Speaking Lies in Love? Why Compassion & Truth Must Come Together

Must we choose?

Must we choose?

As I wrote in my last post, any fair reading of Scripture demonstrates that righteousness is not equal to being nice. Godly men, from Jesus to the prophets, said many offensive things. When they spoke this way it was not only acceptable but praiseworthy. Since being nice isn’t the ultimate standard in the Bible, the only way for us to make it so is through legalism—by adding additional standards to Scripture. In essence, we are saying we know better than God. When Christians improperly elevate niceness, it always comes at the cost of some other Christian imperatives.

This was displayed yet again as SBC President JD Greear suggested that compassion and love direct us to use the preferred pronouns of transgender people. He argues Christians should employ pronoun hospitality out of compassion and love for transgender people. Of course, Christians must love transgender people, but does this include affirming falsehoods? While Greear has offered some qualifications to this statement, his original argument demonstrates how Christians have elevated compassion, love, and being nice over and against truth. Such a dichotomy does not exist in Scripture. Christians are commanded to speak the truth in love, but we are never commanded to lie out of our love. If we speak truth in an unloving way, it is still true, but love can never be the alibi for evil.

This confusion stems not only from misunderstanding scripture but also from the pressures of our day. It is well documented that we live in a postmodern, relativistic age. As a people, we hate truth. In the place of truth, compassion and inclusion have taken over. But without a foundation built on truth, our compassion isn’t very compassionate as mercy is demanded and coerced, and vitriol flows from one identity group to the other.

In the same way, our inclusion isn’t very inclusive as we are fragmented into endless aggrieved classes. If anyone questions the gospel of intersectionality, we exile them to never be included among civilized people again. For all our bluster about acceptance, understanding, compassion, and tolerance we are a rage-filled and self-righteous mob. As D.A. Carson noted, we live in a time marked by the intolerance of tolerance. Behind all of this is the gaping hole created by rejecting the idea of truth, especially when it comes to moral and ethical issues. Sadly, the American church has fallen prey to this ideology as it often pits truth against compassion, love, and being nice. When we do this, truth is the first thing to go because the one sin Christians must avoid today is being mean.

This is not the example we see in the life of Christ. He gives us compassion by revealing the truth. Biblically, lies harm and enslave people, but the truth frees (John 8:31-32). If we think lying will help others, or that lying is compassionate, then we are at odds with the eternal Son who reveals both grace and truth (John 1:18). The two are not at odds.

There are many examples of this in the life of Christ. For example, in Mark 6:30-44 we have the famous story of Christ feeding the five thousand. Before he performs this miracle, we are told that Christ had compassion on the people because they were shepherdless (6:34). What does his compassion lead him to do? In Mark, his compassion isn’t primarily revealed by feeding them, but by teaching them (8:34). Compassion leads Christ to reveal truth to the crowd. This should not surprise us because Christ, as the light of the world, is the embodiment of truth (John 14:6). The incarnation of the Son was motivated by love, and one of its primary purposes was to reveal truth to those enslaved to lies. Love and truth go together.

John 6 tells us the rest of the story surrounding the feeding of the five thousand. The crowd pursues Jesus and demands more food, yet he refuses. Instead, he tells them what they need is to eat his flesh. This is an extremely offensive thing to say to a group of Jews, and yet Christ repeats it again and again in their exchange. He tells them the miracle itself is worthless unless they come to see it rightly as a picture of their need for him. Christ is the bread of life. Even the act of providing the bread was meant to teach them a deeper truth—they needed Christ. Christ’s compassion confronts error and reveals truth.

Another example is found in John 8:39-47. Jesus is talking with some Jews, and they identify as being children of Abraham. Now, ethnically speaking they were correct. They have a stronger claim to being Abraham’s children than transgender people have claiming to be the opposite sex. If Greear’s ethic is correct, then one would expect Christ to show some identity generosity toward these Jews, but he doesn’t. Instead, Jesus tells them that their self-identification is worthless because it isn’t true. He tells them they are not sons of Abraham, but sons of the Devil (8:44). Why are they sons of the Devil? Because they lie just as their father, Satan, does. They reject Christ precisely because he tells the truth. Jesus was demonstrating that the true sons of Abraham are born by faith (Gal. 3:27-29). No matter how these Jews identified, Christ spoke truthfully by calling them sons of the Devil. This surely offended them, hurt their feelings, and made them harder to reach.

Throughout Scripture, truth and love go together. Paul reminds us that love “rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6). This is something Christians need to come to terms with, truth and love are not opposed to one another. If we ever pit them against each other, then we will lose both. It is the job of the church to put forward both love and truth as complementary. In an age that rejects truth, it is more tempting to minimize truth and magnify love, but without truth, there is no genuine love.

In The Great Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer reminds Christians that we must hold onto both truth and love. By doing this that we offer a clear testimony in our confused age. Standing firm and doing so out of love confounds the rage-driven masses of our day. In this way, we display the wonderful character of our savior and the glory of his gospel. There is no way to speak lies and claim to be motivated by love because lies find their root in the father of lies (John 8:44). Lies have nothing to do with the work of Christ and are in themselves unloving. As we model the one who embodies truth, Christians must speak the truth in love.



Levi J. Secord



A Practical Guide to Being Offensive

Why would we need a practical guide to being offensive when everyone is offended all the time? To be considered offensive all you have to do is say, “A boy is a boy.” Being offended is a national pastime, and those who are constantly offended, use it as a weapon to silence dissenters. In some ways, we’ve become legalists who prove our righteousness by venting our anger at what others say. Our offense distances us from those who are unclean proving our holiness. In such a day, many Christians won’t consider that being offensive is a sometimes a biblical and righteous option. We prefer our manmade standards to what is found in Scripture.

offensive.jpg

Christians often promote the false idea that being nice is the chief virtue. Likewise, being mean is the chief sin. This puts Christians in a conundrum as being nice is equated with being Christlike, but being Christlike also means believing things the world finds mean. This tension intensifies as many Christians have an idolatrous view of Jesus that sees him as a neutered-puppy who would never be mean. The problem is, Jesus did a lot of offensive things.

If this is true, then when is it okay for Christians to be intentionally offensive? When can Christians use insults? To some, even asking such a question is absurd precisely because they have an incomplete view of Christ. To be clear, some have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, and they appear hell-bent on being as offensive as possible all the time. Biblically, both of these extremes are unacceptable. Christians must not be those who walk on eggshells trying to live up to these manmade standards, but they cannot always be seeking to humiliate their opponents. If we want to find the proper balance, first we must see rightly see Christ.

Unfortunately, many Christians view Jesus as the eminent nice-guy who wouldn’t hurt a fly. This under-the-radar false teaching cripples the testimony of the church because Christians rightly affirm Jesus is our example for godly living. If he was never offensive, then Christians should follow suit, but if at times he was offensive, then it follows that Christians can be as well.

It is here we see how we’ve caged the Jesus of Scripture, because he said a lot of offensive things, especially by today’s standards. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels demonstrates that Jesus was confrontational and even insulted his opponents. He said things that would make evangelical twitter explode. Jesus called his opponents sons of Satan (John 8:39-47), whitewashed tombs (Matt. 23:27), a brood of vipers (Matt. 12:34), Wicked tenants (Luke 20:9-18), hypocrites (Matt. 23:23), blind guides (Matt. 23:16), etc. The list could go on, but one of my favorite examples is when a lawyer interrupts Jesus’s insults of the Pharisees and says, “Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also” (Luke 11:45-52). If the modern distortion of Christ is true, then we’d expect Jesus to apologize for acting out of character, but that’s not what he does. Instead, Jesus looks at the lawyer right in the face and starts insulting the lawyers along with the Pharisees! If your view of Jesus doesn’t have room for this type of behavior, then you’ve built a false version of him. This is called idolatry, and it must be repented of.

Therefore, any fair reading of the Bible admits that there are times to be intentionally offensive. In other words, sometimes it is godly and praiseworthy to use insults. You may be tempted to think this type of behavior is limited to Christ because he is God, but others did it as well. For example, the prophets, under the inspiration of the Spirit, called the people of Israel whores, and the apostles insulted false teachers again and again.

Once we understand there are times to be offensive, the question becomes, “When should Christians be intentionally offensive?” That is what this practical guide is for, knowing when to be offensive. Here are five biblical principles to consider before lobbing insults at others.

  1. Is it true? Truth is the fundamental question for all communication, and Christians must be truth-tellers. While it is important to speak truth in the right manner, the truth comes first. In other words, there is no way to speak in a right manner if you’re lying. In an age that denies the existence of truth, Christians must be obsessed with it. It really does matter if we get theology right. It really does matter if Jesus is truly God. It really does matter if a boy is a boy. It really does matter if Scripture forbids women from preaching. Our first concern must be truth and not tone. The fact that Christian twitter explodes more over issues of tone than over issues of truth reveals the sad state of our self-righteousness.

  2. The fruit of the Spirit should be our default. In Galatians 5:22-24, Paul gives us a list of the fruit of the Spirit, which includes love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Paul did not give us an exhaustive list of the fruit of the Spirit, but these virtues should be our default position. We must remember, these are the general marks of the presence of the Spirit. These virtues are our starting place. For teachers, Paul reminds us this is especially true (2 Tim. 2:25).

  3. The fruit of the Spirit does not exclude being offensive. While in general, Christians are to be kind, gentle, and patient there are also times to be intentionally offensive. Just ten verses before giving us this list, Paul says perhaps his most offensive statement. Paul says he wishes the false teachers who promoted circumcision would castrate themselves (Gal. 5:11-12)! Please note, it is the Holy Spirit who inspired him to write such a shocking statement. So either Paul is being contradictory, or the fruit of the Spirit and insulting false teachers aren’t contradictory. A quick survey of how the Spirit acts throughout Scripture shows us that strong words are not uncommon. For example, in Acts 13:9-10, Paul is filled with the Holy Spirit leading him to say to his opponent, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy…” The Holy Spirit both inspires gentleness and insults. The fruit of the Spirit can be peace, and it can be an offense. If we’re honest, the Spirit-filled Paul would not be very popular in modern evangelical circles. I say this to our shame.

  4. The level of hard-heartedness matters. It is hard to measure someone’s heart because none of us are God, but Jesus does instruct us to judge people by their fruit (Matt. 7:15-20). Granting this is far from perfect, it does matter how far gone an individual is. Of course, God can display his power in the gospel by changing even the hardest of heart. Nonetheless, when it comes to using insults, we must recognize there are leaders and followers of false teaching. It matters greatly if we are dealing with a wolf or a goat. Those who are charged as shepherds of the sheep cannot be gentle to wolves, for if they are, the sheep will suffer. Throughout Scripture, the harshest and most offensive statements are directed at false teachers who lead others into sin. Why? Because being a teacher invites a stricter judgment (James 3:1) because of our influence on others. In other words, if you are dealing with people leading others astray, being offensive is often necessary, and even praiseworthy. Shepherds must fiercely fight off the wolves to protect the sheep. Refusing to do this is unfaithfulness.

  5. Being offensive should be about helping others, not vindicating yourself. In Scripture, vivid and harsh language often exposes the truth behind destructive teachings. This tactic benefits those who may be deceived by false teachers because it exposes the truth. For example, Jude demonstrates this as he uses striking descriptions of false teachers (1.8-16) but he clearly states his goal is to snatch people from the fire (1.23). If you being are offensive to get attention or to make yourself look better, then you are likely sinning. But if you are motivated by advancing the truth, protecting others, and loving God, then you are likely following the example of Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles.

There is one final crucial item for us to consider—we live in an upside-down age. Every age has its common sins, and in this way, every age is the same. But throughout history, there are cycles of greater and lesser rebellion. The West is in the midst of full-blown rebellion against its Christian heritage, which displays itself in highhanded rebellion against God. In other words, this is an unusually wicked and perverse generation. Our world calls good evil, and evil good. In such a time as this, being offensive becomes both more common and necessary. Therefore, Christians must reject the legalism of these modern speech codes. No matter how many stones the twitter mob throws, we must reject their self-righteousness. The only cure for this legalism is humble repentance, which only comes by reading the Bible on its terms and then submitting to it. The truth is, many popular beliefs deserve insults. This is especially true when doing so makes us uncomfortable.



Levi J. Secord

Authority in a Relativistic Day

6692_thelordfights.jpg

One of the root issues behind our current cultural rot is the question of authority. Who, or what is our authority? By what standard does an individual make decisions, truth claims, or moral judgments? As postmoderns, we pretend to ignore all authority, but that is not how God’s world works. This is his world, and none of us can change the rules. As such, we must appeal to some authority. For many today, that final authority is the inviolable, autonomous self. We are our own authorities, our own gods. Of course, we don’t actually call ourselves gods, that would be silly, but we function as gods as we replace the Creator God with the self.

It should not surprise us then that many modern conceptions of God look a lot like us. Postmoderns fashion a god who is just as relativistic as they are. Instead of man being made in the image of God, we chisel idols into our own image. In this way, someone saying they believe in God is meaningless because that god is often a mere reflection of who they are.

Of course, denying God’s authority is nothing new. It started in the Garden and manifests itself in different ways in every age, but true faith always brings with a recognition of God’s authority. Our only hope is the same as it’s always been—repent and submit to God through faith. The evangelical church is in dire need of this today. While such submission is counterintuitive, it is exactly what is needed.  

We see this type of radical faith in Matthew 8:5-13 as Jesus heals the Centurion’s servant. The Roman soldier approaches Jesus and asks him to heal his paralyzed servant, and Jesus offers to go to do just that. But the Centurion insists he doesn’t need Jesus to come to his house because he understands how authority works. He knows that if Jesus merely gives the command, it will happen. Moreover,the centurion submits to the command of Jesus. At this, Jesus marvels as he has not seen such faith in Israel.

A faith that Christ marvels at is one that should catch our attention. Are we a people who properly understand the authority of Christ? Of God? Of his word? If God says forgive, will we submit? If God says homosexuality is a sin, will submit no matter the cultural pressure? The answer for many in our day is a resounding, “No.” The amount of individuals distorting the teachings of Scripture to get along with the culture is breathtaking, but it also shows who/what their authority is. Too many so-called Christians are rebels and traitors to their commander. They determine their own truth, their own gospel, and they carve their own idolatrous image of Christ. When Jesus says, “Do this,” they do the exact opposite.

To believe in Christ necessarily includes recognizing his supreme authority (Col. 1:15-20). To deny this authority, in thought or deed, is to deny Christ. Jesus speaks of the result of such denial after the centurion departs, “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8.11-12). This is no trifle, you either recognize the authority of Christ, or you face the great judgment of God. Denying his authority will not excuse you. It is time for pastors and Christians to practice this type of submission. We need a faith like that of the centurion. We need the same boldness to say as Christ did, “You either recognize this truth, or you perish. There is no middle way.”

This type of marvel-inducing faith scoffs at the pressure our crooked generation applies to hot-button issues like sexuality, gender, and social justice. When the inevitable pearl-clutching and self-righteous offense comes, the man of God doesn’t care because he is too busy submitting to his marching orders. The Lord of the universe has spoken, and like the centurion, we need to say that is enough.


Levi J. Secord

Chapter 8: The End of the Matter

Generous-Justice.jpg

Chapter 8 of Generous Justice covers peace, beauty, and justice, and it is the final chapter in Tim Keller’s book. This has been an arduous task, and if you’ve persevered through the whole series, kudos to you.

With this being the end, I look forward to moving on as I have much other reading and writing awaiting my attention. Before moving on, there are three issues in chapter 8 that demand attention. First, we will revisit how Keller’s redefinition of justice is problematic. Second, we’ll see Keller distort Scripture again to make his case. Third, we will look at Keller’s final parting shot to those who disagree with his argument.

There is one item I desire to mention before moving into the critiques. While I sharply disagree with Keller’s redefinition of justice, this does not mean I disagree with the Christian need to show mercy. Mercy is a praiseworthy virtue all Christians should cultivate, but it is not justice. Definitions are important. I praise Keller for his apparent heart for the poor, but his flawed thinking about justice is both dangerous and unhelpful.

Redefining Justice

Throughout this series, I’ve traced Keller’s redefinition of justice and how he contradicts himself with his various definitions of justice. Keller defines justice as everything from charity to giving someone his due. He’s argued for Marxist ideas such as redistributing wealth and implying justice is found in equal outcomes. All of this comes to a head in chapter 8 as Keller adds even more confusion to his definition of justice. Keller claims, “In general, to ‘do justice’ means to live in a way that generates a strong community where human beings can flourish” (177). Then he adds that doing justice is marked by individuals “disadvantaging themselves” (179). Justice is now about building communities and disadvantaging yourself. This is a long way from “giving someone their due.” Definitionally, justice cannot be two contradictory things.

Keller gets the phrase doing justice from Micah 6:8. As I explained in an earlier post, that passage has nothing to Keller’s proposed redefinition. He ignores this verse is a call to covenant faithfulness. In Micah 6:8, God calls Israel to return to him by keeping the covenant. It is a call for Israel to give God his due according to who he is, and according to the terms of the covenant. Doing justice in Micah 6:8 has everything to do with wholeheartedly walking with God, and nothing to do with giving mercy to the poor.

Despite this reality, Keller argues justice is actually about building communities and disadvantaging yourself. So not only is justice not giving someone their due, but it is about you not getting your due. Keller has turned the meaning of justice on its head so that he can use it however he desires to advance his argument. The problem is, using justice in contradictory ways makes the term meaningless. What could possibly motivate this distortion? Keller has told us, charity must be a justice issue because otherwise, he can’t require it of people. Keller desires the authority only God possesses, to command the human heart.

The Distortion of Scripture

Another common theme continues in this chapter, as Keller distorts Scripture passages to make his case. In earlier chapters, Keller ignored the plain context of the Sabbath year laws to argue for the redistribution of wealth and the relativization of private property. His arguments were baffling as they display egregious interpretive errors. In chapter 8, Keller similarly asserts, “the principle is that God personally identifies very closely with the widow, and the immigrant, the most powerless…in Proverbs we see God identifying with the poor symbolically” (185). He justifies this argument by pointing to Proverbs 19:17 and 14:31.

Both of these passages stress that God will honor those who treat the poor righteously and punish those who don’t. Does this establish God identifies with the poor in a special way? No, as even a cursory reading of Proverbs displays that some poverty is earned as the result of foolishness (Prov 6:6-8, 12:27; 15:19; 20:4; 21:25; 24:30-31; 26:13). In this way, some poverty is a judgment from God through the natural process of sowing and reaping. Consequently, God does not identify with the poor just because they are poor. These two different strands of verses in Proverbs must be held in tension, but Keller refuses to do so.

The passages Keller cites are more about the reality that it's easy to treat the powerless as less than human. Christian doctrine teaches us that every human, of every status, race, income, etc. bear the image of God. To sin against that image, whether it be a rich or poor man, is to sin against God. It is tempting to forget the vulnerable are image-bearers, but these Proverbs rightly remind us that every human bears God’s image and has certain rights.

This week, I was reading Donald Macleod’s Christ Crucified, and he explained the biblical idea of justice when it comes to wronging others, including the vulnerable. He correctly states, “Another is the fact that every violation of human rights is a violation of a right conferred by God; additionally, every crime against a person is a crime against that image of God in which every creature is made. Every sin, therefore, is a defiance of God’s majesty” (186). Macleod’s analysis is much closer to the biblical standard than Keller’s. The verses cited by Keller demonstrate that even the poor bear God’s image, and therefore no one is to take advantage of them. This is wonderfully true, and it is far from suggesting that God prefers the poor simply because they are poor.

The End of the Matter: A Parting Shot

I understand the desire of a writer to end on a succinct point, but Keller oversteps this practice with his final sentence of Generous Justice. He declares (emphasis mine), “A life poured out in doing justice for the poor is the inevitable sign of any real, true gospel faith” (189). This is the concluding application of this entire work—the sign of any true faith is doing justice. It is safe to assume that what Keller means by doing justice is the definition laid out in the pages of this book. Keller asserts the one surefire fruit of saving faith is living out his redefinition of justice. As such, this statement draws a line down the middle of evangelicalism. By implication, Keller asserts any Christian who does not dedicate his life to serving the poor, as Keller defines it, does not have a real, true gospel faith. This is the new measuring stick of salvation. According to Keller, the end of the matter for Christian faith is pouring out your life to the poor.

I do not find biblical warrant for such a sweeping statement. True faith bears fruit, but not all Christians are called to serve in the same areas. The one fruit which is inevitable for all Christians is growth in holiness. The process of sanctification is often slow and messy and takes different twists and turns for every individual. Nonetheless, holiness is the mark of all true faith and is thus necessary to see God (Heb. 12:14). So while showing mercy to the poor is a natural outworking of the Christian faith, it does not follow that every Christian must dedicate his entire life to serving the physically/financially poor.

By asserting such an extra-biblical standard, Keller flirts with legalism. He adds a stumbling block between men and God that the Scripture simply does not. Salvation comes by grace through faith, which leads to good works. There are a variety of good works that aren’t contained in Keller’s narrow and distorted view of justice. The end of the matter is found in a living faith, which manifests itself in a growing personal holiness lived out in a myriad of ways. Unfortunately, Keller dismisses this truth as he swings and misses on his attempted knockout punch. Keller’s final shot about justice is ironically rather ungenerous.



Levi J. Secord

Chapter 7: Post-Modernism's Influence

Generous-Justice.jpg

Chapter seven is the penultimate chapter in Keller’s Generous Justice, and it addresses how to do justice in the public square. This chapter perhaps has the least to do with Keller’s thesis, redefining justice to include mercy, charity, and benevolence. As we approach the end of Keller’s work, his distortion of justice ungirds most everything he argues. This is no different in this chapter, but there is little new ground covered in defining justice. Nonetheless, the influence of post-modern thought (i.e., relativism) does manifest itself in chapter seven.

Before critiquing this chapter, there is one item of praise from this chapter. Keller rightly notes there is no neutrality when discussing justice. Talking about justice requires a moral code, a standard by which to judge everything else. As long as we acknowledge that there is a universal standard found in God and his Word, and we apply it consistently, we can avoid the allures of relativism. Keller is right to note that no one enters this discussion neutral, but he fails to apply the Christian standard consistently to the conversation.

This is where the influence of post-modernism reveals itself. Keller sounds relativistic in much of this chapter, but I do not believe he really is. To be clear, he does recognize God as the standard, but he fails to use that standard when evaluating the various ideologies about justice. It is here he influence of post-modernism appears as Keller endorses values over virtue, and he implies everyone is equally right and wrong about justice.

Values vs. Virtue

In Losing Our Virtue, David Wells demonstrates the impact of post-modernism in how we think about right and wrong. Wells observes that in our culture, values replaced virtues. The problem for Christians is that virtue is rooted in an objective standard. Virtues are only possible and understandable in a moral world, where absolutes exist. Conversely, we rarely speak of virtue today as we favor personal (or communal) values. When we replace virtue with values we acquiesce to the spirit of the age because personal values are relative. They are subjective, relative to each group or individual. You may value one thing, but your neighbor another thing. In the end, it’s a vain discussion because values are relative and thus meaningless.

This type of thinking is the very air we breathe, and in chapter seven Keller unwittingly adopts this destructive way of thinking. He goes on and on about the values of different groups and the “common values” Christians should appeal to (160-161). Any Christian who wishes to engage our age must recognize that speaking of values is valueless. All it does is reinforce the lost in their relativism. Sadly, Keller advises Christians who desire to do justice in the public sphere to embrace this relativistic way of thinking. Instead, Christians must point to the universal standard of justice—the Creator God. For Christians, it is never enough to appeal to personal values because God has revealed the absolute standard by which everything will be judged.

Everybody’s Right & Everybody’s Wrong

The second major influence is Keller’s engagement with different camps in the justice debate. Keller asserts, “We should agree that, according to the Bible. All the various views of justice out there in our society are partly right. But they are also partly wrong” (163). Throughout this chapter, Keller appears to be intentionally vague and thus offers little clarity on how to evaluate the competing voices of our day. The reader is left unchallenged in our current post-modern stupor. Keller refuses to use the standard he endorses to measure and evaluate the various options.

For example, he admits that the various schools of thought on justice are all right and wrong. By doing so, he implies that they are all equal to one another, and therefore Christians should avoid being associated with one over and against the other. This is, in essence, what he argued earlier that the Bible doesn’t support capitalism or socialism. In fact, Keller asserts, the Bible affirms parts of both systems. In saying these things, Keller leaves his readers with the impression that all systems are equal, and Christians are free to choose between them as long as you don’t endorse them too much. A very post-modern idea to be sure.

His refusal to judiciously critique these views demonstrates the influence of post-modernism. Relativism loathes judging cultures, worldviews, and religions. This is often called multiculturalism, the belief that all cultures are equally good, and we shouldn’t judge any of them, except, of course, the Christian west, which is wickedly oppressive.

In the same way, Keller views all the various camps on justice as equally right. While I don’t believe Keller is a true post-modern thinker, I cannot read this chapter without coming to the conclusion it has significantly influenced his thinking. If Scripture gives us a standard for justice, as Keller admits, then some camps are certainly closer to that objective standard than others.

The frustrating part is Keller almost recognizes this truth as he writes, “It was within Christian jurisprudence of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that human rights thinking began, rooted particularly in the Christian doctrine that all human beings are created in the image of God, and therefore have inherent dignity” (166). Keller is correct, the idea of human rights is Christian, and this is why it is a staple of the West. It is no secret the West has been shaped by Christian ideas as outside of the West, we don’t find the same discussions about justice, human rights, and limited government. While the West is far from perfect, its traditional practice of justice is more righteous than that of other cultures. To neglect this shows a great deal of biblical and historical ignorance.

The influence of Christianity upon Western thinking doesn’t mean that other cultures are worthless or that they get everything wrong. God reveals truth both in creation and in his word, but there is an objective standard to measure things by. For example, there is a big difference between America in the 1980s and Communist China and the USSR during the same period. One is objectively better than the others because it aligned more closely with the biblical standards of justice. Christians must measure and judge all the current systems by this standard. When this is done, some ideologies will be found better than others, and this will lead Christians to condemn the wicked systems and endorse the more righteous ones.

Recognizing this is particularly important for our discussion about justice. As I said, the justice systems of the West were never perfect, but they were better than what came before. The Western ideas of justice, especially in England and America, were shaped by Scripture. This is a historical reality. The Christian influence led to many benefits we must not ignore, such as presumed innocence, limited government, and inalienable rights. While the Western view of justice is rooted in the Christian worldview, the recent attempts to redefine just are rooted in anti-Christian beliefs such as Marxism. This progressive understanding of justice is evil in its totality. By that I don’t mean they get everything wrong, but that these ideologies are infected at every stage with rebellion against God. These views have trajectories that aren’t neutral to God and his Word. The end result of these false ideologies is rebellion against God. That is to say, the progressive (i.e., Marxist) view of justice is evil in its totality. Once we recognize this, it is clear all philosophies about justice aren’t equal, and Christians aren’t free to choose between them.

For centuries, Christians in the West built our inherited understanding of justice, and though it is not perfect, it is far more sanctified than the alternatives. Keller and I both recognize God and his Word as that absolute authority, but the difference is I measure other views by this standard. If we are unwilling to do so, then it is pointless to talk about such a standard which we refuse to apply. By doing so, we end up in a functional relativism which is tossed to and fro by the latest justice fads. Come to think of it, thisis exactly what is happening today in American evangelicalism with the rise of social justice.



Levi J. Secord