My Journal

I was looking to confirm certain doctrinal view of Kathy Keller. Gender roles.

She wrote a book "Jesus, Justice, & Gender Roles: A Case for Gender Roles in Ministry".

I followed Tim Keller's method of reading reviews instead of the book itself.

One particular review, though from an egalitarian, appears to be quite honest, caught my attention.

The main error the reviewer Marg Mowczko made was that she believes that egalitarian and biblical centeredness can go hand in hand. First, I would clarify that defending injustice to women or upholding a woman's right do not necessarily have anything to do with egalitarian. Egalitarian, by definition is to disregard any differences between women and men. If I were to explain this to a kid, I would say that the egalitarians cannot tell the difference between women and men in general. Yes, very stereo-typical, but that is the definition. Just because one who eats only beef as meat and claims to be vegetarian, does not make one a vegetarian. In that case, the definition of vegetarian for that person has been corrupted. And if everyone redefines vegetarian as such, then they have redefined it obtusely.

So, if I support women's right, I do not identify myself with egalitarianism. Because they do not truly follow the Bible, even though some of them claim to do so. Back to the vegetarian dilemma again.

On 2 Timothy 2:12, the reviewer merely stated that it was hard for her to understand or interpret and implied that no one has an answer for it and those who does are wrong. A signature pride of the egalitarians.

Now, back to Kathy Keller. I was curious because I had some hint of feminism from Kathy Keller. Therefore, I am glad to have read this review on her book because the reviewer honestly declared Keller as being vague.

Conclusion, I would not fully associate Kathy Keller to feminism. But merely confused, based on her interpretation of those gender verses in her book. I need not read her book, I trust this reviewer in this case. For now.

Lately I've heard how Tim Keller does not like how people attribute Redeemer's success to him. I can understand if he's trying to be modest, and that he's pointing all credits to God alone.

However, there is an easy way to see this clearly:

Tim Keller's ministry was unique in a way that it was obvious that he depended his journey entirely on God - that he moved to New York not because he wanted to see success, for he acknowledged that it could be God's calling for him to fail in New York.

However, I cannot say the same for most other pastoral staffs at Redeemer. It would be easier to say that they joined Redeemer not because they acknowledged that God could be calling them to fail in their pastoral career. Redeemer was already flourishing. It is unlikely that they would dare found a church.

One might argue for "different callings". I can second that, half way. For the point is, why Tim Keller was important to Redeemer. All of these, nonetheless, are attributed to God. It would be like saying Time Square Church's loss of their senior pastor David Wilkerson has made the church rather directionless, despite the ongoing popularity. But it was a Charismatic church becoming a worse Charismatic church. As for Redeemer, a presbyterian church, according to current progress, if without Tim Keller suddenly, the change would be far more drastic. Some may say: It still works! as Time Square Church, but I beg to differ, because I believe the state of Time Square Church is not the same as it used to. I could be wrong, but I once sat in Time Square church seeing so many loving God's words, but on my last visit, I experienced more entertainment than instilling a heart for God.

It was the 11:30 AM service. The sermon was delivered by David Bisgrove. It was the third sermon (Hope: Thy Kingdom Come) in The Prayer of Prayers: Exploring Jesus' Model, the Lord's Prayer series.

Scripture reading was from Luke 6:20-26, 46-49.

I believe Bisgrove made a grave error when he related Christian persecution to the recent Nobel Peace Prize winner: Kailash Satyarthi. Obviously, Bisgrove is no fan of Van Til's apologetics.

Satyarthi, a Hindi, suffered beating for rescuing abused girls. Though noble, it cannot be compared to a devoted act of servitude to God, suffering for the Son of Man.

Bisgrove considered the kingdom of God political on various occasion, instead of absolute sovereignty of the divine. As if a social gospel was intended, perhaps that is what Bisgrove subscribes to.

I would give Bisgrove credit for even mentioning "telling the truth at work and get fired" as something noble he could relate to. But at times, I wonder if he was fully into what he preached...that was telling the truth and get fired was a noble thing or that getting fired after "accidentally" telling the truth was more of the topic in question. He was shy at making any reference to serving Christ in all these blessed suffering. Which is no wonder he brought up Satyarthi.

In his second point (I don't know what was his third point, or even his first), was about Challenge. Being different. Being loyalists to Jesus. So, here, he must assume all the audience are devoted Christians, that is fine. But to a point that there is no Gospel-centeredness, is missing a big hole in the middle. All he could do was to refer John Stott's book: The Message of the Sermon on the Mount. I will read it, when I began reading John Stott's books, but not now.

On the Woes (v.24-26), Bisgrove attempted to de-harsh Jesus' saying. That though it may sound judgmental, Jesus was actually showing compassion. I find this interpretation rather questionable. When Bisgrove went further and say that we are to pray for these woeful souls, I realized he has changed topic, which makes the sermon very confusing. Now, instead of serving God in a mindset of welcoming His Kingdom and not become of the world, loving men's praises, we are now looking at another sermon topic: Praying for your enemies.

The woes are judgmental because they are warnings to the saints to watch their ways. There is nothing about praying for these people. I would like to see how Bisgrove preaches on John 17:9.

The Blessings and Woes were elaborated with intended subject: You. It is not blessings to "you", and woes to "them", and therefore pray for "them".

Praying for the woeful souls in this case is rather proud. Because there is lack of focus on the blessedness to the humbled ones who hear the words of Christ and do them, and lack of the warnings as the passage intends. Bisgrove assumed the congregants were all mature Christians. If that is so, a test can easily be done of such assumption by observing Bisgrove's fellowship with the "least" in the church in general.

Conclusion, despite my criticism which I firmly stand on and the off topic habit, I would merit Bisgrove for bringing up the need to pray for our enemies in such perspective. That was the only thing I had learn. But I must take caution that I do not disregard the true warning purpose of verses 24-26.