In an act so brazenly hypocritical that we assume it’s only being done to see if they can get away with it, The Gospel Coalition is offering an 8-week course on how to responsibly and faithfully interact and understand the relationship between faith and film (as well as “exploring how the post-Christendom push-and-pull dynamic parallels metamodernism and oscillation between modernism and postmodern dispositions”) from a film critic whose favorite movies and TV shows are rife with graphic sex and nudity.
Demonstrating why TGC should be regarded exclusively with contempt and scorn, TGC’s Senior Editor Brett McCracken’ is is charging $299 in order to help Christians:
Understand how movies reflect cultural values and spiritual longings
Learn ways to evaluate and engage films from a Christian perspective
Be equipped to facilitate meaningful theological discussions about movies
Ironically, one of the sessions involves learning how to be discerning when consuming media, teaching Christians how to “enter into this highly secular sphere without being morally compromised by it.”
For example, one of his top favorite TV shows was White Lotus. Appearing on HBO, this six-episode show is rated TV-M and contains tons of filthy language, sex jokes, sex scenes, copious amounts of male nudity, and some female nudity as well.
In fact, it contains (warning, graphic description ahead) a graphic sex scene featuring two fully nude men, where one has his face in the back-end of the other, doing very homosexual things to his anus with his mouth.
We’ve been able to pinpoint this scene to near the middle, which means even after he watched it, he kept on watching more episodes, understanding that he very well may see more of this content in the rest of the season.
Given his long history of unfaithfulness in this area, even going so far as to suggest watching these perverse shows and films give him “more passion than ever to spread the gospel, ’McCracken has no standing or credibility to help Christians “develop a biblical perspective on the popular film” or teach them to “navigate the culture with Christian wisdom.”
The Gospel Coalition continues to demonstrate why it should be regarded exclusively with contempt and scorn, exemplified by Senior Editor Brett McCracken’s continued promotion and justification of watching pornographic TV shows and films and the hypocritical and theologically bankrupt advice he gives about them.
In a new piece for the ERLC, How to Evaluate Pop Culture in a Sex-Saturated World, McCracken seeks to offer “Christian wisdom for interacting with arts and culture” while answering the question, “How can I maintain my Christian witness and keep my soul nourished with truth, even as I engage with a pop culture landscape that’s often full of untruths and spiritually toxic material?”
Explaining that “It is vital we think wisely about how to interact with and evaluate media that advances perspectives on sex and gender at odds with biblical truth,” he offers that some “HBO shows may have extreme explicit content that make them obviously off limits for discerning Christian viewers” and that “Wise Christians should not hesitate to abstain from pop culture of this sort—even when it’s “critically acclaimed” or popular with masses of our friends, colleagues, or critics we respect.”
By “obviously off limits,” he apparently is NOT talking about one of the HBO shows he included on his list of favorite TV shows that he published at the Gospel Coalition. This six-episode show is rated TV-M and contains tons of filthy language, sex jokes, sex scenes, copious amounts of male nudity, and some female nudity as well.
In fact, it contains (warning, graphic description ahead) a graphic sex scene featuring two fully nude men, where one has his face in the back-end of the other, doing very homosexual things to his anus with his mouth.
According to McCracken, who shamelessly shared this on TGC, these shows are apparently “on-limits” to “discerning Christian viewers.”
He concludes with the ridiculous insistence that the perverse content he consumes leaves him with “more passion than ever to spread the gospel,” which is a wild take given that a substantial number of the shows he recommends (much less watches and doesn’t publicly tell Christian Twitter about) are best watched alone in the dark at 1 A.M with spouse asleep, accountability partner’s phone number muted, and a box of tissue and bottle of lotion at hand.
My ability to resist the secular onslaught regarding sex and gender has depended on the fact that I know and love God’s Word….I am utterly compelled by God’s vision for sex and gender and thoroughly convinced that it is truer, more beautiful, and better for the world than what Hollywood pitches. Therefore, when I watch a film or show that advances a skewed vision of sex or depicts some aspect of gender confusion, I am not captivated by it; I grieve it. I pray for the lost souls these pop culture narratives reflect and are shaping. And I leave with more passion than ever to spread the gospel that is better than the false sexual gospels of our age.”
The Gospel Coaltion (TGC) continues its devolution from a reasonably reformed parachurch ministry to some bizarro Christian version of Cosmopolitan magazine, where half their content could be comfortably published alonside a personality test to see which fierce Bible heroine you are and a flowchart on the ‘Top 10 Sex Positions for Pastors.’
How else do you explain a recently published but-since-pulled article, “7 Things Christians Can Learn from Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour,” where, as Ben Zeisloft succinctly put it, “The only person I could see enjoying this type of content is a homosexual with an IQ of 85. Maybe that’s who TGC has been trying to reach all along.”
Here, author Blake Glosson, who is a middle-aged man and not an eleven-year-old girl, explains that he saw one of her shows recently and was captivated by the fact that “the spiritual connections were vast.” To this end, he explains what makes Taylor’s shows so moving.
The joy Swifties feel in Taylor’s presence—perhaps even catching a glance from Taylor herself—reflects the joy of drawing near to the only One who knows and loves us perfectly.“
“It’s hard to explain what I felt when I woke up the morning after seeing Taylor Swift. The best way I can describe it is sad joy. For all the happy anticipation leading up to the show, the sorrowful realization that it was over tainted my joy.”
Again, this is a middle-aged man, a pastoral resident, attending a concert of a promiscuous, pro-LGBTQ, pro-choice pop singer whose background dancers aren’t known for their modesty or poor gyrating skills.
For many, that sorrow started earlier. A friend said, “It felt like the experience was ending the moment I woke up the day of the concert. My joy was ending as it was starting.” She said this pain continued into the show itself: “As joyous as it was to see Taylor, we all grieved as we celebrated because we knew the joy would soon be gone.”
“While every Taylor follower reflected her differently, they all imaged her—corporately reflecting the full array of her dazzling ensembles. Swifties appreciated Taylor’s beauty more because of each other’s imitations. The words “I love your dress!” were exclaimed countless times that day. Yet it wasn’t just Swifties who noticed the shimmering attire of Taylor’s fans. Taylor’s dresses became more visible when worn by her followers. Through Swifties, the world saw Swift.
One of the great joys and privileges given to Christians is to “put on . . . Christ” (Rom. 13:14)—to put his sparkling attributes on display to a watching world. We were created to shimmer as jewels on the crown of Christ’s head (cf. Zech. 9:16; Mal. 3:16–17).”
Taylor’s music can awaken our longings but cannot ultimately satisfy our longings. Only Jesus can do that. And union with him brings no sweeter music.
Three weeks ago, after the Gospel Coalition’s Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics published an article about the similarities between sexual intercourse and the church’s union with Christ, which was an excerpt from Pastor Joshua Ryan Butler’s brand new book, both he and TGC received unprecedented pushback, resulting in TGC retracting the article and seeing Butler replaced from his role at The Keller Institute.
These rebuffs include fair-minded critiques unimpressed with these crude comparisons, endorsers of the book who admit they never read it in the first place and were forced to retract, and the usual cadre of cry-foul ChristianHarpies seeking to use these questionable texts as a way to score points against complementarianism while bolstering their own bizarre notions of gender roles.
In many ways, the book was used as fodder by hysterical women and effeminate nuancebros who make a habit of getting outraged and upset by the lack of nuance in the Christian community, taking the book to extremes that it was never intended to go and then crying foul as an excuse to virtue-twerk their tears all over social media.
Appearing on Theology in the Raw with Preston Sprinkle to review some of these charges, when asked who he is influenced by in his writing, Butler lists off several Roman Catholic heretics and mystics as his source of inspiration:
I see myself kind of writing in the stream of Pope John Paul II and Christopher West, kind of that Theology of the Body stream. There’s like Teresa of Ávila, Bernard of Clairvaux, the Mystical Union Tradition, uh Saint Augustine and John Chrysostom, just one there’s a wide historic stream here … I’m attempting to do a dumbed down Protestant version of Theology of the Body.
As far as anything he’d change, he says he regrets that excerpt being used isolated from the rest of the book and that some of the pastoral nuance was lost in the editing process.
“Is there anything I’d change? And I would say yeah, I think two big mistakes that I made. One is I was unwise to allow that excerpt to be used in a short article, 800 word format, whatever it was, right? Like I think in the surrounding context of in the book, you know, I’ve directly addressed sexual abuse shortly before and shortly after. Some of the loaded language like the temple imagery had endnotes that kind of pointed (unintelligible) we’ll deal with that later in the book. There’s a whole backstory behind an excerpt getting, you know, like 100 emails that week and me not paying close enough attention that I should have, but I need to own it at the end of the day. I made a mistake in judgment in allowing that excerpt to be used.
I think the second mistake I made is in revisions. I mean, you’re revising a book and the original was around 100,000 words; we had to cut it down to around 70,000 and so you’re down like like 25% of the book or whatever, and realizing I lost some important pastoral nuance in a few places in that excerpt. Where kind of finding me and my language was interpreted in a few places actually the opposite of what I meant, you know?And I could have been clear. I thought ‘man, they’ll never think I’m saying that, you know? I don’t know if this is necessary.’ And I was wrong.
He lastly notes that he ran his book through the gamut of intersectional identities, women of color, gay people, and divorced people, and hired a woman editor to validate the book.
So big picture, my response for my heart has been extremely heavy the last few weeks, particularly where my lack of nuance evoked pain in some people’s stories. And for those listening, if that’s you, I can only ask for your understanding and grace.
And I’m working with the publisher right now on some clarifications that I can make for the next printing and I can make public before the release, just to be a little clearer in some areas that would be helpful. We, the publisher and I, we have valued sensitivity in this process. We ran the content through a wide variety of perspectives; single people, divorce people, women and people of color, same-sex attracted people, people with backgrounds of sexual abuse, all gave really valuable input on the manuscript.
And when all that was done, the publisher actually, together we hired an outside professional female editor who specialized with sensitivity reviews too, and she had a personal story uniquely suited to give sensitive input on the book. And she loved the book, big picture, and we took all her recommendations and tweaks. So just to say, man, this is something that we valued from the beginning and want to continue to press into in light of kind of the controversy and all.
Joshua Ryan Butler Responds to His Retracted TGC Book: Says he was infleunced by Roman Catholic Mystics while insisting:
After the Gospel Coalition’s Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics published an article about the similarities between sexual intercourse and the church’s union with Christ, which was an excerpt from Pastor Joshua Ryan Butler’s brand new book, both he and TGC received unprecedented pushback.
These rebuffs include fair-minded critiques unimpressed with these crude comparisons, endorsers of the book who admit they never read it in the first place and were forced to retract, and the usual cadre of cry-foul ChristianHarpies seeking to use these questionable texts as a way to score points against complementarianism while bolstering their own bizarre notions of gender roles.
The article landing page now displays a message from TGC President Julius Kim, who shares:
“…we took the time to listen to our critics and the serious objections from concerned fellows, as well as discuss this matter with our Board of Directors and care for our friend Josh. Earlier this week, we accepted Josh’s resignation as a Keller Center fellow. He will no longer lead an online cohort with the center nor speak at TGC23. While he will no longer participate in these events, Josh remains a beloved brother and friend whom we respect and care deeply about…
We will also review our publication processes more broadly at TGC and develop plans to ensure greater accountability to you, our readers…..We want to model grace-filled conversations, and we want to learn from one another. In this case, we failed you and hurt many friends.”
While this all continues to trend, these arguments from Butler are not new. As early as March 17 2021, on the Proven Ministries webshow, he was teaching them and working them out with host Shane O’Neill.
Butler: The Bible is less prudish about its language than we are. You know, one bodily union (unintelligible) it’s actually describing what’s happening in the act. And historically that’s often been called like the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ roles in the equation, right? That on the male side of the equation has active role of penetrating one’s spouse, one’s bride. And then the female sex is kind of the passive/ receiving your spouse within yourself.
And I think that’s significant when we look to our union with Christ and the nature of salvation is while there’s a mutual self-giving between Christ and the church, there’s also a sense where Christ penetrates his bride with the seed of his word, with the presence of his Spirit. And the bride here is a corporate figure. It’s like the church cosmically, like the whole church whatever.
But there is this picture of this intimate union that the church has with Christ as our King and our Lord, where we receive his presence within us, we receive his word (unintelligible) within us and that Christ’s word and his Spirit, his seed and his presence, it makes his bride fruitful. It actually causes her to bear children of God, to bring us forth as children of God into the world and to nurture and nourish us as the, you know, the bride of Christ. Like, nurtures and nourishes us (unintelligible) children of the king and his bride.
So, I know I kind of threw a lot out there, but I think there’s this beautiful picture of sexual union as an image of Christ’s union with his church and the way that he, you know, yeah. And that that relationship is marked by both generosity and hospitality. O’Neill “Yes. Okay. So yeah, because I think it’s, I really need a double check this but I think it’s James 1 where it talks about how like, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. That its “receive” has a sexual, not just like connotation, but denotation. Where it’s like ‘Seema’ or something like that in the language.”
Butler: “Yeah, it’s in 1 John. I have to go back and find the exact, but it talks about us being conceived by the Sperma of God. (Ah Yes) Yes. You know, but it’s literally the word ‘seed’, which in Greek and Hebrew, like, seed can refer both to like plant seed or human seed. And so, when Jesus is telling the parable of the four soils and the planting of the seed like it’s the Sperma, you know? (Ah, Ok)
But then it’s also the word that’s used for human and so in the context of 1st John there, the imagery is birth imagery- that we have been conceived by the sperm of the seed of God, which is in reference to I believe his word. It’s been a while since I’ve like that passage. But yeah, (Man that’s helpful)”
Years prior to his bad metaphor, Joshua Ryan Butler talks about being "conceived by the Sperma of God" and "the imagery is birth imagery- that we have been conceived by the sperm of the seed of God."
Days ago, the Gospel Coalition’s Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics published an article about the similarities between sexual intercourse and the church’s union with Christ. The article was an adapted excerpt from Arizona Pastor Josh Butler’s new book, who also is We offer full commentary here, but two brief descriptions we took exception to include:
…what deeper form of self-giving is there than sexual union where the husband pours out his very presence not only upon but within his wife?
and
Christ arrives in salvation to be not only with his church but within his church. Christ gives himself to his beloved with extravagant generosity, showering his love upon us and imparting his very presence within us. Christ penetrates his church with the generative seed of his Word and the life-giving presence of his Spirit, which takes root within her and grows to bring new life into the world.
Following some online pushback, TGC removed the article altogether, writing:
Soon, two of the book’s endorsers, Dennae Pierre and Rich Villodas issued public retractions of their endorsements. Pierre explained that she didn’t read the book before endorsing it, which she later says is an error she repented.
Rich Villodas also stated he only partially read the book before giving it his stamp of approval.
Furthermore, the IFGathering has removed his breakout session from their upcoming conference.
There has been no further comment from TGC or Joshua Butler at the time of publishing.
Consistent with the awful hermeneutic and pandering cultural relevancy the site has become known for, the Gospel Coalition’s Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics published an article about the similarities between sexual intercourse and the church’s union with Christ.
We wish we were making this up.
Arizona pastor Josh Butler, author of the 2016 book The Pursuing God: A Reckless, Irrational, Obsessed Love That’s Dying to Bring Us Home, told readers in his recent article that sex is designed to point us to Jesus:
Sex is an icon of Christ and the church. In Ephesians 5:31–32, a “hall of fame” marriage passage, the apostle Paul proclaims, “‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church” (NIV; I’ve translated proskollao as “cleave”).
And later:
Paul says both [leave and cleave and becoming one flesh] are about Christ and the church.
And just to put the grossest imagery out there:
…what deeper form of self-giving is there than sexual union where the husband pours out his very presence not only upon but within his wife?
Setting aside for a moment exactly what Butler means by a husband “pouring out his presence into his wife,” there is no biblical indication that the self-sacrificial, agape love that Christ has for his church and is emulated by husbands (Ephesians 5:25) is in any way analogous to the sexual union between man and wife (eros). Yet not to be deterred, Butler takes his intercourse metaphor to its disgusting and absurd end:
Christ arrives in salvation to be not only with his church but within his church. Christ gives himself to his beloved with extravagant generosity, showering his love upon us and imparting his very presence within us. Christ penetrates his church with the generative seed of his Word and the life-giving presence of his Spirit, which takes root within her and grows to bring new life into the world.
You read that right – the Keller Center for Cultural Compromise Apologetics is teaching that Jesus penetrates his bride and delivers his seed – his “generous gift within her.” This is a parody-level, overbroad interpretation of the bride of Christ metaphor – something the Babylon Bee might cook up if it wasn’t blasphemous and borderline pornographic.
At Protestia, we have a pretty strong gag reflex. But this article is one of the grossest things we’ve ever read, and we’re having a hard time not throwing up.
Jen Wilkin is the Executive Director of The Village Church’s Next Generation Ministries, as well as an author, blogger, and prolific conference speaker.
A frequent contributor to TGC, she outwardly claims to be a complementarian, though over the years has made many comments which suggest she’s squishier on the subject than she publicly professes. Preaching a message a few years back comparing a women’s period to blood of Christ certainly didn’t engender her to her critics.
During a recent ‘Good Faith Debate’ on whether or not Christian Parents should send their children to public schools, verses homeschooling, Wilkin took the affirmative position, at one point explaining:
I mean, so I think one of the things I would love to have entered into this conversation is, that while I cannot tell you to put your children in public school, and certainly never would because there are so many factors that are at play, that it is important for us to understand that our decision regarding this and even our demeanor toward this has an impact on our community.
It doesn’t just impact our family. The most common phrase I hear thrown out in these conversations is ‘well, I just need to do what’s best for my family’.
And I think that’s something that as Christians, we have to push back on. Philippians tells us each of you should look not just to your own interests, but to the interests of others. And there’s no such thing as a decision that’s made just for our families. In fact, even having the gift of the decision at all, means that you’re a person with more choices than some people. And those who don’t have a choice of where they will educate their children will be impacted by your presence, your adult parent presence not being in the public schools because you’ve chosen to go somewhere else.
We can look back in not too recent history on this and see the impact of when a large number of Christian parents decide to opt out of the system and how it impacts those who are left behind. And so I do think it’s very important for us to understand that while yes, we do what is best for our families, we don’t do so in a vacuum. We understand that what we do for our family always impacts the community around us and that we should look to the welfare of the city in which we live.
Wilkin also argues that children and parental involvement in public school is directly related to “loving our neighbors.” Parents cannot simply make a choice that is “best for my family” because there is no such thing as “best for my family.” She states our decisions are not made in a vacuum and will always impact others. That, if parents opt-out of public school, it will negatively impact others who don’t have the same option. And that our having an option is something others don’t always have (echoes of “privilege” arguments here).
It is here that Wilkin points to Philippians 2:4 about looking not only to our own interests but the interests of others. What she does not say is that passage is about the Christian conforming himself to Christ who humbled Himself and took on humanity and was obedient to the Father even to the point of death. Christians are called to live likewise in humble obedience to God and doing the work He set before us to glorify His name (including putting the needs of others first). There is nothing in this passage that calls us to sacrifice our educational choices for a perceived benefit to the community.
Wilkin also argues that if we opt-out, we are to find ways to support the public school system, to “bring life into a system that does serve the last and the least.” She ties this to the biblical call to serve the widow and fatherless. Yet, in passages that address this (see James 1:27 and Matt. 25:31-40) this often refers to the immediate needs not holding up an educational system.
Wilkin’s monologue places an undue burden on families choosing to educate their kids. If you don’t public school, you are neglecting the needs of community and society. So, if you homeschool, you should put energy into maintaining the public school system for others. She ties this to biblical passages about caring for others. There is no warrant in doing so but this implies Christians have a biblical duty to do it. Wilkin is wrong in her presentation. She may not require you to public school but she expects you to find a way to maintain the system.
Tim Keller’s example of connecting the gospel to all of life—from relationships and vocation to philosophy and culture—has inspired much of what we do as a ministry. Now, through The Keller Center we’ll build on his example by supporting a new generation of bold evangelists and effective apologists who will communicate the unchanging gospel for a changing world.
They say they’ll accomplish this task in three ways:
Closing the Door “The Keller Center wants to close that back door by giving you gracious answers and innovative strategies to help friends and family find God in the church. Already we have commissioned and begun to assess the largest-ever survey of people who have left the church. We plan to share this data through our website, books, and podcasts as we consult experts who can help church leaders respond wisely.”
Opening the Door. “Many of our secular neighbors can’t seem to comprehend the gospel, let alone admit they need it….The Keller Center shares best practices through cohorts, essays, books, conferences, courses, podcasts, lectures, and more. (on how to do this) “
Sending Out the Equipped. “The Keller Center’s resources equip Christians with answers developed in collaboration between leaders in the academy, marketplace, and church. We have begun to develop creative and accessible apologetics content on various platforms where many young people first encounter arguments against Scripture and faith.”
In short, it’s a bunch of resources from Keller, as well as resources from the usual contributors at TGC, to do more of the same as they’ve always done.
Given the faithlessness and repeated instances of troubling theology that TGC has given us, we consider any expansion to be a net negative for Christianity as a whole.
Leftist theologian and The Gospel Coalition founder Tim Keller is known for his cryptic tweets. He has a habit of speaking in a way that baits conservatives into calling him out and claiming that they misunderstood his tweets or his motives. Over the past few years, it has become apparent to objective observers that Keller has smuggled a number of leftist ideas into the church under the guise of social justice and winsome pragmatism.
Many evangelicals continue to turn a blind eye to the leftist trajectory of Keller, even as he drops new evidence of the downgrade on a nearly monthly basis. For those who claim ignorance, Keller recently created an 82 page Cultural Marxism manifesto, which should leave no doubt about his leftist thoughts and intentions. Of course, anyone who disagrees with his utopian vision of the future is a “fundie” in Keller’s eye.
Keller spends the first three chapters of the whitepaper creating novel critical accounts of the histories of mainline (Gospel-void apostate) Christianity and Evangelicalism. He leans heavily on leftist church historians, such as pro-LGBTQ egalitarian Kristin Kobes du Mez to spin the history of the American Church as racist and anti-intellectual. The latter three chapters utilize Keller’s faux history and critical theories from the first three chapters of the book to propose some truly leftist visions of the future American church.
“We envision a day when…Large percentages of Christians become able to speak about their faith in daily relationships in ways that are not perceived by most of the recipients as offensive or even awkward, but instead are received as helpful and positive.”
A true Gospel presentation takes the mirror of God’s law and calls out the sinner for his violation of that law before presenting God’s mercy in the form of Jesus’ penal substitutionary atonement on the cross. There is no way to inoffensively present such a message because the Gospel is offensive to the unrepentant sinner. When Tim Keller thinks that Christians will find a way to speak about faith without offending non-Christians, he must either be talking about faux Christians like Stephen Colbert or the mealy-mouthed weasily way that Keller himself speaks when he is waffling on homosexuality in front of a secular audience.
Keller’s vision for Evangelicalism is theologically weak, and dependent on pragmatism and cultural appeal, in an effort to make the church more appealing to the lost world.
“We envision a day when… An increasing number of Christian artists—working out both the realism of the Christian worldview about sin and the confident expectation of restorative grace— produce high quality stories, music, visual art all with the results that (a) more people see the beauty and intuitive plausibility of Christianity and at the same time, (b) people in general across our society will increase in hope.”
Keller fails to recognize that American Christianity’s dependence on personal stories, theologically shallow Christian music, and novel artistic depictions of Christianity is a primary cause of the downgrade of the American church. The true Gospel presented in a faithful way will not give hope to unrepentant sinners.
According to Keller’s vision, those who struggle with same-sex attraction should be allowed to carry that identity within the church and should even be relied upon for wisdom. There’s nothing like a church that relies on homo-Gnosticism for guidance on issues of family and sexuality.
“We envision a day when…. It is a community in which Christian men and women who describe themselves as attracted to the same sex, but who wish to live according to the biblical vision and ethic for sex are nurtured and respected, and their wisdom relied upon.”
Keller, an opponent of Christian Nationalism who believes in the myth of secular neutrality, also wants Christians to pursue a form of pietism when it comes to law and politics. Apparently, the “electoral interests” of Christians who pursue policies that reflect Biblical truth don’t equate to true justice in the eyes of Keller.
“We envision a day when… In politics and government, Christians are known for seeking the common good rather than their own electoral interests and for being cognizant of the importance of government policies for a just society.”
Of course, what would the manifesto of a Social Justice Warrior be without an appeal to “equity” in the form of the redistribution of money and power.
“We envision a day when…All of these changes would lead to a more just distribution of money and power, and people in general would have more control over their neighborhoods and their lives.”
In Keller’s socialist Christian version of John Lennon’s Imagine, Christians defend the freedom of pagans to exercise every form of debauchery under the guise of free speech for all in a “truly pluralistic society”, because Keller thinks that compromise is the key to earning the almighty “cultural capital” points.
“We envision a day when…Christians are known for their uncompromising stand for truth and their critique of false beliefs and narratives, and at the same time they are known for their civility and for their commitment to creating a truly pluralistic society in which all are free to voice and practice their worldviews and faith.”
Keller goes on to describe an “evangelical crack-up” that he believes should be implemented in order to create an environment in which his vision of Christian Socialism would flourish.
“For us, it will mean that, again, some denominations and institutions will divide. Some organizations will divide. Evangelicalism has fragmented into at least four zones. (As the following chart shows, that could be broken into six or more.) Some older institutions will have to decide which zone to ally with. The new institutions, new alliances, and leaders for a new renewal movement will mostly come from Zones 2 and 3—and especially Zones 2b and 3a.”
Keller wants new movements and institutions that will implement his vision to be formed through an alliance of compromising “conservative” evangelicals. He dubs these zones that are compatible to his vision 2b and 3a.
Keller hopes to forge a partnership between social justice-obsessed complementarians and wishy-washy social justice-obsessed egalitarian evangelicals who aren’t focused on doctrinal truth or teaching on Biblical family and sexuality. One might assume that groups in Keller’s 2b would be expected to give up complementarianism in their pursuit of their alliance with wishy-washy spineless mainstream evangelical group 3a, especially considering that both groups are known for their participating in nonsensical critical theory “power-divestment” exercises.
The most mind-boggling portion of Keller’s theory is the casting off from Evangelicalism of all those deemed fundamentalists (zone 1a). According to Keller, you belong to this group of fundamentalist cast-offs if you oppose social justice, are militant (whatever that means), believe in “rigid gender roles”, voted for Trump, or oppose Covid Vaccines.
The absurdity of Keller’s new theory is truly breathtaking because it pigeon-holes conservatives for their opposition to any form of woke politics. Keller’s Evangelical Zone theory, a leftist appeal to ecumenism, lacks real doctrinal clarity, which comes as no surprise considering that it was developed by a Critical-Theory obsessed cultural Marxist. How does Keller think that a coalition that includes his camp will succeed in a world that is hostile to Christianity?
“How will we thrive as a movement in a hostile environment? We must accrue economic, symbolic, and social capital in competition with other groups and movements in the religious field.”
