Christianity is superior to whatever faith system the unbeliever is involved in.
Therefore we must say that Newbigin’s observation is not completely correct. I think it would be better to say that Christianity is a better basis for true sympathy of opposing beliefs than any other religion. However, it is precisely because Christians are sympathetic to opposing beliefs, having lived under the oppression of false faith systems, that they are so intolerant of opposing faith systems. This opposition is not based on a sense of superiority, as if Christians believe they are made out of better dirt then non-Christians, but rather their intolerance is born of love for God and love for people caught in the slavery and bondage of false belief systems.
Finally, on this score Christians should serve the poor, as Keller suggests, but never at the expense of calling those who are poor, because of their wicked faith system to repentance. Impoverishment is not always the result of false faith system but there are many times that it is.
While Christians are not superior to other, Christianity is superior and being superior it should be intolerant of all faith systems that seek to overthrow Christianity.
We will be careful with the order in which we communicate the parts of the faith. Pushing moral behaviors before we lift up Christ is religion.
Keller needs to be asked here exactly what he means by this statement.
First, if he means that one can’t be saved by becoming moral he is exactly correct.
Second, when Keller speaks of the order in which we communicate the parts of the faith, it has been often understood that communicating the faith begins with the Character of God. The Gospel starts with the Character of God with the hopes that people will see their sin in light of God’s holiness so that they may repair to Christ. So, while we would never push moral behavior, in the sense that of telling people that if they become morally better God will accept them, we do realize that before we lift up Christ, we must articulate the character of God and this often leads to people seeing their moral turpitude.
Second, if people don’t see their sin — something connected with the realization in the awakened sinner of their moral failure — why would they be interested in the lifting up of Christ? Dr. Keller must answer the question as to why people would desire a lifted up Christ if they do not see themselves as sinners full of moral failures? Indeed, so clearly must this moral failure of sinners in light of God’s justice and holiness be communicated that we shut the door to the idea that the moral failure of our listeners can be eliminated in any way but the fleeing of sinners to a lifted up Christ.
Now, certainly we must lift up Christ as the answer to people’s awakened conscience, but it is difficult to see how consciences are awakened apart from people seeing their moral failures. Now, we can certainly speak in generics about how sin is offense and rebellion against God’s majesty, but when we start getting into the concrete it is not just generic sin that people are guilty of. People are guilty of violating God’s moral law, and part of Gospel preaching is concretely exposing sin.
So, I agree that moral failure rectified by moral improvement would be the improper order of communicating the faith, but I do not agree that the proclamation of the moral failure of the sinner, in light of the grandness of God, is something that is to be communicated after Christ is lifted up in our proclamation. Such an approach would be obtuse.
The church today is calling people to God with a tone of voice that seems to confirm their worst fears. Religion has always been outside-in-“if I behave out here in all these ways, then I will have God’s blessing and love inside.” But the gospel is inside-out-“if I know the blessing and grace of God inside, then I can behave out here in all these ways.”
I guess Keller and I are listening to different voices. I don’t hear the Church speaking with any tone that confirm people’s worst fears. The tone I hear the Church speaking with is a tone that communicates to aliens and strangers to the covenant is that all is well and there is no reason to fear God. I hear the Church using the tone of recruitment and not the tone of repentance.
Now, I agree with Keller that the Church would be in grave error if it was communicating to people that if they just clean themselves up God will accept them. But is that really what is happening?
I’m sorry I just can’t help but hear Keller saying that he doesn’t want to deal with the problem of people as sinners until they are Christians. Keller seems to be saying that once people become Christian then we can begin to deal with their sin nature and sin behavior. Does this make sense? Now certainly, once people flee to Christ we have need to continue to deal with the sin nature and sinful behavior, just as we have to deal with it in ourselves every day of our lives, but to suggest that moral behavior is something that is only dealt with after we lift up Christ is curious, to say the least. However, such an approach does have the distinct advantage of offering a Gospel that has no offense.
A woman who had been attending our church for several months came to see me. “Do you think abortion is wrong?” she asked. I said that I did. “I’m coming now to see that maybe there is something wrong with it,” she replied, “now that I have become a Christian here and have started studying the faith in the classes.” As we spoke, I discovered that she was an Ivy League graduate, a lawyer, a long-time Manhattan resident, and an active member of the ACLU. She volunteered that she had experienced three abortions. “I want you to know,” she said, “that if I had seen any literature or reference to the ‘pro-life’ movement, I would not have stayed through the first service. But I did stay, and I found faith in Christ. If abortion is wrong, you should certainly speak out against it, but I’m glad about the order in which you do it.”
First, note Keller’s use of euphemisms. The woman in this story, “experienced three abortions” as if she was the victim. Someone experiences ‘rape’ or experiences being beaten but one doesn’t normally experience abortion apart from self infliction.
Second, opposition to abortion as communicated by sitting out pro-life literature can hardly be thought to be an insistence that people have to become moral before God will accept them. In my estimation it sounds as if Keller is using conversion stories in order to defend his methodology. This is never a good idea for by such reasoning any methodology can be justified. This is the same type of reasoning that Charles Grandison Finney used to justify his methodology. It basically reduces down to, “people have gotten saved by how we do things therefore how we do thing must be correct.” Now, Keller’s reasoning is wrapped up in a much more urbane and sophisticated language but it is the same reasoning that Finney used to justify the anxious bench, that Moody used to singing sentimental altar call hymns, and that Graham used to dimming the lights right before the altar call. Keller is merely saying above … “My method works therefore my method is biblical.” Only time will tell if Keller’s methods are any more superior to Finney’s, Moody’s and Grahams.
This woman had had her faith incubated into birth our Sunday services. In worship, we center on the question “what is truth?” and the one who had the audacity to say, “I am the truth.” That is the big issue for postmodern people, and it’s hard to swallow. Nothing is more subversive and prophetic than to say Truth has become a real person! Jesus calls both younger brothers and elder brothers to come into the Father’s arms. He calls the church to grasp the gospel for ourselves and share it with those who are desperately seeking true spirituality. We, of all people, ought to understand and agree with fears about religion, for Jesus himself warned us to be wary of it, and not to mistake a call for moral virtue for the good news of God’s salvation provided in Christ.”
I would love to know how this woman’s faith was incubated apart from seeing her moral failure which raised against her the wrath of God and could only be quenched in the lifted up Christ. How was her faith incubated apart from a deep sense of her own unworthiness?
How can Truth be communicated apart from the notion that Jesus came to die for idolaters, blasphemers, sabbath breakers, parent haters, child killers, adulterers, thieves, liars, and the covetous? Did Keller’s woman flee to Christ on the basis that only in Christ could she find the truth that He alone could undertake the wrath of God that she deserved?
I think Keller’s approach leaves a great deal to be desired.