Thread:
I'm thinking about Tim Keller's influence.

There is the curious fact that Keller is well-regarded among the culture elite (or at least has not suffered the sort of vilification one might expect given his influence). How can we explain this?

Looking at Prodigal God and other writings, you see that his approach to urban ministry is deeply political in a way that appeals to Democrat-heavy cities. It involves two moves:
1) equalizing sins: elevating the sin of hypocrisy, "moralism," and "religion" (the sins of "conservatives") and equating these with the sins tolerated among liberal (e.g., homosexuality)
&
2) emphasizing "self-righteousness" as a sort of chief sin (the sin of "red states").
Keller effectively downplays the sins that liberals tolerate while elevating the sins of their political enemies, the red state conservatives.
But the greatest appeal to liberals is that critiquing the "self-righteous" vilifies political action, particularly the action of social conservatives (e.g., anti-gay marriage). And the equalization of sins eases concerns over changes in social policy (e.g., gay marriage).
Keller does not deny that the liberal sins are sins. Instead he posits a third-way that critiques both "right" and "left", which allows people to be above the sexual deviancy and above the hypocrisy.
But the equalization/elevation described above still appeals to those who are unwilling to directly confront and wholly reject the liberal zeitgeist which dominates urban areas.
It effectively neutralizes conservative political opposition to the zeitgeist on social issues.

His ministry theme or ethos has been very influential in every region of the US. It is captured in the language of "brokenness" and the "church is for messy people".
Now that equalizing homosexuality and self-righteousness is no longer effective (bc people are unwilling to call homosexuality something deviant or sinful), they've switched to race...
The emphasis on "racial justice" follows the same program: the "self-righteous" conservatives (whites) refuse to reflect on their complicity in injustice, while we (white) liberals rightfully want racial justice but tend to be too "secular" about it.
One thing to notice is that this political posture is not fundamentally political; it is an urban ministry apologetic. But it has become the dominating political theology of elite evangelicalism.
Evangelical elite political theology is ultimately an apologetical approach that appeals to urban liberals by demonizing non-urban conservative Christians.
And it strongly suggests that the elite evangelical program of "moral witness" is oriented toward the sensibilities of educated, white urbanite liberals, and that it relies on the vilification of non-educated white, non-urbanite conservatives.
[End]

More from Health

I think @SamAdlerBell in his quest to be the contrarian on Fauci gets several things wrong here. 1/


First, the failure last year actually was driven by the White House, the #Trump inner circle. Watch what's happening now, the US' scientific and public health infrastructure is creaking back to life. 2/

I think Sam underestimates the decimation of many of our health agencies over the past four years and the establishment of ideological control over them during the pandemic. 3/

I also am puzzled why Tony gets the blame for not speaking up, etc. Robert Redfield, Brett Giroir, Deb Birx, Jerome Adams, Alex Azar all could have done the same. 4/

Several of these people Bob Redfield, Brett Giroir, Alex Azar were led by craven ambition, Jerome Adams by cowardice, but I do think Deb Birx and Tony tried as institutionalists, insiders to make a difference. 5/
Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.


More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.

The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."

So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?

I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.

You May Also Like