Tim Keller and Greg Boyd have the same message: eschew all idols and devote yourself completely to the one God, the God of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC, in Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters
treats the subject of the idol of money in chp 3 of his fine book.
treats the subject of the idol of money in chp 3 of his fine book."The new explosion in executive salaries, the increased emphasis on luxury goods, the rapacious deals that make millions for the deal makers at the expense of thousands of common workers, the lack of concern about steep debt ... all of these represent profound social changes in our society" (49-50).
Question: How much do we dance with this financial world?
We dwell in a culture of greed. Can we see it in ourselves?
As a pastor, Keller says he's never had a person confess greed to him. Every other sin, but not greed and his point is we don't see it in ourselves.
But Jesus emphasizes greed: the love of money, anxiety about money, he warns about loving money, trusting money, and obeying money. So he sees the whole message of the counterfeit god of money in Zacchaeus. Once again, Keller combines a psychological reading into with clear biblical teaching -- and some regula fidei (he finds Zacchaeus trusting in God's grace) to expound this text.
Zacchaeus gives up 50% -- and he shows that the generosity of grace outstrips the tithe for followers of Jesus. Zacchaeus practiced justice as well.
Then follows a discussion of deep idols -- the depth of our motivations and heart -- and surface idols
I agree with Keller's theological readings and the big message he is presenting, but he's outstripping what the text says in some of this. Zacchaeus experienced the grace of forgiveness but to turn that into Zacchaeus learning that he couldn't trust in his moral performance says more than the text. What he offers at times is a theological reading of the text, and it is a theology widely shared but not by all.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
#12, 13 Diane
I suspect that in a sense all the seven deadly sins all bleed over into one another as they all share a common idolatry that where we place ourselves in some way above and outside the relationships God designed for us to have with him and with others.
I sympathize with the Amish attraction. Our culture is disorienting. My concern is that we have developed ethics and norms that over the past 2,000 years that were forged in the context living in materialist societies (i.e., the focus of life was meeting daily material needs.) We have not discerned well what discipleship looks like in post-materialism. I want to avoid both being co-opted by the present ethos and embracing movements that destroy the good the post-materialism has brought.
Michael,
Now that's even more interesting. I agree that "hoarding" in these contexts could be very different, especially in terms of the results of our hoarding on others. But that still doesn't solve the who-do-you-trust/love-the-most issue, the idolatry/loyalty issue. Even if there was no shortage for anyone, it would still be a problem to trust and love $ or stuff more than God, and thereby serve it. And, even if we're not in a pure zero-sum game, we are still in many zero-sum situations, where our loyalties will be at odds. In any event, the idolatry issue still seems like the sweet spot of the NT's concern re: money and our love of things in the world (the first part of the Jesus Creed), with the secondary effect that we fail in our duties others (the second great command).
When I spent a couple of years among main-line Presbyterians, I found that quite a number of the pastors had a penchant for preaching psychology using Scripture. It sounds as if you're saying Scot that Keller is more Scripturally-grounded than many of those I knew, but it's an interesting that the psychological implications continue to be drawn out in these chapters. I wonder if it's a peculiarly Presbyterian interest, perhaps akin to trying to find contemporary "laws" of the psyche within the text.
Awareness of my own tendency toward hobby horse theological eisegesis may be part of what makes me reluctant to think I have anything to teach any believer in Christ. Nevertheless, as my awareness of that all too human tendency has increased it has made me all the more uncomfortable and inclined toward identifying that phenomena when it is really there. So, I deeply appreciate Scot's identifying Keller's going beyond the text into eisegetical intrusion with his Reformational obsession with false salvation by moral performance. Actually, what the text says is that everyone is inclined toward salvation by theological purity, by trusting in one's theological faithfulness rather than in the work of Jesus on the cross. (just kidding 8>) ,well sort of kidding) As one of the new reformed luminaries it is not surprising that Keller manifests that particular penchant. I've been attending one of the key Acts 29 churches and frequently see that same Reformed phenomena reflected in sermons I hear. Last Sunday I heard references to "if saved always saved" and also anachronistically to Arius' rejection of "the divinity" of Christ even though the text of I John doesn't mention either. We all have our issues, apparently.
All the best to all in Christ,
Richard W. Wilson
Hi Scot--
It's always fair to warn about reading our overall theology back into every text. But in this case you may be reading too much into my words 'not through moral achievement or performance.'
I don't see a difference between, as you say, 'experiencing the grace of forgiveness' and 'knowing you are accepted despite failures in performance.' Aren't they the same thing? Nearly every commentator (I'm looking at I.Howard Marshall just now) says that the order in Luke 19 was--(1) receive salvation, and only then (2) change performance. That's basic 'salvation by grace not works.' I even added in the book at that point that 'it is unlikely that [Zacchaeus] had a clear, conscious understanding of this' principle, though his joy showed he was responding to Jesus' free graciousness. I took a bit of care to not to do what you say I do, that is to read a full Reformation doctrine of justification back into Luke 19. Perhaps I didn't succeed! I'll reflect on it. Anyway, thanks for calling attention to this.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.