Heresy can be so faint, so imperceptible, and a heretic can move in the church like a green snake winding through the grass. It’s no wonder Jesus warned us, “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16) We must be wise like serpents because we are surrounded by them. I think sometimes we forget that Jesus’ warning applies now as much as it did two thousand years ago—I would argue more so. The wolves have had two millennia to refine their machinations against the Saints, the fine art of hunting sheep. We are not called to compromise Spirit-led wisdom for the sake of comfort and unity within the church; if the cost of Christian unity is your discernment between truth and error, you are being tempted away from God by the social pressures that shroud a Satanic ultimatum. If there’s any time left before the glorious appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, we should make it a priority to critically analyze what’s being taught in churches and show that we know how to defend sound Biblical doctrine.
One such glorious display of wolf-hunting is Timothy F. Kauffman’s review of the hidden Marxism of Pastor Tim Keller. All I want to do for my article today is simply direct you to Kauffman’s excellent, thorough examination of the destructive influence that best-seller Tim Keller’s chimeric amalgamation of Marxism and Christianity is subtly introducing to Christian homes and churches throughout North America; and how his early affections for the Frankfurt School, a group chiefly responsible for the rapid deterioration of traditional Christian values in North America, are being craftily repackaged as an econo-political ideal for Christian work ethic; all in perfect concert with a variety of celebrated communists, socialists, Marxists, Satanists, and liberation theologians that have absolutely nothing in common with Biblical Christianity. As Kauffman will sum up later in the article, “Marxism can only institutionalize covetousness, and it is logically impossible to ‘love thy neighbour’ while simultaneously agitating for the government to seize ‘thy neighbour’s goods’ for your use. Yet Keller would have it so.”
If you want a shortened version, keep reading for a selection of excerpts that I cut out to encapsulate Kauffman’s most stand-out points in about half the length.
Workers of the Church, Unite!
The Radical Marxist Foundation of Tim Keller’s Social Gospel
by Timothy F. Kauffman
In November 2013, newly elected Pope Francis issued his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, in which he criticizes the theory of trickle-down economics and Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ that essentially uses the price mechanism of a free market as the engine for the efficient allocation of scarce resources with alternate uses. He criticizes those who advocate for free markets and who trust in “the invisible hand” to establish market prices for goods and services. In short, Francis teaches that free-market supply-side economic theory is a “selfish ideal” and “has never been confirmed by the facts.” Pope Francis denies that he is Marxist, but his Apostolic Exhortation is riddled with Marxist economic theory. He calls for a “just wage,” which is another term for the “living wage” and reflects his desire that wages be set by the purchasing preferences of the workers rather than by the market value of their labor: “A just wage enables them to have adequate access to all the other goods which are destined for our common use.” It bothered Marx that the value of a worker’s labor in a capitalist society was expressed in monetary terms established by a free market exchange—what he called the commoditization of labor—and it apparently bothers Pope Francis, too. He wants people to be paid according to their needs, not according to the market value of their labor. Francis’ complaint that corporations are known to “increase profits by reducing the work force” pays homage to Marx’s theory in which “profit” is “surplus value,” and “surplus value” is essentially “unpaid labor.” Profits realized through gains in operational efficiency by reducing workforce, according to Francis, are actually wages taken from the newly unemployed. That is Marxism.
Only a few days after Pope Francis issued his Apostolic Exhortation, U. S. President, Barack Obama declared that income inequality “is the defining challenge of our time.” This is the core belief of Marxist philosophy, and as Obama himself acknowledges in his memoirs, he is naturally drawn toward Marxism, and intentionally chose Marxist professors while he attended Occidental College. Barack Obama’s former church in Chicago, Trinity United Church of Christ, lists as part of its 10-point mission to work toward “economic parity,” because God “is not pleased with America’s economic mal- distribution!” In 1996, Barack Obama joined the leftist New Party, a political party that is “deeply hostile…to American capitalism.” His affection for Marxist economic theory and his distaste for capitalism are the basis for President Obama’s famous quip to Joe the Plumber, “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Not surprisingly, President Obama identifies Reinhold Niebuhr, a committed Marxist, as “one of my favorite philosophers.” Like Liberation Theologians of today, Niebuhr “argued that social radicalism and Marxism owed their existence to Christian inspiration.”
Whether through the campaign of Mayor de Blasio in New York, the writings of Pope Francis in Rome, or the philosophical meanderings of President Obama, Christians throughout the world are being exposed to the economic theories of high-profile Marxists. Because of the recent prominence of Marxist thought in the daily news diet of the informed Christian, it may serve the Church well to become familiar not only with the fundamentals of Marxism, but also with the Biblical condemnation of Marxism as an economic theory.
Socialism, which according to Marx merely serves as a transition in an economic shift away from capitalism toward Marxism, may justifiably be called the institutionalization of man’s natural proclivity for covetousness. P. T. Bauer wrote that socialism and its advocates essentially “institutionalize and organize envy and resentment against economically effective people.” Economically effective people have a propensity for accumulating wealth, and that concentration of wealth is the object of the socialist’s envy. The sole necessary ingredient for socialism is for a populace to covet its neighbor’s goods.
The Scriptural prohibition against appropriating one’s neighbor’s property is found in Deuteronomy 27:17, “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark.” Before God, it is reprehensible to appropriate thy neighbor’s goods. God’s final commandment in the Decalogue therefore prohibits the only thing that can make socialism work: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s” (Exodus 20:17). Paul’s exhortation in 2 Thessalonians 3:10—“if any would not work, neither should he eat”—is based on these principles. Paul refused to appropriate his neighbor’s bread unless it was obtained in a free market exchange for the equivalent value of his labor: “Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you” (2 Thessalonians 3:8). In this context, when Paul says that we should work in quietness and eat our own bread, lest there be “some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all” (2 Thessalonians 3:11), he is prohibiting socialism. A man cannot simply take his neighbor’s bread because he his hungry. He must earn it by monetizing his labor, converting his labor into a wage, and then accumulating wages sufficient to acquire his neighbor’s bread in a voluntary exchange. Paul’s parting words to the Ephesian elders were that he had not “coveted” his neighbor’s goods, but rather had acquired his “necessities” by actually earning them (Acts 20:33-34). This, as we shall see, is deeply and gravely offensive to the socialist mind.
Because it is un-Biblical, socialism must always be repackaged and remarketed to Christians in a manner that cloaks its lawlessness behind the curtain of the ostensible kindness and compassion of its advocates. As Bauer observes, “Politicians and intellectuals have supplied articulation and a veneer of intellectual respectability to envy and resentment,” in their advocacy for socialism. There is one high-profile Marxist who is particularly effective at repackaging Marxism for a Christian audience, but due to his ability to disguise his economic philosophy, he is largely flying “under the radar.” That Marxist is Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.
It may come as a surprise to his conservative evangelical readers that Tim Keller’s recent book, Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God’s Work, is simply a recapitulation of Marx’s theory of alienation, and that Keller’s solution to the problem of alienation is indistinguishable from Marx’s. It will surprise his readers to know that Keller’s theory of wages is derived from Marxism. It will surprise his readers to know that when Keller recommends modern examples of churches that implement a Christian economic ideal, he identifies churches and organizations that are thoroughly Marxist, and are inspired by leftist Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals. In this article, we will review Keller’s words and his sources to establish his economic theory. What we shall find is a consistent call for a transition from a capitalist economy to a socialist economy through class struggle based on Marxist principles—all cloaked in the language of Biblical Christianity.”
“What offends both (Christopher) Jencks and (Robert) Bellah is the capitalist idea of linking wages to productivity, and risk to reward. To correct this problem, Bellah recommends a Marxist solution to effect a ‘great change in the meaning of work in our society.’ Keller passes it on to the church for consumption by first sanitizing it of its Marxist context. This is no passing or accidental reference to Bellah’s work by Keller. It is rather the core of Keller’s thesis. Later in Every Good Endeavor, Keller re-emphasizes this, reminding the reader that the purpose of the book is to respond to Bellah’s challenge to implement a Marxist solution: ‘Bellah called us to recover the idea that work is a ‘vocation’ or calling, ‘a contribution to the good of all and not merely…a means to one’s own advancement,’ to one’s self- fulfillment and power.’
The origin of Bellah’s affinity for Marxism is evident from his own words: ‘I was a member of the Communist Party as a Harvard undergraduate from 1947 to 1949. During that period I was mainly involved in the John Reed Club, a recognized student organization concerned with the study of Marxism.’ It is no accident, therefore, that Bellah’s ‘challenge’ is simply a call to implement Marx’s solution to the problem of alienation. What is surprising is that Keller takes it up and expects the church to swallow it whole as the hope ‘for our unravelling society’!”
One advocate of Marx’s theory of wages was Dorothy Sayers, and in Every Good Endeavor, Keller says Sayers got it exactly right. Like Marx, Sayers resented the monetization of labor, and felt that labor should be an expression of one’s true nature rather than an activity performed in order to earn a wage…
Sayers arrived at these conclusions at the height of World War II, and marveled that, in a time of scarcity when survival is the primary objective, everyone was keenly focused on the quality of his work rather than on profits. In fact, she deeply resented capitalism, and recommended that the wartime mentality of scarcity be preserved after the war: “Shall we want to go back to that civilization of greed and waste which we dignify by the name of a ‘high standard of living’?” Yet in Every Good Endeavor, Keller highlights Sayers’ “revolutionary way of looking at work” and recommends it to the church as the ideal. Listen to Keller extol the wisdom of Sayers’ approach: “This revolutionary way of looking at work gives all work a common and exalted purpose: to honor God by loving your neighbor and serving them through your work. Author Dorothy Sayers recounts how many British men and women stumbled upon something like this understanding of work during the dark days of World War II.
To bring about this new world order, Sayers proposes in true Marxist style that the workers of the world should unite and throw off the shackles of the Bourgeoisie, so the Proletariat can take over: “Now the answer to this question, if we are resolute to know what we are about, will not be left to rich men—to manufacturers and financiers. If these people have governed the world of late years, it is only because we ourselves put the power into their hands. The question can and should be answered by the worker and the consumer…. We could—you and I—bring the whole fantastic economy of profitable waste down to the ground overnight, without legislation and without revolution, merely by refusing to cooperate with it…. Whatever we do, we shall be faced with grave difficulties. That cannot be disguised. But it will make a great difference to the result if we are genuinely aiming at a real change in economic thinking. And by that I mean a radical change from top to bottom—a new system; not a mere adjustment of the old system to favor a different set of people.”
This woman’s theory of wages, says Keller, is the model for the Christian work ethic—a theory of wages derived straight from Marx—to solve the Marxist problem of alienation. This was no passing or accidental reference to Sayers. Rather Keller returned to her over and over again: “So Dorothy Sayers could write…. Dorothy Sayers recounts…. Dorothy Sayers writes…. Dorothy Sayers explores this point…. Dorothy Sayers helps us understand…. This is what Dorothy Sayers meant….”
It will be helpful here to remember that Keller introduced Every Good Endeavor with Bellah’s challenge to solve the Marxist problem of alienation. He ends the book with Sayer’s Marxist solution to it: “This is what Dorothy Sayers meant when she urged us to serve the work.” Recall that Bellah’s challenge in its original context was a Marxist call “to reduce the ‘punishments of failure and the rewards of success.’” “Reducing the inordinate rewards of ambition and our inordinate fears of ending up as losers would offer the possibility of great change in the meaning of work in our society and all that would go with such a change.”
Keller left this out of his citation of Bellah, but he clearly did not leave it out of his conclusion: “Those who grasp this understanding of work will still desire to succeed, but will not be nearly as driven to overwork or made as despondent by poor results.”
Let us remember that the ultimate goal of Marxism is “the separation of labour from wages” and the elimination of competition between workers.60 By answering Bellah’s challenge, Keller thinks he has helped us arrived at a Christian work ethic, but he has merely led us to a Marxist one.”
Keller teaches that the church must actively influence social systems by providing instruction to policy makers and through political intervention. To do this effectively, the church must be reform- minded, and Keller provides two models: a “California Model” and a “New York Model.” The California Model is Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland, “a model of a full-service church.” The New York model is “the East Brooklyn Churches (EBC), a coalition of churches in Brooklyn, New York, [founded] in the early 1980s.” Both are influenced by the Marxist philosophy of Saul Alinsky as described in his book, Rules for Radicals, and the former actively teaches Liberation Theology. For those not familiar with Saul Alinsky, his purpose in Rules for Radicals was to empower the “Have-nots” in their war against the “Haves,” and “to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people” through “revolution.” The two models Keller prescribes to the church have recommended exactly that.
Just as a brief interruption, let’s take a look at Saul Alinsky and, perhaps more importantly, who he dedicated his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ to:
According to its web page, “EBC was founded in September, 1980 in East New York and Brownsville.” The locality is particularly susceptible to leftist initiatives, because communists and the Socialist Party “Sunday Schools” were influential there in the early 1900s. The Sunday Schools were established for the purpose of counteracting the dominant “capitalist culture,” and influenced the efforts of neighborhood organizations to redevelop the area.” The EBC itself “is a citizen organizing project affiliated with the IAF [Industrial Areas Foundation – Editor] training network that Saul Alinsky and his associates established in late 1968.” Its much- lauded low income housing program, the Nehemiah Plan, is fueled by EBC’s ability to pressure the city to condemn other people’s property, seize it through eminent domain, and then give it or sell it to EBC at below market rates. In other words, instead of valuing its neighbor’s property through the price mechanism of the free market, EBC simply covets the property, and pressures the government to move the neighbor’s landmarks, thereby hating the neighbor who owns the property in order to claim that they are loving the one who needs it! EBC’s so- called “gospel of change” is to use Alinsky’s radical methods to advance the Marxist “revolution.”
As the pastor of Allen Temple Baptist Church, J. Alfred Smith, Sr. writes, “Ours are the roots of Black Theology, of Liberation Theology, of the Social Gospel movement.” His most recent book, Sounding the Trumpet, is intended to “nourish the seeds of Jesus’ liberation theology,” and has received praises from Marxist Cornell West. Reverend Daniel A. Buford is the Prophetic Justice Minister at Allen Temple Baptist Church, and “is a founding organizer and trainer of the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond.” The People’s Institute is an organization that trains community organizers using “lessons learned from other organizing models, particularly those led and inspired by Saul Alinsky.” In short, Allen Temple is a socialist church dedicated to Marxist Liberation Theology in the spirit of Saul Alinsky’s revolution.
In his recent work, Generous Justice, Keller correctly identifies God as “a father to the fatherless, a defender of widows,” but then he immediately superimposes a class-system over the narrative: “This is one of the main things he does in the world. He identifies with the powerless, he takes up their cause. It is hard for us to understand how revolutionary this was in the ancient world. Sri Lankan scholar Vinoth Ramachandra calls this ‘scandalous justice.’” What makes the justice of the gospel so scandalous, says Ramachandra, is that it subverts the modern utopias of Marxism and capitalism. It does not, apparently, subvert the modern utopia of Ramachandra’s socialism. He sees the gospel as a socialist utopia that militates against capitalism, because capitalism requires workers to adapt to market forces in order to bring the costs of their labor to market clearing levels—as the Apostle Paul did when he was hungry—either by improving their skills, or by reducing their wages. Specifically, he complains that Indian workers are recruited by Western companies to field telephone inquiries “about a credit balance, an airline schedule, or a malfunctioning dishwasher.” To participate in the global economy, they use Anglicized names, watch US television shows to learn to speak with a familiar accent for their customers, and they do this for less than the employers would have paid Westerners. What Ramachandra leaves out in his complaint is that Indian call center employees who put in this extra effort can triple their earning capacity in the local Indian market. In other words, India has a resource that consumers are willing to buy in a voluntary free market exchange, and the result is the creation of wealth for both parties.
This is more than Ramachandra can stomach, and “the gospel”—at least his socialist utopian version of it—is the only cure for his indigestion. Instead of placing “diverse localities in competition with one another” for business opportunities—that is, to compete in the free market—Ramachandra says the gospel ought to ensure “that the benefits of globalization are more equitably distributed,” without the inconvenience of workers having to adjust their skills to market forces. We would know all this, he says, if we would just sit at the feet of Occupy Wall Street, and communist student leader Camila Vallejo, and learn from them “what following Christ entails.” What Ramachandra says we need is a “transnational mobilisation of grassroots movements” to effect the necessary change in the social order, or to put a finer point on it, a Marxist revolution. This is the “scandalous justice” of the cross that Keller commends to his readers.
Keller continues in Generous Justice by citing Gustavo Gutiérrez: “This emphasis in the Bible has led some, like Latin American theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez, to speak of God’s ‘preferential option for the poor.’ At first glance this seems to be wrong, especially in light of passages in the Mosaic law that warn against giving any preference to rich or poor (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:16–17). Yet the Bible says that God is the defender of the poor; it never says he is the defender of the rich.”
If God had a “preferential option for the poor,” as Gutiérrez describes it, He would have released the captive servant girl and let Naaman, a Syrian general, rot in his leprosy. Instead, Naaman was cured, and kept his slave (2 Kings 5:1-19). God apparently had different priorities than Gutiérrez asserts (Luke 4:27). It is true that the Bible never says God “is the defender of the rich,” but God defends the righteous (Psalm 5:12) and sometimes the righteous are wealthy (Proverbs 13:11)…
… This offends the sensibilities of Gutiérrez who is not merely a “Latin American theologian,” as Keller calls him. He is a Roman Catholic priest and the founder of the Marxist Liberation Theology movement. As is evident from Gutiérrez’s writings, what he calls “God’s preferential option for the poor” is actually just Gutiérrez’ preferential option for Marxism. Gutiérrez writes, “For some, participation in this process of liberation means not allowing themselves to be intimidated by the accusation of being ‘communist.’ On the positive side it can even mean taking the path of socialism…. This transformation ought to be directed toward a radical change in the foundation of society, that is, the private ownership of the means of production.”
In other words, Gutiérrez is a Marxist revolutionary. But Keller takes Gutiérrez’ Marxism and recasts it as the embodiment of God’s zeal for justice. In this context, Keller says that “God injected his concern for justice into the very heart of Israel’s worship and community life” in Deuteronomy 27:19, which curses “anyone who withholds the justice due to the immigrant, the fatherless, and the widow.”82 We will remind the reader here—because Keller does not—that God also injected His zeal for property rights of the owners of the means of production, as well as His antipathy for socialism, “into the very heart of Israel’s worship and community life” in the same chapter: “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen” (Deuteronomy 27:17).”
“In Every Good Endeavor, Keller takes aim at the “idol” of elevating “the interests of one’s own tribe or nation over others,” and calls on Reinhold Niebuhr to help determine the cause: “American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr understood that the tendency to privilege the interests of one’s own tribe or nation over others is due to the ‘cosmic insecurity’ of our sinful hearts.”
Here, Keller draws from Niebuhr’s Gifford Lectures, delivered in 1939, and later published in his opus, The Nature and Destiny of Man. But Niebuhr, as a Marxist, could not conceive of the sin of pride except through that Marxist lens. The sin of pride, he said in the same lecture, “rises to greater heights among those individuals and classes who have a more than ordinary degree of social power.” Society must destroy, he wrote, “the kind of power which cannot be made socially responsible (the power which resides in economic ownership for instance).” In the end, Niebuhr predicted, because of class conflict, capitalism in America “will inevitably be followed by the emergence of the American Marxian proletarian.” He was among the men who “gained control of the Socialist Party in 1936” at which point this “victory for the left of the party” brought it new life. Though he eventually gave up on the Socialist Party, he never gave up on socialism: “Elements of socialist theory continued to play a significant role in his thought as late as 1947 or 1948, but his loyalty to the socialist party ended with Roosevelt’s third-term campaign. … ‘Nothing is more obvious than that socialism must come in America through some other instrument than the Socialist Party.’”
Niebuhr has been called “the supreme American theologian of the twentieth century,” and one gets the impression that Keller holds him in high regard as well. From Counterfeit Gods, alone: “Niebuhr answered…. First, said Niebuhr…. Niebuhr recognized…. Niebuhr argued…. Niebuhr taught…. Niebuhr believed…. Niebuhr says…. Niebuhr argues…. As Niebuhr points out…. If Niebuhr is right….” As we have earlier observed, Marxism itself is founded on the idolatry of covetousness, and it is of no small concern to us that Keller finds in Niebuhr a voice to criticize Western “cultural idols,” but cannot see Niebuhr’s own idolatry for what it clearly is.
In his introduction to Every Good Endeavor, Keller laments the “plethora” of traditions that “give somewhat different answers to the question of how we should go about the task of recapturing vocation.” All these conflicting traditions cannot be resolved in a single book, he writes, but “we do hope to make things clearer.” What Keller has done to “make things clearer” is to recast the Marxist view of work in Christian terms. The Foreword to the book expresses appreciation for how Keller has “applied the gospel to our work lives” over the last 25 years, and that he has “finally taken the time to put these foundations into print.” What Keller reveals to us in Every Good Endeavor, and in his other writings, is that the foundation of his social gospel is Marxism, which is itself founded on covetousness, which is idolatry (Colossians 3:5). Notice the latent covetousness— the idolatry—in Keller’s own thinking as he considers the moral implications of high versus low tax environments:
Highly progressive tax structures can produce a kind of injustice where people who have worked hard go unrewarded and are penalized by the high taxes. A society of low taxes and few benefits, however, produces a different kind of injustice, where the children of families who can afford good health care and elite education have vastly better opportunities than those who cannot.
Keller has created a false dilemma, requiring that we choose between the injustice of confiscatory taxes, or the injustice of inequitable distribution of goods and services. This is how Keller supplies, in Bauer’s words, “a veneer of intellectual respectability to envy and resentment.” The problem with Keller’s reasoning is that the Bible imposes no moral prohibition against one neighbor having more or higher quality goods than another. There is only the moral prohibition against covetousness—something to which Keller is oblivious here. We note at this point that the price mechanism of the free market is what makes the best health care plans and the best schools inaccessible to some people, and therefore prevents promiscuous consumption of scarce resources. As we stated earlier, the Socialist does not appreciate the erection of a moral barrier between his desire and its object. Keller resents it as well.
The Biblical response to the “injustices” Keller identifies is that we have no right to appropriate the property of the wealthy neighbor through progressive taxes and seizure in order to satisfy the consumption preferences of the poor neighbor. Further, the poor neighbor must learn not to covet his neighbor’s goods, his neighbor’s healthcare, his neighbor’s education, his neighbor’s income, “nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s” (Exodus 20:17). Rather, he must “be content with such things as ye have” (Hebrews 13:5).
It does not surprise us, therefore, that Keller redefines covetousness in such a way that it is the economically effective who are guilty of it! He allows Sayers to define productivity as “covetousness,” and he himself defines it as seeking a higher standard of living. Citing Sayers, he writes, “Covetousness rakes us out of the bed at an early hour in order that we may put pep and hustle into our business.” Keller writes elsewhere, “covetousness…is here defined as the continual drive to increase our standard of living.”
The reality of Marxism is that it is based on covetousness, greed, and idolatry, and is an effective way of hating one’s neighbor. That has been demonstrated wherever Marxism is implemented. It simply cannot be fused with Christianity for this reason. As Keller wrote in The Reason for God, he was raised in a conservative Christian environment, but in his formative years he was exposed to the neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt school. He found that the “social activism was particularly attractive, and the critique of American bourgeoisie society was compelling.” Facing the choice between “two camps,” Keller sought “a spiritual third way.” In Every Good Endeavor, he thinks he has found it—he has fused the Gospel of Christ with Marxism in the hopes of creating “a third way.” Unfortunately all he has done is import the idolatry of Marxism into the Church, as if Marxism could be used to institutionalize love of neighbor. Marxism can only institutionalize covetousness, and it is logically impossible to “love thy neighbour” while simultaneously agitating for the government to seize “thy neighbour’s goods” for your use. Yet Keller would have it so.
I hope that was a helpful and enlightening glimpse into the sophisticated level of subversion and deception that the Church is currently facing. If anything, this teaches us that we need to really scrutinize whether what we’re hearing in the church is truly Biblical, or just a Biblical mask for “every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
In his 2008 book, ‘The Reason for God’, Tim Keller wrote that in college he was “heavily influenced by the neo-Marxist critical theory of the Frankfurt School.” If you would like to know more about the sinister Frankfurt School and this dark camp of neo-Marxism to which Keller is referring, and for which he has become a conduit, Click Here To Watch A Brief Documentary (May contain some strong language).