Jonathan Cusar’s blog on Freedom Torch Network has brought to light a very popular pastor’s deluding of the orthodox and reasonable interpretation of God’s Word, the Bible, which has led many otherwise “evangelical’ Christians to the brink of socialism. We are warned that in the last days men will not tolerate sound doctrine, that time has come. Jonathan is a workman who needs not be ashamed as he has cut the Word straight. Let he who has ears hear the watchman stands on the wall.
Tim Keller and ‘Social Justice’
I was so surprised to see an article posted here – on my own website about my former pastor, Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York city! I went to Tim Keller’s church for nearly 20 years and in fact I left just last year because of my growing concern that the church and Tim were far more liberal, theologically and ideologically than I had ever imagined.
However, I never intended to write anything about it here because it just didn’t seem like a relevant topic on FreedomTorch. But since conservative FreedomTorch members are writing about him and doing so in a most positive way, I feel I must warn my conservative political and conservative Christian friends that Tim Keller, despite all claims to the contrary, is not a theological or an ideological conservative and he is most definitely not a traditional Evangelical. He is in fact very liberal on both counts. And this is something of concern, because as J. Gresham Machen so well put it in his book “Christianity & Liberalism” liberal Christianity really isn’t Christianity at all. And I might add the corresponding political statement that liberal Americanism isn’t Americanism at all either!
The Christian media is fond of telling us that Tim Keller is an Evangelical Christian… just like us, they seem to imply. So one thing Christians need to know about Tim’s teachings is that they are really anything but what we have come to know as “Evangelical” Christianity. To sum it up most succinctly, you should know that Keller says “the primary purpose of salvation is – cultural renewal – to make this world a better place.” Whether you agree or disagree with that statement – it’s certainly not an “Evangelical” or conservative Christian belief.
As if to prove the point that he is in fact not an Evangelical Christian, Keller goes on from there to actually attack traditional Evangelicals for what he believes is their wrong emphasis on helping people see their need for a way out of their sin by introducing them to Christ as the only way to personal salvation. He suggests that Christians need to put a lot less emphasis on that – because as he says derisively, Evangelicals with all their emphasis on evangelizing are just “building up their own tribe.” He says this is not doing any good for people who aren’t in the “tribe”, (like secularists, Buddhists and atheists).
In 2006 at an “Entrepreneur’s Forum” sponsored by Redeemer, Keller said:
Conservative churches say ‘this world is not our home — it’s gonna burn up eventually and what really matters is saving souls… so evangelism and discipleship and saving souls is what’s important’. And we try to say that it’s the other way around almost. That the purpose of salvation is to renew creation. That this world is a good in itself. … And if you see it that way, then the old paradigm if you’re going to put your money and your time and your effort as a Christian into doing God’s work in the world, you wanna save souls which means the only purpose of your ministry and your effort is to increase the tribe, increase the number of Christians. …
In the past Christians have tended to do things that only Christians would be interested in and only Christians would give to. I mean who else besides a Christian would give money to get something started that’s going to win many many people to Christ? Just pretty much only Christians.
BUT, when you have something that’s going to improve the schools in a particular city for everybody. When you have a venture that’s going to reweave creation physically — that’s going to deal with health problems that’s going to deal with poverty. When Christians do that – out of their theology – they do that effectively because they’re dealing with the common good… you’re going to find that all kinds of non-Christians are not only going to invest in that and want to partner with you in that but a lot of them are also going to be attracted to the gospel because of that. …
Most Keller devotees will really get on me for being too harsh on him here. But if you didn’t get it, read that quote again and look how harsh Keller actually is on conservative and Evangelical Christians. He’s actually mocking them and their “traditional” ideas that saving souls is important, and suggesting that their only interest is to “increase the tribe”. That expression “increase the tribe” is terribly derisive and insulting. He’s actually suggesting that Evangelicals had no sincere desire to see people come to Christ, but their only concern was building up their numbers and their own earthly empire. I cannot think of anything more insulting that a Minister of God could say about another group of Christians.
Marxism in Drag
His book, “Generous Justice” is literally dripping in the language of the Left. Although Keller apparently perceives himself as one who is neither Left nor Right. But his words reveal something quite different. The book will leave you with a definite distaste for America – because of all the evil that has come from America. Another very leftist man who calls himself an Evangelical Christian, Jim Wallis would be very pleased with Keller’s work.
The post that I’m responding to here on FreedomTorch heralded Keller as one who has “reclaimed” the term social justice for the Right! However there is nothing to reclaim. The term has always originated only from within liberal/socialist/progressive thought.
Socialists and Progressives pushing for Communist societies use this phrase most enthusiastically. They use it to agitate the people and motivate them to revolution. And it can’t be overlooked that it is today’s Communists and radical liberals who constantly use this phrase to make us feel that things here in the most just society on earth – are horribly unjust. (If you doubt this just check out the Communist party website http://cpusa.org – and search on “social justice”).
In fact, this quote from the CPUSA site would be perfectly consistent with Keller’s take on “social justice”: “We fight for the daily needs of working people … as a matter of social justice…” (http://cpusa.org/club-educational-study-guide-reflections-on-socialism/) No, I’m not calling Tim Keller a Communist! I am only pointing out that his use of the term “social justice” has a historical context and that context is decidedly on the far Left of the political spectrum.
With that history behind the term “social justice”, there really is nothing for conservatives to “reclaim” or claim at all! It has never meant anything else. When Keller says ‘conservatives have suspicions about the term’ – he’s right, we do – and for well-founded historical reasons.
Why does Keller call what have traditionally been ministries or acts of mercy – “justice”? Throughout his book I was confused on why he was using the term “justice” when it seemed “mercy” or “compassion” would be more appropriate. Possibly it is because “mercy” and “compassion” are something more along the lines of what individuals can do and apparently Keller wants to look beyond individuals to the entire society. This would be in keeping with his belief that “the primary purpose of salvation is cultural renewal.” But when you talk about “justice” you’re talking about societal structures. A single individual cannot effect society-wide justice. Justice is a function of public policy and politics.
Rob Haskell who is the Director of Senderis – a teaching mission to Latin American pastors, wrote in a blog post last year the following about “justice”:
“Why not look to the Bible, if we really want to find out what “justice” means? The first operational definition I can find is in Exodus 23: “Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.”
When people talk about “justice” in context above, they typically mean “good works.” Yet the Bible seems to be completely devoid of any such meaning. Instead, as in the verse above, “justice” refers (unsurprisingly) to a judicial context: giving someone what they are legally entitled to.
Note that where (social) “justice” usually means reflexively siding with whomever seems to be weakest, the Bible’s first word on the matter is to call such a tendency a perversion of justice, based on a tendency to want to fit in with others. (We shouldn’t do the same with the rich either, mind you — see verse 6 and Lev 19:15).
To use such a term for handing out food, charity, etc. implies that people are legally entitled to such. Yet the bible calls this “mercy”. For example, when hurting Jews approached Jesus asking for healing, they did not ask for “justice”, they asked for “mercy” (see Matthew 9:27, Luke 10:37, the parable of the good Samaritan).
So why do we want to call “justice” what God calls “mercy”? What is this language doing to our conceptions?
Mercy implies unwarranted favor, justice implies you deserve it. So mercy is eliminated by “justice”, since no one should be grateful to receive what they’re owed.
Further, anyone can show mercy, but only a judge can hand out justice. So this formulation makes us believe we must sit in the seat of the judge (running society, deciding who really gets what) before we can begin to deal with the poor and downtrodden as we’ve been commanded.
I don’t see what is Christian at all about this conception. Nearly every aspect of it seems to fly in the face of the Bible’s teachings on the subject.”
One thing I found especially disturbing about Keller’s book, “Generous Justice” is that in footnote #15 in Chapter 1, he says that while he normally uses the NIV (New International Version) translation of the Bible that, “Sometimes I provide my own translations.” This was stunning to me when I read it. I’ve never seen a Christian writer provide “their own” translation of the Bible! Not that they couldn’t if they’ve learned Hebrew and Greek, but I’ve just never seen anyone else do that. Normally a writer will use whatever translation he uses and then expound upon it if he has some broader insight that he has gained from reading it in the original languages. But Tim, in the instances where he quotes Scripture, simply provides his own translation at various points without bothering to notify us of when!
This sets a dangerous precedent because one, it insinuates that there’s something fundamentally flawed with the existing translations. And it leads people to treat them as less dependable than they deserve to be treated. And two, the official translations have a whole system of checks and balances in place to insure that they are done as accurately as possible and with as little bias as humanly possible. When a single author decides to provide his own translation, what checks and balances keep his biases out of the process? Who is he accountable to? And how can we the readers ever challenge the author when his personal translations make it seem as if the Bible is in complete agreement with his views?
Keller provides us a couple examples of his personal translations. One is taken from Psalms 33:5 which in the NIV says:
“The Lord loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.”
And Keller retranslates it to say this:
“The Lord loves social justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.”
A Socialist reading this would think the Bible was in perfect alignment with socialist thought.
Keller did two disturbing things here. First he took out the word “righteousness” altogether (which conveniently removes the idea of sin, something Keller tends to avoid) and he replaces the word “justice” with the term “social justice” which when looked at from its historical usage is most definitely NOT what the Lord loves! There’s a reason the Bible translators have not used the phrase “social justice” there! Because they are presumably aware of its socialist connotations derived from the historical context and usage of the phrase. However, by providing his own personal translation, Keller makes it appear as if the Lord is in complete agreement with a socialist view of justice.
At this point anyone familiar with Keller’s teachings would scold me for saying he has a “socialist” view on anything. Because he fastidiously tries to remain above the political fray by never revealing his true political leanings. And he is fond of saying that the Right gets some things wrong and the Left gets some things wrong, making it appear that he is evenhanded when it comes to politics.
However, a closer look will show that he is indeed quite liberal politically – even though I believe he himself is probably not even aware of how much. I know from personal experience that it is easy living in New York for a radical liberal to believe he is in the mainstream and for a moderate liberal to believe he’s downright Texas-style conservative!
There is a lot in this book that all Christians would agree on – including the importance of justice in the Christian’s life. But for the purpose of this article, I really wanted to get to the heart of Keller’s political philosophy which is most outspokenly contained in Chapter 6 “How Should We Do Justice?” I was curious if Keller would maintain his near complete silence on politics and talk only of private individual acts of justice or if he would get into the public aspects of justice. The concept of justice almost necessarily connotes something that’s in the public sphere. And “social” justice definitely does because the word “social” makes it about society. So it would be a surprise if he didn’t address the public/political aspects of “social justice”.
And we are not to be surprised! He does touch on the political aspects, although he never mentions politics overtly. It’s all very subtle and if you’re not a careful reader you might miss it altogether.
In Chapter 6, Keller gives several examples of individual Christians working for “social justice” in their personal lives, (although that’s a bit of an oxymoron as the word “social” in “social justice” implies it is a public, society-wide matter – not just a personal matter). He tells of a business owner who does wonderful things for his employees and community. These are things that everyone, conservative and liberal alike, would applaud. But when he gets into public policy – that’s where conservatives should begin to take issue.
He tells of how his own church (my former church) works through the Diaconate to provide care for the needy. And I know from personal experience they do an excellent job. They don’t just throw money at people, but they help people get back up on their feet materially, mentally and spiritually. (However, they tend to refer people to government programs first, when they can).
A Matter of “Rights” and Wrongs
In Chapter 6, Keller appeals to Christopher Wright who he says is an Old Testament scholar and he quotes Wright telling us how we should apply Old Testament principles to our own time. He quotes Wright as saying:
“God’s law asks us… to find means of ensuring that the weakest and poorest in the community are enabled to have access to the opportunities they need in order to provide for themselves. ‘Opportunities’ may include financial resources, but could also include access to education, legal assistance, investment in job opportunities, etc.” (Emphases mine)
That’s all well and good as long as it remains a private and voluntary matter. However Wright adds one last sentence that Keller endorses – and this last sentence changes everything. In the last sentence, Keller quotes Wright as saying:
“Such things should not be leftovers or handouts, but a matter of rights…”
The minute you say something is a “matter of rights” you are making a profound political statement. Here Keller is no longer talking about individual private behavior but he is advocating for radical political change. He is asking that the structures of society be profoundly altered.
There is no provision for financial resources, education, legal assistance or opportunity – as God-given rights in our political system. In fact, if you’ll think about it, you’ll realize that God-given rights – like the rights to speak and worship freely or the right to no search and seizure of your home without a warrant – those rights don’t cost anything. Government doesn’t have to tax anybody so you can speak your mind. Government doesn’t have to tax anyone so you can worship as you see fit. God-given rights are given by God and only have to be exercised. They don’t come at the financial expense of someone else.
But the kind of rights Keller is advocating are the kind where money has to be taken from someone to be given to someone else. And that’s political. If he were only advocating that individuals give this money of their own free will, that would be one thing. But to say these benefits should be a right to which certain groups are entitled at the expense of other people, is a profound political statement – especially for someone who refuses to publicly divulge what his political leanings are. If he’s going to be this political in his writings, doesn’t he owe it to the public to tell us what side of the political aisle he’s on? At least for those who can’t see the obvious already? Is it too much to ask for that much honesty or that much transparency?
To those who believe that Keller and other politically liberal pastors stay out of politics, this statement on “rights” is a profound repudiation of that belief. To conservative pastors who are intimidated by liberals into silence when it comes to politics, this should provide you with all the permission you need to speak out. If Tim Keller can make calls for such sweeping and radical political change, you should never be intimidated into silence by those on the Left who might typically tell you something like, Jesus didn’t get involved in politics so you shouldn’t either! Or that, politics has no place in the pulpit.
Keller endorses the idea that “opportunity” and “financial resources” should be a right to which each and every “disadvantaged” group is entitled. Yet Keller never addresses how these rights should be paid for. Whose salaries should be confiscated? And what principles of justice might possibly be violated by the confiscation of those salaries? Does confiscating income from the non-poor to give to the poor, unfairly favor the poor? The Bible says that the rich and the poor should both be treated fairly.
Leviticus 19:15 says, “Always judge your neighbors fairly, neither favoring the poor nor showing deference to the rich.”
Keller who publicly at least, pretends to have no affinity for either liberal or conservative ideologies, really opens a can of leftist political worms here. Because to make such things “rights” in American society necessarily means getting politically involved on the very far left side of the political spectrum. It would be a fundamental transformation of everything America has been. And very much along the lines of the kind of fundamental transformation Barack Obama promised during his campaign.
No one could really fault someone for wishing for such a society where all problems were effectively remedied by Government-issued rights, had systems that guaranteed such rights and remedies never been tried and failed. Or, had they ever been tried and succeeded. However, such societies have been tried and they’ve all – without exception – been abysmal failures. Societies that have attempted to make such things rights have not ended in social justice but they have ended in massive injustice and many times in millions of unjust deaths.
Did you know for instance that under Soviet Communism, the following rights were guaranteed by the Soviet Constitution:
Right to protection of the family (family members could be hauled off to the Gulag for having unacceptable ideas)
Right to privacy (everyone was spied on by their neighbors and nothing was private at all)
Right to work (forced labor)
Right to rest (after working 7 days a week)
Right to leisure (in a Siberian death camp)
Right to health care (using 18th-century medical technology)
Right to care in old age (for the few who happened to live past 50)
Right to housing (if you don’t mind 12 people per room)
Right to education (in government indoctrination centers called schools)
Right to cultural benefits (if you were lucky enough to be a member of the ruling Politburo)
All these things sound great! And if we didn’t know better, we might want to give that kind of system a try. But, it has already been tried. And it didn’t end pretty. There is no excuse for a man as brilliant and well-educated as Tim Keller not to know the history of these systems that promised the kinds of rights he says society should provide.
It is irresponsible that Tim Keller, writing a book on “social justice” could ignore the history of systems where his ideas have already failed. It is inexcusable that he could ignore the stunning real-world success of the American system in bringing about the most just society in all of human history. It is inexcusable that he didn’t spend ample time in his book looking at the American system and applying the lessons from its successes. With imperfections, flaws and all – the American system, based primarily on Judeo-Christian principles, has been the most just society in history. To suggest that the system that has worked best needs to be radically transformed is an example of poor scholarship. Because no comparative look at the history of the United States and the history of nations that have tried Keller’s suggestions turns up a speck of evidence that they have created more just societies.
There is no scholarly attempt in Keller’s work to show evidence that his solutions have actually ever brought about real justice on a societal-wide basis. And if you’re going to make a case that a society run on certain principles is a better society – you owe it to your readers to take a historical look at societies that have tried what you’re suggesting and showing that it worked. However, Keller takes no such look.
To ignore the history of human experience and the realities of humanity’s sinful and flawed nature is irresponsible when one purports to give us a better way – a more Biblical way. To pick ideas that have been tried and proven abysmal failures (resulting in famine, death and murders of more than a hundred million of people) and then to suggest that this is God’s way while ignoring the historical, real-world track record, is not only irresponsible, it’s downright dangerous. The experience of history should not be ignored when suggesting new societal structures – but Keller effectively ignores it.
Instead, the underlying tone and implication of Keller’s book is that America is a fundamentally flawed place where millions of people are cheated daily out of what should be rightfully theirs. As early as the Introduction, Keller begins to slam America as an unjust society. A story he’s told many times from the pulpit, he repeats in the Introduction:
“When I went to seminary to prepare for the ministry, I met an African-American student, Elward Ellis, who befriended both my future wife, Kathy Kristy, and me. He gave us gracious but bare-knuckled mentoring about the realities of injustice in American culture.”
He continues on to describe how their new African-American friend went on to relate that all white people are racists – whether they mean to be or not. The Arican-American man tells them “You’re a racist, you know… you can’t really help it.”
So Keller comes to the same mistaken conclusions that all liberals do, and instead of looking to America as a beacon to the world and an example of how best to form a just human society, he sees it as just the opposite. The book leaves the reader with the distinct impression that America is so fundamentally flawed that she must be radically transformed.
I believe just the opposite is the case. America has been a light in human history like no other. America showed the world how a free society leads to human flourishing. America showed the world what a fair and just society really is. Most ethnic minorities are treated far more fairly and far more justly and kindly here than they are even in their native lands. America has been the greatest beacon of hope to mankind in all of history. And that’s why hundreds of millions of people from around the world would give their life’s savings to come here. Yet Keller sees it as a terribly unjust place – whose example must be avoided at all costs.
Make no mistake, “Generous Justice” is just another in a long line of attempts to promote the idea that God supports ideologically liberal solutions to humanity’s problems. I almost hear the author asking, “What would Jesus do?” And the answer would no doubt be that, Jesus would use government to take from the non-poor and give to the poor (to pay for all those rights that Keller advocates). Of course there is no Biblical basis for such a view.
Rewording! Tim Keller is a master at using language to persuade. He knows how, for instance, to reword the term “social justice” to make it “Generous Justice”. He knows that conservatives find the term “social justice” alarming and offensive. So he brilliantly rewords it as “Generous Justice”! This appeals to the Christian’s fondness of generosity and justice, without all the historical baggage.
But make no mistake, it’s the same old social justice. Or as it was called in Christian circles early in the 20th century – the social gospel. Whatever you want to call it – there is no Biblical mandate that societies make financial resources, access to education, or legal assistance rights, as Keller’s Old Testament “scholar” suggests! And if there were, then no society has ever come closer to doing it than American society.
Doesn’t everyone have access to education in America? Everyone has access to legal assistance if they’re accused of a crime and can’t afford a lawyer – it’s a Constitutional right. So you would think Keller might spend some time in his book praising all the good that America has done and acknowledging how close America has come to being what Keller believes a just society should be. But no, instead, “Generous Justice” asks us to consider radically overturning the American model and implementing something that more resembles the failed Soviet model.
Keller’s prescription for the “just” society very much mirrors those of admitted Socailist Jim Wallis who says he believes in redistribution of wealth. Keller is very careful not to actually say that though. Although, in Chapter 6 there is a section called “Relocation and Redistribution.” In it he cites John M. Perkins author of “Welcoming Justice”.
Keller says this of Perkins:
“Perkins also spoke of ‘redistribution,’ something others have called ‘reweaving a community.’”
So Keller is “rewording” the word “redistribution” and calling it “reweaving”. Again, it’s a term that means the same thing as “redistribution”, however, it is a term with no historical baggage. It doesn’t alarm or offend anyone – because it’s never been used until now. Who doesn’t think there are a few things that could use some “reweaving”? However, keep in mind Keller is referring to Perkins’ talk of “redistribution.” Keller continues on to say this:
“John Perkins saw that simply putting welfare checks in the hands of the poor in small towns only ended up transferring capital into the accounts of the wealthy bankers and store owners on the other side of town.”
Just as you may have thought he was going to bring in a Biblical principle or two about the dignity of work or the indignity of taking handouts that aren’t earned, Keller says the real problem with putting a welfare check into the hands of the poor is that it only ends up in the accounts of “wealthy bankers” and “store owners” on the other side of town! Not that it keeps the recipient in life-long poverty, or that it takes away the recipient’s dignity, but that it enriches those filthy bankers and store owners.
No, he didn’t use the word “filthy”, but can there be any doubt he’s expressing hostility and disdain towards “wealthy bankers” and “store owners” (i.e. small business people, such as myself)? I really wonder how all the wealthy, successful Wall Street bankers who fill the membership rolls of Redeemer Presbyterian Church and who are made to feel most welcomed by Keller and the other leaders of the church, and who are some of its largest contributors, feel about their pastor demonizing them with this kind of pejorative language? Perhaps they are on a liberalism-induced guilt trip and feel the group demonization is deserved.
But how can Keller maintain his pretense to political neutrality when he writes in the same language as Barack Obama and the Democrats (and by the way, the Communist Party too)?
One paragraph down Keller goes on to explain the evils of the free-market system when he says, “Typically, in blighted neighborhoods there are few jobs, and the businesses that are there (even the banks) are those that take capital from local consumers to spend and invest it in other neighborhoods.”
Please note Keller’s use of the phrase “take capital from local consumers”. Apparently Keller believes that when a consumer voluntarily engages in a commercial transaction (i.e. purchasing a product or service) that the business is taking money from them. “Taking” implies something wrongful such as stealing. Most people understand a voluntary transaction such as this – not as a taking on the part of the business but as an “earning”. The business did not steal money from the consumer, the business “earned” money from the consumer by providing a product or service in exchange for the consumer’s capital.
This reveals a startling hostility to the American free-market system on the part of Keller and puts him squarely on the side of radical liberals and socialists who believe exactly the same thing he said here. They believe that commercial transactions involve a wrongful and unfair robbing of the consumer. At least when it involves consumers from “blighted” neighborhoods.
In 1977 President Carter acted on Keller’s convictions that companies should spend and invest in the neighborhoods where they “took” money from consumers. Carter also believed the banks were cheating consumers by earning revenue from blighted neighborhoods but refusing to make loans in those same neighborhoods. It didn’t concern Carter and apparently it wouldn’t concern Keller that those consumers didn’t have the credit worthiness to repay the loans. (Again, this brings into question Keller’s concern for the fair treatment of the non-poor – something that is Biblically mandated. Does he care whether or not borrowers can repay their loans? Surely that’ too is an aspect of Biblical justice). The Credit Reinvestment Act that Carter signed in 1977 and Clinton used in the 1990s to force banks to make loans to consumers in these neighborhoods led directly to the financial collapse of 2008 – as too many of the recipients of these mortgage loans defaulted.
As a result of the recession, times have been most difficult for the poor around the world. Those whom Keller purports to help with his political advice. It’s too bad that he can’t connect the dots and see that when his prescription was tried by Carter and Clinton – it led directly to the most difficult financial times in a generation for the poor he set out to support. But like socialized attempts to help the poor always do, this one backfired too. A scholar who looked for historical examples to support his political ideas would have seen this coming a mile away.
When a pastor offers political advice he has a responsibility to look at history to determine if and when his advice has been tried and whether or not it succeeded or failed. It’s not enough to offer solutions that sound good in theory – you must show evidence in history where your proposed solutions have been tried and worked. In the case of Keller and “Generous Justice” – no attempt is made to show where his proposals have been tried and correspondingly no attempt to show evidence that they have ever actually led to a more just society.
We Conservatives on the other hand see plenty of evidence that his proposals have been utter and dismal failures every time and everywhere they’ve been tried. They’ve been tried in one way or another in Communist countries around the world where they were murderous failures. They’ve been tried in our own country where they have achieved the exact opposite of social justice for the poor. In fact, today millions of American poor still suffer, more than anyone else, as a casualty of the Great Recession – that was caused as a direct result of two presidents and a Democratic party who all shared the same convictions Tim Keller expresses in “Generous Justice”.
It’s a real shame that someone as brilliant, articulate and persuasive as Keller has gotten so bogged down in the Leftist propaganda that totally surrounds him in New York City that he can’t see these historical realities.
“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”
– II Timothy 4: 1-5 NASB
Images other than Jonathon Cusar’s photo and their captions added by Gulag Bound