Tim Keller Was Impossible to Pin Down

In a Twitter exchange that was the focus of his Conversations that Matter podcast titled “Understanding Tim Keller’s “Social Justice” (posted on You Tube on August 21, 2020), Jon Harris sought to challenge Dr. Tim Keller on some statements he knew he’d made in the past that are indeed compatible with Marxism. Mr. Harris found Keller impossible to pin down. Watch the entire video when you have time, but until then, listen to a portion of what Jon said about the complete exchange.

Mr. Harris found Keller impossible to pin down.

I don’t think we’re getting at the crux of the matter here, because the crux of the matter is Where is the obligation? Where is it coming from? And why is there an obligation to give to people who are quote-unquote poor? Why is there an obligation?

I don’t think we’re getting at the crux of the matter here.
—podcaster Jon Harris on Tim Keller’s responses in their Twitter exchange—

If you want to say that because God wants us to be merciful to others, then, absolutely — I’m with you all day on that. If you’re saying [it’s] because they have a moral right to your stuff because it’s somehow been stolen from them or its not fair that you worked harder and have more or, you know, somehow there were barriers that they had that you didn’t have and therefore it belongs to them — as soon as you start using that kind of language — [I’m] not with you anymore on that. And I don’t know how you escape that kind of thing being coerced. If it’s stealing, then someone’s, in the normal course of events, if something’s stolen, the police come, they rectify the situation. They bring true justice. If you start using that language, then what’s to keep you from sliding into, well, yeah, you should impose some kind of a redistribution. I just don’t think you have an answer for it anymore.

This is what I said to Tim Keller.

You’ve compared failing to share with the poor to robbery, injustice, and failing to meet an obligation owed, because they have a right to things that they need not granted to them due to inequitable distribution. I’m not sure how adding God makes this morally better.

Now I thought my point was clear. I’m saying, these are the moral things that you’re — and I’m taking [them] all from primary sources that I have with Keller. These are all things you’ve said — and — so you’re basically saying, you’re saying robbery! You’re saying that they haves have taken from the have nots, in some way, or there’s some kind of immoral — it’s immoral that they have more than other people. I’m not with you on that. That’s not immoral. That’s what I’m trying to say. I’m saying this parallels Marxist theory. I don’t see how it doesn’t. I’m not saying you’re a Marxist, but there’s some shared ideas here, somehow, or maybe there’s a coincidence, right? But I don’t know how adding God and our responsibility to God to give to the poor makes this morally any better.

So he says, he says, Respectfully, I’m not adding God to some existing secular system or account of human behavior or of morality. I hope to be building a way of doing justice around what God commanded and required.

So his defense is: I’m not starting with a secular system. That’s not my starting point. I’m just trying to look at what the Bible says and grapple with that. To which I would — if I kept this going, which I didn’t, I would say, OK, where do you get this idea that it’s somehow immoral to have more? That’s robbery to the poor. That’s what I would ask him. Give me the Bible verses on this, and let’s have a Bible study. But I didn’t want to keep going back and forth. He was gracious enough of him to give me my time, and so I just — well, I’ll show you how he ends it, and it was kind of a way out.

He says, My last article is coming out, [and it] goes into further depth on this. Many of the things I’m saying assume a number of background theological beliefs that obviously many don’t share with me. But in the footnotes, I will speak to these background issues, at least to make them more visible, and he tells what that’s going to be. So, basically he’s saying, I’ve got an article coming out — I’m going to address this further. And so my response was just that I look forward to it. And he liked it. He liked my comment when I said I looked forward to it.

And so I think that was a very pleasant exchange, but honestly, like, I don’t think…I…we were talking past each other. I don’t think Keller was going to the root issues of what I was bringing up.

Now, interestingly, this is…he tweets later, Talking about oppression, justice, etc doesn’t make one a Marxist. It makes one a student of the Bible. So he doubles down on that. To which, again, I’ve already given you my critique, but, like, talk about, like, not engaging the actual issues here, and talk about not ever giving an explanation for the [original] quote on Marx and on followers of Marx. And today he’s putting out more on, he says, If you’re looking for longer treatment from tweets yesterday, I go into more detail here. And so, I’ve read this article; I did a whole review on this article, so clearly, this has been on his mind, both yesterday and today, and again, I think he was respectful. I appreciate it. I think it was a good back-and-forth.

This page is part of a larger Word Foundations article.