TIM KELLER, COMPROMISE, AND ACCOMMODATION

 

 

James R. Wood, associate editor at “First Things,” admires Pastor Emeritus Tim Keller, who had promoted a non-combative and non-adversarial view of influencing the culture and evangelism. However, Wood now recognizes the costs of Keller’s approach:

 

·       During the 2016 election cycle, I still approached politics through [Keller’s] winsome model, and I realized that it was hardening me toward fellow believers. I was too concerned with how one’s vote might harm the “public witness” of the church, and I looked down upon those who voted differently than me—usually in a rightward direction. “Public witness” most often translates into appeasing those to one’s left, and distancing oneself from the deplorables. I didn’t like what this was doing to my heart and felt that it was clouding my political judgment. (“First Things;” 5/6/22)

 

My wife and I had attended Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan for two years, where we had observed some of the things that Wood has noted. Evangelicals were no more correct or “enlightened” than the seculars. We were left with the impression that the vitriol that was being vented against the Church was justified. Therefore, if we could simply be nice enough, unlike those judgmental evangelicals, the world would naturally be drawn to Christ.

 

Keller did draw many to Christ, but I always wondered, “to which Christ?” I now see that many potentially offensive Biblical teachings had been left out of his preaching, for instance:

 

·       Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)

 

There had been no concern about being unequally yoked. Instead, believers were being sent out to join with unbelievers in their various community and artistic projects. Consequently, they would become one with the world. Instead of serving as the light to the world (John 3:19-20), they would partake of its darkness and disdain for evangelicals.

 

Wood writes that there is a danger that when we hold hands with the world, we will also grasp hold of its worldview:

 

·       And I started to recognize another danger to this approach: If we assume that winsomeness will gain a favorable hearing, when Christians consistently receive heated pushback, we will be tempted to think our convictions are the problem. If winsomeness is met with hostility, it is easy to wonder, “Are we in the wrong?” Thus the slide toward secular culture’s reasoning is greased. A “secular-friendly” politics has problems similar to “seeker-friendly” worship. An excessive concern to appeal to the unchurched is plagued by the accommodationist temptation.

 

Accommodation has become the rule for many of the Redeemer church plants, which have adopted LGBTQ and CRT to seek acceptance in the growingly hostile secular culture.

 

Wood also warns against Keller’s equal time strategy:

 

·       By always giving equal airtime to the flaws in every option, the third way posture can also give the impression that the options are equally bad, failing to sufficiently recognize ethical asymmetry.

 

“Are we in the wrong?” The younger generation seems to answer in the affirmative and wants to remake the Church into a congenial partner. Consequently, they are no longer heeding Biblical warnings:

 

·       Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:12-13)

 

Instead, persecution suggests that we might be doing something right.

Tim Keller and Making Mercy an Entitlement

In Generous Justice, Pastor Tim Keller fittingly argues that we have a biblical obligation to do justice on behalf of the poor (especially for all the vulnerable and needy). However, in making his case, he wrongly equates justice with mercy and argues that to do justice is to be merciful and to be merciful is to do justice:

• The mishpat, or justness, of a society, according to the Bible, is evaluated by how it treats these [marginalized and vulnerable] groups. Any neglect shown to the needs of the members of this quartet is not called merely at lack of mercy or charity, but a violation of justice, of mishpat. God loves and defends those with the least economic and social power, and so should we. This is what it means to “do justice.” (4-5)

While God requires both justice and mercy from us, these complementary principles are distinct. We are entitled to justice as a human right. Keller rightly cites the fact that there should be one law for both Israelites and alien. God required that both receive equal treatment under the law. The fact that all are created in the image of God makes justice an entitlement.

This might illustrate the distinction between mercy and justice. A judge, constrained by the law to treat everyone justly and equally, is also free to throw a party and discriminate. He could be merciful to some and not to others. He could invite some of the poor but not all of the poor. Those poor who were not invited could not protest, “You have violated our rights by not inviting us.” Instead, the judge is free to invite whomever he so pleases to invite. This is not a matter of justice but of mercy. Therefore, the poor cannot insist that the judge hadn’t been just with them, as he must be in the court.

Jesus told a parable about a landowner who had invited some unemployed to come work for Him. He promised them a denarius. However, later He hired others to work in His vineyard but for a much shorter time. However, at the end of the day, He gave all of His workers the same pay.

The ones who had worked the longest protested that this was not just. However, He explained that He had been just and had given them the exact amount that they had agreed on. Therefore, they had no reason to complain. However, there was also a matter of mercy:

• “I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius?  Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you.  Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” (Matthew 20:13-15)

Justice and mercy are two different things. Justice gives a person what they deserve – what they are entitled to. Mercy gives a person what he is not entitled to!

This distinction should be obvious. Justice requires God to destroy all humanity, because this is what we deserve: “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6:23). While justice requires death, mercy gives life. Because mercy is discriminate and not an entitlement, God is free to be merciful to whomever (Romans 9:18). There is nothing that compels Him to save all, but He must be just to all. However, no one can accuse Him of injustice, although they can charge that He hasn’t been even handed in giving mercy.

How then does Keller attempt to eliminate the distinction between mercy and justice, making them both an entitlement? He cites a number of verses where mercy and justice are mentioned side-by-side:

• “If I have denied justice [mishpat] to any of my servants, whether male or female, when they had a grievance against me, what will I do when God confronts me?... If I have denied the desires of the poor or let the eyes of the widow grow weary, if I have kept my bread to myself, not sharing it with the fatherless— but from my youth I reared them as a father would, and from my birth I guided the widow— if I have seen anyone perishing for lack of clothing, or the needy without garments, and their hearts did not bless me for warming them with the fleece from my sheep, if I have raised my hand against the fatherless, knowing that I had influence in court, then let my arm fall from the shoulder, let it be broken off at the joint… then these also would be sins to be judged, for I would have been unfaithful to God on high.” (Job 31:13-28) 

Job correctly recognized a connection between justice and mercy, that both are mandated by God and complementary. However, mentioning justice and mercy together doesn’t mean that they are the same thing.

Keller recognizes that many will object to his thesis:

• Many readers might be asking at this point why we are calling private giving to the poor “justice”… In English, however, the word “charity” conveys a good but optional activity. Charity cannot be a requirement, for then it would not be charity. But this view does not fit in with the strength or balance of the Biblical teaching. (15). 

Keller is correct that charity, in general, is not optional. However, we are free to exercise discernment regarding to whom we will be charitable. Not so with justice! He therefore argues that:

• In Scripture, gifts to the poor are called “acts of righteousness,” as in Matthew 6:1-2.

Here, Keller attempts to equate mercy (“gifts”) with justice (“acts of righteousness”). However, these verses fail to support Keller’s case. Although “acts of righteousness” – giving – is mandated, we are free to exercise discernment and to not give.

Keller also cites several other verses in support (Ezekiel 18:5-8; Deut. 10:18-19; Isaiah 58:6-7). While it is probable that these verses reference the two concepts of mercy and justice together, they do not explicitly say that they are the same thing. Instead, this association seems to show that we must be both just and merciful. (16-17)

Contrary to Keller’s case, there are many verses that reflect the fact that maintaining the poor at a certain material level is not mandated:

• He who gathers crops in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. (Proverbs 10:5)

• Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in forced labor. (Proverbs 12:24)

• A sluggard’s appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. (Proverbs 13:4) 

• One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys. (Proverbs 18:9)

None of these verses suggest that the lazy or slothful are entitled to support. In fact, numerous verses instruct against giving support:

• For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thes. 3:10)

• As for younger widows, do not put them on such a [support] list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. (1 Tim. 5:11-12)

While justice is an entitlement - a human right – mercy is not. While the poor can insist that they are owed justice, they cannot insist that they are owed an income. Instead mercy was to be exercised discriminately, compassionately, and thoughtfully.

This distinction is not merely academic. Violent passions and church divisions ride upon it. The Occupy Movement believes that they are entitled to the money of others. They decry the riches of the “one percent” and even talk violently against them, as if they have committed a great injustice. (Sometimes, it is a matter of injustice. But if this is so, then it must be mediated by the courts or new laws must be passed to protect the poor. However, the Occupiers never seemed able to articulate what the new laws should look like.) However, it seems obvious that their vehemence is not restricted to just these one percent.

From where do their threats come? They have been told that they are entitled to more, and that they have been unjustly cheated by the rich. While poverty is sometimes a matter of justice, it is not always so. It might instead be the product of other causes, including laziness.

It is therefore important to exercise discernment and wisdom. Many entitlement programs have actually hurt those who were supposed to be helped by them, creating dependency and an angry entitlement mentality:

• We hardly need another polemic about the failure of America’s “war on poverty.” After decades of bitter wrangling and torpid inaction, there is at last a broad consensus that the welfare system is a cure no less malignant than the disease it was intended to remedy. Liberals and conservatives, politicians and program administrators, social workers and taxpayers have all been forced to acknowledge that the poor are not best served by our current lumbering and impersonal entitlement bureaucracy. They never have been. They never will be. On this, we now all agree.

• If the poor are to be equipped with the tools of self-reliance and initiative, they must first restore family ties and community connections that have been sundered by privation and irresponsibility. Promiscuous philanthropy does little to solve the long-term dilemmas of social disintegration. It is little surprise then that programs that emphasize personal accountability, family responsibility, and community cooperation are much more likely to succeed than programs that simply dispense aid as sheer entitlements. 

When mercy, like justice, becomes an entitlement, it is no longer mercy!

ADDENDUM

Despite the above critique, Keller makes an excellent case for legalizing additional protections for the marginalized based upon the concern that God shows for them in the Bible. Here are just of few of the safeguards that our Lord has put into place:

1. JUBILEE - The land returns to its original owners after 49 years. This would provide the poor with a means of support.

2. LAW OF THE GLEANER - The poor could harvest the land of the wealthy after the initial harvest.

3. SABBATH YEAR - The slaves go free!

Cultural Renewal, the Church and Tim Keller

In the wake of mass defections from the church, especially among the youth, the question of the church has received renewed interest: “What is the church and what is its role?” Consequently, more radical definitions are gaining attention – “an instrument for cultural renewal,” “a conversation,” “a protective place of nurturing.”

Despite the many definitions regarding the mission of the church, Scripture is remarkably consistent. The church is the Body of Christ, created out of the Gospel and for the Gospel.

Jesus likened the Kingdom of Heaven to the good seed of the Gospel, which, when sowed in the right soil, produces a great harvest (Matthew 13). His Great Commission directed His disciples to sow this seed of the Gospel:

• Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:19-20) 

Making disciples depended upon spreading this Good News. Growth and maturity required the same truth-food:

• To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32)

Embracing the Gospel had profound consequences. This is partially why the post-resurrection church devoted themselves to the teachings of the Apostles (Acts 2:42; 4:33). Paul committed the Ephesian elders "to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” (Acts 20:32)

By the Spirit, the Word of the Gospel can transform us and provide a bounteous inheritance. It both saves and edifies. Therefore Paul warned that any real growth had to be according to the Gospel of our Lord (1 Cor. 3:11), which required diligent protection.

The implanted Gospel is transformational and therefore should also affect the fields in which it grows. The Gospel has already transformed society. Former editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Dominic Lawson, in a review in the Sunday Times of Niall Ferguson's new book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, carries a quote from a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in which he tries to account for the success of the West, to date:

• “One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.

• “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had.

• “Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system.

• “But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.”

 The Gospel and salvation carry powerful implications. Therefore, I cannot fault pastor and writer Tim Keller too strongly in stating:

• The whole purpose of salvation is to cleanse and purify this material world.

• The whole purpose of salvation is to make the world a great place.

• God sees this world as not a temporary means to salvation…But salvation is a temporary means to the end of this material creation, to the renewal of creation.

• Saving souls is a means to an end of cultural renewal. (Spoken at an “Entrepreneur’s Forum” sponsored by Redeemer PCA: http://cityofdeception.com/tim-kellers-social-justice/#more-67) 

We are not only saved to enjoy and worship our Savior forever; we are also saved for the great privilege of serving. The second Great Commandment highlights our responsibility to our fellow human beings, to love our neighbor as ourselves. One way to do this is to protect our environment – both physical and vocational.

Keller is correct to insist that the Gospel and salvation have a purpose. When we truncate the Gospel by forgetting this purpose, we make the church seem irrelevant and loose our influence within a society that fails to see our influence.

Keller correctly points out that if our concern is evangelism, we should be interested in cultural/societal renewal. It often happens that when the transformational power is brought to bear upon society that eyes will open and mouths will cease spewing forth their invectives.

However, Keller goes too far in a number of ways. To say that the “whole purpose of salvation is to make the world a great place,” misses much of the big picture – our own transformed lives, proclamation of the Gospel, the New Heavens and the New Earth, and our relationships with others and with our Savior.

Besides, if cultural renewal is to be our goal, Keller fails to give sufficient attention to the mighty outpourings of the Spirit, which have transformed society. Indian Scholar Vishal Mangalwadi writes about the powerful revival, nurtured by the preaching of John Wesley and George Whitefield:

• The biblical revival affected the lives of politicians. Edmund Burke and William Pitt were better men because of their Bible-believing friends. They helped redefine the civilized world…Perceval, Lord Liverpool, Abraham Lincoln, Gladstone, and the Prince Consort, among others, acknowledged the influence of the Great Awakening. The biblical revival, beginning among the outcast masses, was the midwife of the spirit and character values that have created and sustained free institutions throughout the English-speaking world. England after Wesley saw many of his century’s evils eradicated, because hundreds of thousands became Christians. Their hearts were changed, as were their minds and attitudes, and so society – the public realm – was affected. (The Book that Made your World)

• The following improvements came in a direct line of descent from the Wesleyan revival. First was the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of the industrial workers in England. Then came factory schools, ragged schools, the humanizing of the prison system, the reform of the penal code, the forming of the Salvation Army, the Religious Tract Society, the Pastoral Aid Society, the London City Mission, Muller’s Homes, Fegan’s Homes, the National Children’s Home and Orphanages, the forming of evening classes and polytechnics, Agnes Weston’s Soldier’ and Sailor’s Rest, YMCAs, Barnardo’s Homes, the NSPCC, the Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, the Royal Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the list goes on. Ninety-nine out of a hundred people behind these movements were Christians.

Perhaps even more troubling is what Keller omits from the game-plan. When we send troops into battle, we not only instill them with a transcendent vision for what they can accomplish, but also the dangers and hardships they will have to endure along the road. Jesus warned His troops:

• "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.” (John 15:18-20)

However, this kind of warning seems to be noticeably absent from Keller’s marching orders. Instead, there is little warning about the devices of the enemy, and there is little acknowledgment that they are enemies of the Gospel (Rom. 8:5-8).

 

Keller is not alone in minimizing certain “distasteful” Gospel truths – truths that portray the radical distinction between the saved and the unsaved. Emergent Church pastor, speaker and writer, Doug Pagitt, puts it this way:

• We are connected to each other as well. Christians like to talk about community, yet the dualistic [us-them] assumptions surrounding our theology make it almost impossible for us to experience true community. As long as we hold on to “us” and “them” categories of seeing the world, we live behind a barricade that prevents us from joining in with God and others in real and meaningful ways. And it doesn’t really matter who we decide “them” is – the non-Christians, the sinners, the liberals, the conservatives, the Jews, the Catholics, that weird church on the other side of town. Division is division, no matter how righteous we want to make it sound. (A Christianity Worth Believing, 91-92)

Although I have never heard Keller to speak in this extreme manner, the absence in his teaching of any “dualistic assumptions”  – saved vs. unsaved, children of light vs. children of darkness (1 Cor. 2:14; John 3:19-20), new creations (2 Cor. 5:17) vs. children of the devil (John 8:41-44), Body of Christ vs. the world –  is deafening. 

To operate in the world, we have to understand the world. The New Testament is filled with warnings about the wicked heart of man, the resultant false teachings of the world, and the threat they pose to the church (Mat. 7:15; Mark 8:15; 13:5-6; Col. 2:8; Titus 1:9-11; Rev. 2:2, 14).

Consequently, cultural renewal without the necessary Gospel-truth-tools becomes a ticket to assimilation. Many go forth from Keller’s church armed with the idea that if they can just love enough, the world will see the light and want Christ. However, it was the world that crucified the Christ, the perfect model of love.

There is little appreciation of the fact that salvation is a supernatural gift to us who dwell in abject darkness and are enemies of God (Rom. 8:5-8; 5:9-10). Consequently, without being born again, the world will merely become more arrogant and hardened to the Gospel in the midst of their improved environment. This means that we should be very guarded in our optimism about changing the world.

However, the Redeemerites are ill-equipped to deal with this reality. They go forth as the unarmed Russian troops had during the First World War as they stormed the German invaders, hoping to pick up a fallen gun as they bravely made their charge. Redeemerites fail to perceive the radical distinction between saved and unsaved and face an enemy they cannot see or understand. They think that if they simply party with the world, they will be accepted and the world will accept their faith. Instead, it is more likely that the salt will loose its saltiness.

As an example of social renewal, Keller admits that we cannot simply join the Harvard faculty and expect to change it. However, he suggests an alternative – we can create a “think-tank” to influence them.

However, as long as Christians remain ill-equipped, the influence runs in the other direction. We send our Christian youth to the university, even many “Christian” ones, and they return as secular clones, either lost to the church or so badly compromised that they are almost indistinguishable from the secular world. Meanwhile, they are convinced that they have been enlightened and therefore look down on Evangelicals.

Evangelism – the proclamation of the Gospel – also seems to be conspicuously missing from Keller’s program. Understandably, it can be argued that since the Gospel has been so thoroughly discredited in the West, we first have to earn the right to be heard. This is reasonable, but this doesn’t seem to be part of Keller’s strategy. Instead, he pejoratively refers to evangelism as “increasing the tribe” – in other words, the in-group, the “us vs. them” mentality.

Instead, Scripture refers to the proclamation of Gospel as central and indispensable:

• That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (Romans 1:15-16)

It is sad that we have become ashamed of the Gospel, because of all the contempt poured out upon it. However, it is hubristic to think that we can change society without its proclamation. Besides, such an expectation would place an intolerable burden upon us to look and act better than others so that they will want what we have.

Instead, we are a motley crew. God has chosen the rejects of this world so that boasting would then become difficult (1 Cor. 1:26-29). As hard as I try, I must admit that many unbelievers look better than me and perhaps in this life, they always will. This is partially because our impressions are limited to the mere appearance of things (1 Sam. 16:7). Consequently, if my evangelistic hope rests upon the superiority of my character, my hope is a false one – one that will be disappointed.

Instead, our hope is in the proclamation of Gospel and the Spirit who validates it in those who are being saved. Through this, we are a “sweet smelling savor,” but this miraculous savor seems to be exclusively associated with the presentation of the Gospel (2 Cor. 2:14-17). Therefore, if we trust in God, we are constrained to trust in His methods, even if despised by the world. To go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6) in this regards – to place our hope in other methods – is to place our hope in ourselves. This is a hope that will suffer a hasty demise.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t engage in social projects. However, we must do so with right expectations, preparations and methods. If we want to have a sanctifying influence on this world, we cannot dismiss Jesus’ means of sanctification:

• You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. (John 15:3)

• Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17)

What then is the church? According to Paul, it is “God's household…the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Above all else, the church is about the ministry of the Gospel!

Biologos, Tim Keller, and the Weakening of the Faith

The Biologos Newsletter blandly reads:

• In March 20–22, 2012, noted evangelical pastor Dr. Timothy Keller hosted the [Theology of Celebration] meetings at the Harvard Club in New York City…Given data that was presented at the meeting—which convincingly showed that almost half of America’s protestant pastors hold or strongly lean toward a belief in a universe less than 10,000 years old—there was a deep concern for the church not only in America, but also worldwide. This time, leading evangelical Christians left with not so much a statement as an urgent desire to bring about change. The church of the coming decades cannot divorce itself from matters about which there is scientific certainty. 

Although Biologos is devoted to selling theistic evolution to the church, there is no mention of theistic evolution, just their lamentation that “almost half of America’s protestant pastors hold or strongly lean toward a belief in a universe less than 10,000 years old.”

I must confess that I don’t know what the conference discussed. However, it is noteworthy that their statement only mentions the “10,000 years.” Usually, if the theistic evolutionist wants to make the creationist – the YEC variety – look ridiculous, they’ll say something like, “You don’t believe that do you? If you do, that means that you are rejecting all the findings of science.”

They take this tact because it’s far harder to prove Darwinism, especially when the fossil record is unwilling to comply with this ideology. However, if you can demean the YEC with the 10,000-year-bit, you weaken your opponent and make him vulnerable to the more ambitious claims of Darwinism.

Whether this position is scientifically accurate or not is one thing. However, their mission to rid the church of a belief that seems to be Biblical is another. Why is this their mission? Does YEC undermine belief in the Bible, our understanding of Biblical Theology or our determination to live the Christian life?

I don’t see how! However, it clearly undermines our standing in the eyes of our peers and the university. Perhaps this is their main concern.

Ironically, it is theistic evolution (TE) that undermines our faith in the Bible and our understanding of it.  

In order to support their claims, TEs usually maintain that the Bible isn’t a science textbook. Indeed! However, what they really mean is that the Bible doesn’t teach authoritatively about the physical/historical world, just the spiritual, and the fact that the Bible contains physical errors shouldn’t affect its spiritual truths. Of course, if they can prove this, then they have removed any possible contradiction between evolution – the physical - and the Bible, the spiritual.

However, this formulation is entirely unbiblical for many reasons:

1. Theology rests upon history – the physical world. The theology of the Fall rests upon the theology of creation – that it was all “very good” and we screwed it up. Evolution would have it that it was a bloody survival-of-the-fittest mess from the very beginning.

Perhaps the clearest example is the Cross. We can’t have a theology of the Cross without a physical history of the Cross. Consequently, the physical and the spiritual cannot be separated as the TE suggests.

2. If Adam’s genealogy isn’t historical and Adam isn’t historical, then the genealogy that leads to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob cannot be historical either.

3. The New Testament often quotes the OT as historical and derives its theological lessons from the fact that God had done certain things in the context of history. For instance, Peter cites the worldwide flood to prove that God will judge (2 Peter 2, 3). However, if the flood is just a myth, as the TEs propose, then the theology based upon the “myth” must also remain dubious. If God actually didn’t judge in the past, we shouldn’t expect Him to judge in the future.

These are just a few of the problems that TEs encounter. In response, they usually claim that, “We have to be humble (and uncertain) about our interpretations.” This means “confused.” If there is joy in believing, TE has undermined it.