Keller and others on religion and pluralism

http://veritas.org/media/talks/536

Tim Keller and two secular academics discussed exclusive religion in a pluralistic society at Columbia University. I found the discussion to be quite interesting. Of particular significance was Keller's take on evangelism in a pluralistic society, which was actually echoed by the secular panelists. I wish there was a transcript that I could quote directly, but basically all the panelists urged that evangelism needs to be done in a give and take type manner, meaning that there must be a possibility in discussion for you, the Christian evangelist to be wrong and change your views. If you are "10 ft above contradiction" as Keller says, you will not be presenting the gospel in a manner that will offend your hearers.

There is truth to what Keller is saying, but also, the gospel is offensive. I think I may go and listen to the audio again to get a more accurate take on what was being said. I was listening while studying for a test, so my recollection isn't that clear even though I was listening just a few moments ago.

Christian Liberty

I meant to post this a few days ago, but I haven't had time. Recently, I had a theological question of mine answered. The question was, "How far does the 'weaker brother' principle discussed in Romans 14 extend?"

The context required is all of Romans 14, but for brevity here is verses 14 and 15.

14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.

This raises a question. I don't want to offend a brother weak in the faith. But what about a mature Christian who may believe I am sinning because I do not obey a law that they have made. A good example of this would be the Southern Baptist restrictions on alcohol. I am a Christian, and I enjoy a glass of wine or a beer from time to time. (look at Psalm 104:15) If someone who believes that drinking alcohol is sinful and desires that I follow their law, does this fall under the weaker brother principle, or should I respond to them like Jesus did the Pharisees.

I got my question answered through John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I don't have a copy of it right here with me, but I'll summarize the gist of what Calvin said.

Basically, Calvin believed that our respect for our brothers freedom extends to bothers who are actually weak and not to Pharisees. In scripture this is shown clearly through Paul's different responses to circumcision. Simply put, Paul had Timothy circumcised, but he flatly refused to circumcise Titus. (See Acts 16:1-3 and Galatians 2:1-5.) Paul also refers to circumcision as a yoke of bondage in Galatians 5:1-4.

So, is Paul contradicting himself? Why Timothy and not Titus? What seems to be the difference is that Timothy was circumcised because the Jews in the area would have been harder to reach if he were not circumcised. The influence for Titus to be circumcised came from inside the church by people who wanted Titus and others to obey the Jewish law. The gospel was at stake here, so Paul and Titus stood up for the principles of the gospel rather than subjecting themselves to man's law. So, we are to stand up when a Pharisee threatens our liberty with Christ, but we should be able to sacrifice our liberty for the sake of the gospel with relative indifference.

A practical example of this taking place is that the VFC house does not have any alcohol inside it whatsoever. It might harm our witness if a freshman came into the ministry house, saw beer in the fridge and concluded that this is just another frat house. The guys that live in the VFC house have restricted this liberty for the sake of the gospel. However, if there is a law imposed on me from someone saying that I cannot drink alcohol and be a member of the church or a missionary, I should not accept the law. It is different to sacrifice a liberty for the sake of the gospel and giving up a liberty due to a legalistic tradition.

I thought it was interesting, and am grateful to see this issue explained.