Why Tim Keller's Summary of Trump and Evangelicals is Misleading

The following introduction outlines important considerations that we all should be taking into account before we make any assumptions about politics and politicians:

COMPARE TWO LEADERS

One leader warns about documented fake news and news bias and urges fact-checking truth claims while another leader uses popular opinion and polls in such a way as to imply that truth is based on consensus. 

Which approach displays more wisdom? 

Which approach warrants more trust? 

The Bible encourages us to "test all things" as true or false, good or evil, and that includes not just opinions but the basis of opinions and where information is obtained (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Unfortunately, many Christians and even evangelical leaders are not doing this these days and are succumbing to media manipulation and false ideas.

I have respect for Rev. Timothy Keller in many ways. I am acquainted with him because I used to be involved at Redeemer Church and led a Redeemer Bible study in Brooklyn after I graduated from the Cooper Union. I appreciated Dr. Timothy Keller's sermons, and I agree with the premise of his new book, The Freedom of Forgetfulness. I also went on my first mission trip to Uganda through Redeemer Church that was a powerful and life-changing one led by Katherine Leary Alsdorf. I was disappointed, however, when I read Timothy Keller's December 19, 2017 article in The New Yorker, "Can Evangelicalism Survive Donald Trump and Roy Moore?" that explores the label "evangelical" as its use is changing in society. While warning of Christian identity politics, Rev. Keller offers an extremely biased approach that vilifies one group and through this, he actually engages in the practice of supporting a heavy-handed type of Christian identity politics. The subject of evangelicalism is basically a platform that Keller uses for passing along his surreptitious judgments.

Dr. Keller apparently feels tainted by evangelical Trump supporters and he presents some loaded phrases to imply that Christian evangelicals that support President Trump are basically hypocrites. His article appears to take public opinion and polls as extremely valuable while neglecting the greater value of God's word, research, and the use of critical thinking as necessary for Christians in forming a sound basis of opinion on evangelicalism and politics.

I believe that three main apparent errors should be addressed. First, it seems disingenuous for Keller to imply that certain evangelicals are hypocrites simply because public secular opinion might suggest this or because he as an evangelical holds to a different approach for evaluating politics. Second, decorum is not the main deciding point in supporting a political leader both in terms of specific scriptures and regarding valid points raised by highly-respected evangelical leaders, though Keller implies that this is the most important factor. And, third, passing along unqualified selective outrage against Trump and his evangelical conservative supporters is divisive and counterproductive. Towards the conclusion, I'll examine more closely why we should be extremely wary of popular opinion and polls in an age of fake news and how Trump is actually a better example in this regard than Keller.

Rev. Keller distills public opinion into loaded phrases without qualification and offers effective tacit support for such opinions per the maxim, "Silence equals consent." The subtle suggestion that truth is based on a consensus of opinion is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. Note the following quote:

'“Evangelical” used to denote people who claimed the high moral ground; now, in popular usage, the word is nearly synonymous with “hypocrite.”'

Dr. Keller does not question whether the label of “hypocrite” often applied to conservative evangelicals that support Trump could be misapplied or false, but in his article simply implies that the label is valuable and true based on a high regard of public opinion. Left-leaning Politico actually treats evangelical Trump supporters with more fairness than Keller and nowhere is the word "hypocrite" used in their summary article when describing that evangelicals tend to support Trump based mainly on abortion and Supreme Court issues.

“People who once called themselves the “Moral Majority” are now seemingly willing to vote for anyone, however immoral, who supports their political positions.”

This loaded phrase by Rev. Keller offers assumptions that were not appropriately fleshed out. The broad brush that Keller is using to label conservative politicians as “however immoral” does not refer to lawbreaking, but to accusations regarding moral indiscretions. This evaluation is in keeping with Max Lucado's rejection of Trump based on “tone and decorum” in his article "Decency for President" that I quoted in a previous article.

Tim Keller implies that supporting a polished politician such as Hillary Clinton (one his Gospel Coalition prefers) and abortion, Marxism, radical Islam, transgenderism, the destruction of religious rights, is preferable to supporting Trump. Though Donald Trump is neither a polished speaker nor a candidate for the priesthood, he actually works to protect traditional freedoms and values. While Keller and Lucado are entitled to their opinion, many highly-respected evangelical leaders raise referenced scriptural arguments that are in my opinion more cogent. Added to the previous problems, it's further disturbing that Keller heaps on the leftist tact of selective moral outrage:

“The fury and incredulity of many in the larger population at this constituency has mounted.”

While ignoring egregious lawlessness by leftist politicians, Dr. Keller recycles selective outrage against Trump and his conservative supporters without question or qualification. The use of repeated and unsupported personal attacks is a logical fallacy known as 'the repeated assertion' or 'argumentum ad nauseam' and it has many forms today in the news. The oft-repeated news story of Trump's alleged collusion with Russia to win his election, based on no actual evidence, is one such example used to undermine the legitimacy of the president's authority. The actual evidence suggests that Obama, Clinton, and Mueller were in collusion to cover up the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia coincidental with $145 million in donations from Uranium One investors to the Clinton Foundation. These representatives, not Donald Trump, are the ones that should presently be under investigation.

The use of demeaning propaganda by the leftist mainstream news is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. Radical leftists intent on revolution have won a great victory when the clergy is unwittingly doing their work for them. This is what Alinsky meant when he wrote: "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside."

As an immigrant to America, the late Peter Berger was able to perceive a tendency towards unrealistic Marxism in contemporary US evangelicalism that, “impressed me with the utter fatuity of the alleged solutions advocated by the political ‘left’” and “prevented me from taking the currently fashionable route of doing theology by baptizing the empty slogans of this or that version of Marxism with Christian terminology.”



There is little research by popular evangelical leaders today into the many deeper aspects of entrenched political corruption and Marxist indoctrination that have been gradually transforming the United States. Communist Antonio Gramsci developed the theory of cultural hegemony to further the establishment of a working-class worldview and the Frankfurt School helped form the basic strategy of using Marxist influences through "the long march through the institutions" to slowly mold public opinion into the Marxist-communist framework. The Washington Times points out, young minds in the US have been "deconstructed" and reshaped: "As author William J. Federer explains, animus toward their own country and free market capitalism among many younger Americans — even Christians — is no accident but the result of a conditioning process that begins in the elementary and secondary schools and goes into overdrive in universities." Tim Keller's biased article is an affirmation of how effective Marxist cultural hegemony has become.

In an article titled, "The Morality of Voting for Trump" Laura Ingraham outlined the virtue of opposing the corrupt and leftist politics of the Clintons, among many other points: "Voting for Trump means that when you finally had the chance to end the corrupt and decadent Clinton machine, you took it." To better understand intentional leftist value shifting and indoctrination in the U.S., one good resource is Charlotte Iserbyte's book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. To get an idea of how absurd things have become, leftist college students today try to justify physical violence against a conservative speaker by labeling words as "verbal violence" that must be stopped at all costs.

I actually encourage Christian activism and social change in another article titled "Jesus' Activism Example is Quite Relevant Today" that is based on sound theology with examples such as William Wilberforce. However, when Paul advocated that we should try to be all things to all people in order to save some, I don't believe that he was calling us to support socialism, Marxism or Antifa (and the pro-abortion platform) as a means of making a stronger connection with non-believers and uninformed Christians. This, however, is what many of the Christian social justice warriors that Keller lauds in his article are unwittingly supporting. In today's climate, and after receiving a U.S. public education, someone close to me was absolutely certain that supporting the type of Democratic socialism represented by Sanders, Obama and Clinton is a must for anyone that calls themselves a Christian. The Bible simply does not support this view. Care for the poor in scripture is voluntary and community-based, not government enforced, and other misconceptions abound.

When I presented African American evangelicals that support Colin Kaepernick some research showing that his NGO supports Islam, Marxism, and LGBT rights, there was an acknowledgement that he was off, but no willingness to expose the misinformation and say, “Okay, maybe instead of supporting this we as African American Christians should expose this as a poor NGO that promotes moral confusion in the minds of young people.” There is incredible pressure in society for Christians to support even anti-Christian agendas for the sake of public approval. Vladimir Lenin coined the phrase “useful idiots” for people that unwittingly promote Marxism. I lived in Ukraine as a missionary for 10 years and can personally attest to the reality that society was worse for the fact of the atheist-Marxist society that controlled the Soviet Union for about 70 years and had basically quashed all possibility of publicly presenting the gospel.

Before passing judgment against evangelical Trump supporters, consider these points:

1. The scriptural admonition to "test all things" is critical. This scripture is generally followed more closely by Trump supporters than never-Trumpers (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
2. In scripture, decorum is not the top consideration in political leaders - God chose David as king of Israel foreknowing that David would have very bad “decorum” in committing adultery and murder. Despite these serious character flaws and actions, God through scripture declares David as a man of action "who will do all My will" -even as Trump is a man of serious action. (Acts 13:22). The legalistic tendency to evaluate mainly based on appearances or past mistakes rather than accomplishments and intentions does not reflect God's grace.
3. Paul emphasized the value of protective leaders – Paul encouraged us to pray for those in authority “in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life" and it would be illogical to promote leaders and parties that have the appearance of decorum but actually work against religious liberty. Wall Builders outlines a stunning list of how Barack Obama was the most anti-biblical president in the history of the U.S. titled "America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President". When we pray for and support a candidate that does not have the best decorum but will, in fact, protect religious liberty in peace, this makes sense: “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.” (1 Tim. 2:1-2 NKJV).
4. Brute facts of abortion and religious freedom are top considerations. The euphemistic phrase "political positions" belies the fact that the U.S. as a country performs about 1 million abortions per year. Highly-respected evangelical leaders do not agree with Keller's apparent opinion, that personal decorum should be the top consideration in deciding the ultimate moral and political worth of a politician. William Lane Craig, Wayne Grudem, and James Dobson do not hold to Keller's view. To be clear, they are not Christian hypocrites simply because they do not share Keller's particular political value system. 

5. Many of the popular social justice causes today are actually immoral – In Keller's defense of Christian social justice, the implication is that many evangelical Christians do not appear to be loving because we are not on the bandwagon with open borders for illegal aliens, Black Lives Matter type organizations and unfettered Muslim immigration from terrorist countries. Addressing the first point: Since when was breaking immigration law considered “moral high ground” for Christians? As to the second, Black Lives Matter may sound like a good idea, but the actual practices of the organization are reprehensible and not at all in keeping with the altruism of someone like Martin Luther King. As far as unfettered immigration from Muslim terrorist countries, this issue is not so much about being loving or unloving as it is about surviving and not surviving. Tim Keller and other never-Trump leaders seem to be oblivious to the fact that Europe is becoming an anti-Christian pro-Sharia-law type of hell. By percentage, Sweden has taken in the most Muslims and the epidemic of gang rapes in public by Muslims has become so severe that the Swedish government is now advising women not to leave their homes after dark as the only plausible solution. As recorded by Gatestone, there are 751 'no go zones' in France presently.
6. So far, Trump is fulfilling God's apparent will to bring back a semblance of religious freedom – In keeping with the mainly leftist MSM news, Keller did not have one positive word to say about Trump's many achievements to date as president. If God's will is for people to hear the gospel, then it is not illogical to claim that God's will is probably being fulfilled by Donald Trump in allowing more legal protection for religious freedom in the United States and as an example to the world that is increasingly hostile to Christianity.
7. Most leftist accusations are simply false - When the issue of the moral fitness of Donald Trump is raised by opponents, there are usually accusations of racism, fascism, and misogyny. There are no referenced laws that were broken, but there is behavior that people consider offensive that is usually not even based on actual quotes in context. The fact is, building a wall to prevent illegal immigration is not actually racist, and neither is the vetting of potential terrorists. In terms of fascism, Dinesh D'souza has written a good article documenting why Trump is not a fascist: "Debunking the Lie That Trump Is a Fascist". In terms of misogyny, it's ironic that those in Hollywood often promoting objectification and promiscuous are the ones most loudly objecting to this. And if we take a broad view of J.F. Kennedy, L.B.J and the case of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Trump is nowhere near the level of actual physical sexual depravity exhibited by other presidents, which have received much less flack.

8. The hackneyed selective outrage that is exemplified by Keller is neither logical nor compelling. There is outright lawbreaking from Trump's political opponents, as noted here, and here, but this is blatantly ignored by the MSM news in favor of Saul Alinsky type tactics such as character assassination and repeating hasty off-hand quotes over and over again as if they represent the core of a person's moral value. Todd Akin pointed out, “In God’s word it says, ‘Don’t bear false witness,’ but we’re doing that all over the place, and that’s all considered fair nowadays.” We Trump supporters are tired of being labeled as hypocrites when there is a more subtle hypocrisy that overlooks actual serious documented lawbreaking in favor of clamoring over gossip or a dislike for someone's personality and lack of public decorum.
9. Keller's article wrongly implies that evangelical black community unanimously opposes Trump - An article titled, "17 Black Celebrities And Influencers Who Still Support Donald Trump" offers some African American evangelicals that passionately support Trump, such as Diamond and Silk. Allen West, an outspoken black Trump supporter, offered: “You can sit back and you can throw stones or you can say hey, let me get inside this building and let’s talk about how we make the building stronger. And I believe that’s— the latter should be the course of action we’re taking.”
10. Encouraging unsupported selective outrage against certain Christians is not in keeping with scripture. We are called to try to promote peace with all people, not level divisive attacks: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:18 NIV). We are actually called to treat believers even better than the secular world, not worse: "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers." (Galatians 6:10 NIV)

Logical fallacies that were used against Roy Moore.

Keller's reference to Roy Moore implies that he agrees with the media that he should be considered as morally reprehensible based on comments by accusers. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has fallen by the wayside in more ways than one this year. Where there is no actual evidence there should be no judgment. But now things are reversed. Accusations are made and the person is considered guilty while people search for some type of evidence to justify the media circus and character assassinations.

The burden of proof is on the accuser in a healthy society. If we run with the logic: "A lot of people say he broke the law, therefore, he broke the law." -then there are a number of problems. In the case of Moore, there was the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The danger of this approach is that it is very difficult to prove a negative. In other words, how can a person prove he didn't do something if he is innocent and the only evidence is based on the testimony? This is why the approach is not only unfair but can be considered slanderous and criminal in and of itself. If there is evidence related to the specific allegation, as there was in the case of Monica Lewinsky's stained blue dress that proved Bill Clinton lied, then the case is more than simply accusatory. The insinuation that Moore should be considered as guilty because people feel the case is settled by mere opinion is the fallacy of alleged certainty.

The danger of catering to fake news and biased public opinion can be better understood through the following argument:

1. If news bias and fake news are a problem and public opinion is highly influenced by news, then public opinion and polls are not very trustworthy sources of truth and information.
2. News bias and fake news are a problem and public opinion is highly influenced by news.
3. Therefore, public opinion and polls are not very trustworthy sources of truth and information.

Leading up to the 2016 election, the fake news was so bad that The New York Times executive editor felt the need to rededicate the paper to honest journalism: "...we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly," And CNN has been repeatedly busted to this day for fake news, as noted here, and here. CNN's website lists peaceful organizations such as the Family Research Council as "hate group" points on a map simply for supporting traditional family values and this engenders hatred against conservative Christians. Attacks against journalist whistleblowers opposed to corruption were increased heavily under President Obama.

Ironically, Rev. Keller's tacit support of fake news and anti-conservative hatred actually underscores how effective progressive fake news sites are and why a shrewd president such as Trump should be supported along with evangelicals interested in addressing entrenched establishment corruption and biased laws. If Donald Trump displays more wisdom about checking basic information and central ideas than top evangelical leaders these days, then the church probably has more problems than we realize. Well, let's be thankful that God is in control and not evangelical leaders.

I would strongly recommend that evangelicals avoid news sources that repeatedly post fake news, such as CNN. And though miles ahead of CNN in terms of overall integrity, to be fair, FOX News also had their own fake news scandal when they opposed the truthful reporting of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone (rBGH) and fired two journalists that wanted to report the truth. I have a list of many links that includes news sources that report important news often ignored by establishment MSM news. I'd recommend especially Drudge Report for a comprehensive overview of world news and WND for news from a Christian conservative perspective. 

While Dr. Keller may attempt to identify with the masses for the sake of gospel acceptance and perhaps has no interest in deeper political issues and entrenched establishment corruption, as a Trump supporter interested in both presenting the gospel and preserving a society in which the gospel can be legally presented, I disagree with Keller's approach of getting your feet wet in politics enough to show apparent signs of virtue signaling to leftists but not enough to identify the deeper faults of leftism and problems down the road that will effectively block the free movement of the gospel.

Many of us evangelicals have believed that it was not God's will to sit back and watch the country go to hell both literally and figuratively while increasingly anti-Christian laws were passed by the previous administration. And we are not content today to sit back and pretend that the type of social justice most prominently on display by the left is always wonderful and altruistic. Truth is not based on feelings or consensus and we should not be quick to judge others that do not share our views without showing a willingness to learn and dialogue. There was no implication by Dr. Keller of any desire to engage with Trump supporters for the sake of better understanding our views.

An article by Keller titled "Deconstructing Defeater Beliefs: Leading the Secular to Christ" describes his emphasis on positive first impressions in his 'gospel sandwich' and this helps to inform why he is perhaps prone to judge Trump supporters and why he personally would wish to disassociate himself from Donald Trump. 

Dr. Keller's apparent underlying gospel logic seems to be as follows:

1. All sincere Christians should try first and foremost to appear loving and moral based on the public opinion of what is loving and moral so as to better present the gospel.
2. Any association with Donald Trump does not appear loving and moral in terms of public opinion.
3. Therefore, no sincere Christian should support Donald Trump.

My argument against Dr. Keller's surreptitious judgments against Donald Trump and his evangelical support.

First, we as Christians are called to more than the mere appearance of love. We should live consistently, both internally and externally, even though our beliefs and values on controversial issues might offend people. To do the opposite is actually a poor witness. Second, if we help to destroy the legal basis of presenting the gospel because of our “high moral standards” in attacking a more conservative politician, this is illogical in the long run. Third, because many evangelicals appear ignorant "for the sake of the gospel" and cannot rationally discuss the basis of ethics and controversial issues, this actually harms the gospel.  In reality, Christianity offers a much more logical worldview and stronger basis of ethics and this is shown by atheists running scared from debate challenges by Christians on the world stage. Dr. Keller is entitled to his views, but he should not hastily pass along surreptitious judgment against Christians that disagree with him.

The second premise may at first appear true, but it is only true for people that are not aware of deeper issues at stake. A deeper and more holistic approach to both spirituality and politics that is based on accurate research and knowledge is in the long run preferred to a superficial approach that is more based on people pleasing. Regarding controversial truths, it can be considered more loving to share truth directly with humility rather than to simply wait for a person to discover uncomfortable truths on their own. The second premise is partially true and so the conclusion is false based on a false first premise and partially true second premise. Dr. Keller does not seem interested in discussing the actual relationship between a true Christian witness and important political issues that the "Trump effect" has raised for evangelicals, as noted in my argument. Rather, Keller offers an overly simplistic dismissal of Trump evangelicals that comes across as mere pandering and virtue signaling to leftists.

Rev. Keller's approach to gospel acceptance appears to some degree as a compromise.

The Bible does not teach us to hide our values or cave into secular pressure for the sake of public acceptance. Jesus implied the opposite, that true and sincere identification with Christ and his teachings in an increasingly decadent society will bring scorn: "You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved." (Matthew 10:22 NIV)

Another irony of Rev. Keller's criticism of Trump supporters is that we conservative evangelicals actually tend to display a more closely-followed biblical representation of doctrine. And we are more willing to take a public stand for values described in scripture despite secular pressure to cave into political correctness. In a review of Keller's view of homosexuality, he says that homosexuality is no more serious than human greed and the main problem with homosexuality is that it does not promote "human flourishing." To euphemistically summarize these sins and eternal damnation as a lack of human flourishing simply does not correspond at all to the specific language of Christ and of scripture for anyone even doing the simplest review of biblical exegesis. A summary of Christian Socialism lists greed and capitalism as sins to avoid and this view is in keeping with the gist of Kellers New Yorker article that supports more government control over society:

"Christian socialism is a form of religious socialism based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Many Christian socialists believe capitalism to be idolatrous and rooted in greed, which some Christian denominations consider a mortal sin."

Keller might personally wish to take the 'gospel sandwich' approach and publicly hide or downplay his biblical values in order to appear likable. HE may even wish to promote a type of Christian socialism. But to imply that all other evangelicals that do not follow this view are hypocrites is not helpful, to say the least. Robert A. J. Gagnon offered New York City as a caveat to Keller's questionable opinions:

“Maybe too some allowance should be made for the “Stockholm Syndrome”: he has imbibed the culture of New York City for too long.”

I agree with Gagnon that the totalitarian nature of the Democrat Party and the push for an anti-Christian totalitarian globalist government is more in keeping with a terrorist abduction in the long run than a benevolent Christian activist group. While it's true that a seeker-friendly approach can be helpful to a point, there's a danger that Christians will become more like thermometers that mainly reflect the anti-Christian aspects of the environment rather than thermostats that truly help to change the environment for the better, as in keeping with the salt and light of our true spiritual nature (Matthew 5:13-16).

Final points

Nowhere in Rev. Keller's article does he offer any biblical reference or argument as to why Christians should vote our political support based mainly on decorum and decency. He just runs with an assumption as supposedly true and valid at face value, and the same goes for the hypocrite label and the selective moral outrage. Donald Trump supports the testing of ideas, opposition to media manipulation, a strong defense of religious rights, and a sense of unity. Matthew Henry's commentary on 1 Thessalonians 5:21 implies that discernment is not only important for doctrine but all manner of information and experiences:

"Every Christian has and ought to have, the judgment of discretion, and should have his senses exercised in discerning between good and evil, truth and falsehood,"

There are at least three articles at Rev. Tim Keller's Gospel Coalition Website that explicitly encourage support for Hillary Clinton among all of their pastors, as noted here, here, and here. An editor of the Gospel Coalition website, Joe Carter, promoted Hillary Clinton based on a narrow and false dichotomy between promoting justice in society and the "gospel witness" of Christians. Aside from incongruity being a very poor gospel witness, there is more to the picture, as I noted in my points. This GC background would explain why Keller has a 'hands-off' approach to Hillary Clinton and why Keller's New Yorker article is not only about labeling but also supports certain political views with extreme bias. For all practical purposes, Tim Keller is a Never-Trumper Christian. If you've read this article and believe that I've presented any false or misleading information, I welcome constructive dialogue and comments.

An alternative to Rev. Keller's article title could be this:

Can evangelicalism survive leaders such as Tim Keller that are willing to basically support abortion, Marxism, radical Islam, transgenderism, the destruction of religious freedoms, and egregious corruption, all for the sake of their supposed good Christian witness?

While there is a certain creative allowance for a Christian presenting an article in the liberal publication The New Yorker, Keller's use of unqualified accusatory language against Trump supporters was unnecessary. Rev. Keller's recycling of false accusations against Trump-supporting conservative Christians is more in keeping with the kingdom of darkness rather than the kingdom of light (Revelation 12:10). And the internal inconsistency of supporting a litany of ungodly positions for the sake of a supposed better gospel witness does not jibe with Jesus' statement that a house divided cannot stand:  "But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." (Matthew 12:25 NKJV). The promotion of desolation does not actually demonstrate a good witness or help the cause of Christ.

It would be more helpful to promote a sense of Christian brotherhood and openness to dialogue with those of us that do in fact support the president. Perhaps Rev. Tim Keller would consider supporting the president and conservative evangelicals working to protect rights and oppose corruption, as opposed to acting mainly as a negative echo chamber for the biased and liberal MSM establishment news. And I pray for all of us as evangelicals that we will seek to be humble and more passionate to see and understand our own faults as opposed to mainly seeing the faults in others.

The main ideas for the article came to me in the middle of the night and I give God all glory and thanks for this.

Update: Someone argued that Keller was mainly focusing on the issue of labeling and the changing meaning of the word "evangelicalism" and that criticism of bias is unfounded. However, the glaring omission of anything negative about Hillary Clinton and the incongruity of evangelicals voting for a woman calling on all of us Christians to change our views on abortion reveals extreme political bias by Keller. In a quote explained in a LifeNews article titled "Hillary Clinton: Make Christians Change Their Religious Views to Support Abortion" -regarding abortion, Hillary Clinton said:

 
"And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

Interestingly, On October 4, 2018, Keller announced on Twitter that he is not a Marxist and I offered one example of why he could be perceived as a Marxist:



"Do I really need to defend that I'm not a Marxist?" Well, Tim, when you label The Great Commission as a Form of outdated tribalism and defend SJW issues with a greater passion, that implies a Marxist bent. But there's a lot more.



(Edited 1-2-2018)

by Rick Warden

Related:

Gallup Poll Shows Christians Desire Political and Ethical Teaching

Jesus' Activism Example is Quite Relevant Today

Why I Signed The Statement on Social Justice And The Gospel


Tags: Why Keller is wrong about Trump support, Tim Keller New Yorker article on evangelicals, Tim Keller feels tainted by Trump, Gospel Coalition supports Clinton, Robert Gagnon support of Trump, Laura Ingraham support of Trump, James Dobson, why public opinion and polls are unreliable today,  Keller's attacks against Trump and Moore are logically flawed and not well supported biblically, Tim Keller Never Trumper, Tim Keller Christian Socialism