Tim Keller Sermon Forum

Boasting and Self Esteem

2011-11-03T16:07:00.000-04:00

According to Ephesians 2, grace should lead to humility (boasting is excluded). But I (as a professing Christian) know that I am not humble.

I was born in the 1980s: my generation (some call us "millennials") suffers from an utter lack of humility. We were the unique snow flakes who could achieve anything, if we just gave it our all!

This excessive self-esteem means that we live lives of constant boasting. I'm afraid this proves that we have not understood (internalized?) the multi-faceted glories of God's Grace. That grace can only really be understood after a person internalizes the extent of his inadequacy and weakness and failure.

Boasting

2011-11-02T11:12:00.002-04:00

From Tim's sermon on 10/30/2011: "Alive with Christ"

Ephesians 2: 8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast."

Tim's analysis of this passage said that a "boast" is something in which you place your confidence. His analogy was to a warrior in the ancient world, who would look to his chariots and horses and boast about his ability to defeat the enemy. In a similar way, we "boast" and take comfort in our talents or money or relationships, wrongly believing that these will save us.

Tim gave a very powerful illustration from his own life, in which he tended to justify himself and seek comfort and worth from the fact that he is such a hard-working minister. He didn't want to ask his wife to allow him to take a few hours off to do something fun; he wanted her to initiate and suggest that he take a break, because he had been working so hard. He wanted recognition and he wanted his hard work to have earned the break. He had been seeking value and worth on the basis of his hard work, not on the basis of Christ.

But my question is: doesn't the passage suggest that the boaster believes he has achieved salvation without the need for God? Doesn't it suggest a narrow type of religious boasting in which the boaster thinks he is so righteous that he doesn't need grace? Is it really correct to broaden our understanding of boasting to include all ways in which we seek value outside of God? For example, I may seek a feeling of worth and value from my wealth without ever believing that my wealth takes away the need for God's grace.

Ezekiel 2

2011-11-02T10:18:00.003-04:00

This is not a post about a TK sermon...forgive me...

In Ezekiel 2:

The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says.’ And whether they listen or fail to listen—for they are a rebellious people—they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thorns are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or be terrified by them, though they are a rebellious people. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious.

This is only one example, but there seem to be a number of places in scripture where somebody is commanded to preach or prophesy even though the words are not likely to reach receptive ears. Are Christians too concerned with speaking God's word in a way that will make people happy and elicit a positive response? We've been given a gospel and we've been commanded to communicate it.

Stay Tuned

2011-09-08T09:17:00.001-04:00

I plan to start this back up in the fall when Tim starts preaching again...sorry for the long hiatus.

The Prize: Part II

2010-06-18T06:23:00.003-04:00

From Tim's sermon on 5/30/2010: "Self-Control"

1 Corinthians 9:26-27: "Therefore, I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."

Tim's Explanation:

But you know what, Paul’s not the only person that talks about life, for us, being a race. In the book of Hebrews it also says life is like a race, but the book of Hebrews gives us the secret for how you can run in such a way that you’re not disqualified, because in Hebrews chapter 12 we read this: "Let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles and let us run with endurance the race that is marked out for us."

How? “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorned its shame and sat down at the right hand of the thrown of God."

See what the book of Hebrews is saying? If you want to run well, look to Jesus, because he ran well. Jesus was a runner. Jesus left heaven and came to earth and became a human being and he ran the race of being a human being...

Well, why did he run? For the prize! What was the prize? The joy that’s set before him. What was that? What joy did Jesus Christ have to come to earth to win, that he didn’t already have in heaven? Did he come to earth and he ran for the glory of the father? Yeah, but he already was living for the glory of the father...Was he trying to love the father? Yes, of course when he was on earth he loved the father, but he already had that. What prize did he not have that he could only win if he came to earth and ran the race and went to the cross? What’s the answer?

YOU. And me. You are Jesus’ crown, you are Jesus’ glory, you are the most precious thing.

My Question: It seems to me that the image of the prize serves, at the very least, to tell us that something significant is at stake in the competition. It's the difference between a '5k Fun Run' and an Olympic race, where the whole country is rooting for you to win.

My generation (kids of the baby-boomers) has an entitlement problem: we tend to act/think as if God (and everybody else) owes us something, regardless of our actions.

The truth is, we have to run. It's possible to lose. Something great is at stake.

Who is Disqualified for the Prize?

2010-06-17T09:09:00.008-04:00

From Tim's sermon on 5/30/2010: "Self-Control"

1 Corinthians 9:23, 26-27: "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I might share in its blessings...Therefore, I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."

Tim's Explanation:

Now, you think that’s what Paul’s saying? That [salvation is] the prize? That [salvation is] the crown that will last forever? No. Because if that’s what he was saying, that he’s working so hard to be a good Christian...he’s contradicting everything else he’s said anywhere else in the bible, because everywhere, Paul’s always saying: “I am saved in Christ, I am accepted, salvation is a gift, it’s not something I run for..."

Well, then, what is it? See, the goal that will give you self-control...is not just pleasing God, though of course you’re going to please God. It’s not that general, it’s not that abstract. It’s in verse 23. He says: "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

...First of all, the word "share." There are two aspects of this very complex verb that can’t be gotten across with the simple English translation. First of all, the word share means: “Share with others something you already have.” So the first thing he’s saying is “The great passion of my life is not to get salvation, I’ve already got it, but to share the blessings that I’m having.” What Paul’s saying is: “I'm experiencing some kind of bliss, some kind of joy, some kind of beauty, something in the gospel, and I don’t want to enjoy it alone!”

...That’s not all he’s talking about...because this word that can be translated “share” can also be translated “participate,” and what he’s saying is: “I want to participate in the gospel in such a way that all kinds of other people experience the blessings I’m having in it.” What does that mean? And all the commentators are actually in agreement about it: Paul’s trying to say, not simply that he wants to evangelize people...what he’s actually saying is: "I want to so embody the gospel, I want to so participate in the gospel, I want to so reflect the gospel, I want to so display the gospel in my life, that anybody (anybody at all) who looks into my heart, into my life, will see how the gospel operates, will see the beauty that I see in it."

My Question: If Tim is right about the definition of "prize", then who could possibly be "disqualified"? I think Tim is saying that the "prize" is not salvation, but a greater measure of participation/sharing in the gospel. So the hypothetical person who's disqualified has received salvation, but participates/shares in the gospel less than what is theoretically possible, or less than God desires?

I'm sure Paul sought (for himself and others) more than mere conversion, but I'm not sure how this richer scheme fits with the image/metaphor of "disqualification".

Is Self-Control the Same as Freedom?

2010-06-16T14:46:00.006-04:00

From Tim's sermon on 5/30/2010: "Self-Control"

1 Corinthians 9:23-27: "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

Tim's Explanation:

In the list [of fruits of the spirit] in Galatians 5:22-23, it's called self-control. That same Greek word occurs here [in 1 Cor. 9]. It's a little bit hidden by our translation, because the translation says, in verse 25, everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. And literally, that's just a way the translators paraphrased or rendered a phrase that literally says, “Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things.” That's what Paul said and the word for self-control is the same word he uses in Galatians 5, it's the word egkrateia, which means ego, self; krateia, command. Self-control is self-command. And actually, it's a synonym for being free, because if you're not self-controlled, you're out of control and if you're out of control, then you're slave to some other forces.
So to be free and to be self-controlled is the same thing and Paul is using this illustration of the athlete preparing for a game (to compete in a game) to get across the biblical understanding of self-control. Now, we need this because we are not in control. We have trouble controlling our tongues, we have trouble controlling our thoughts, we have trouble controlling our feelings, our impulses, let alone all the millions of addictions that we can also develop like addictions having to do with drink or drugs or sex or spending or gambling or eating disorders or rage.

My Question: Is self-control really the same as freedom? It seems to me that Biblical self-control is taking a new master, i.e. a new set of constraints. Maybe a more nuanced explanation holds that it's impossible to be truly free, so the best we can do is choose the constraints that allow us to live a good/Godly life. Framed that way, it's much better to be a slave to virtue and God, rather than sin, which leads to death.

What is the Heart?

2010-06-15T15:54:00.006-04:00

From Tim's sermon on 5/30/2010: 'Self-Control'

Tim's Explanation:

The bible does not divide human beings into head and heart, into faculties like mind and emotions. In fact, if you read the bible carefully, you'll often be confused, because there're many places where it talks about 'thinking from the heart,' and that's because when the bible uses the word heart, it does not mean what we mean in the English language by heart.

The heart was the center of the personality, according to the Bible. And it was the place where your fundamental commitments existed. It's the metaphor for your fundamental trusts and commitments. And, see, what you think and what you feel and what you decide all flow from the heart, because whatever you most trust, whatever you most love, whatever your heart is most passionately trusting and loving in, sets the course for everything else, and if your heart's divided...and you actually don't have one single, over-mastering passion, then your life is going to be out of control, there're going to be all kinds of problems...
My Question: I am increasingly seeing that self-control is my central struggle on a daily basis. Tim's sermon from 5/30 deals with this in great detail, and I'll post about it over the next few days, but I think this portion gets to the heart of the matter: self-control is impossible without one "over-mastering passion."
But is it possible to have that kind of life-ordering passion for God himself? It's must easier for me to find that passion for lesser things.

The Bleeding Woman

2010-06-14T18:33:00.012-04:00

From Tim's sermon on 6/6/2010: 'Money and the Woes of Jesus'

Mark 5:30: "At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, "Who touched my clothes?""

Tim's explanation:

I love all the places where Jesus heals people and makes them whole by losing strength, by losing power. Remember that place in Mark 5, verse 30, where the woman with the hemorrhage touches him...he's just going through the crowd and she just walks goes over and touches him and she's healed, and he says "Power has gone out from me, who touched me?". It's pointing to the cross! The way we get whole is that Jesus gets broken. The way we get strength is that he gets weak. The way we get power is that he loses power. In other words, Jesus Christ, all these woes fell upon him. You know, he was perfectly rich, but he became poor so that we might become rich. He was perfectly happy and he became a man of sorrows so we could have eternal joy. He was perfectly in and loved and he became an outcast. He was persecuted, he was destroyed so that we could be brought into the family of god forever. That's how we know, that's how we can be certain.

My question: Tim's interpretation of this passage is very interesting...I suppose it has implications for the doctrine that Jesus was fully God and fully man. If Jesus can 'lose power', then even his miraculous healing ability has a human component. But does the text give us good reason to think that Jesus really lost something when the power left him?

Are Christians More Charitable?

2010-06-14T13:57:00.013-04:00

From Tim's sermon on 6/6/2010: 'Money and the Woes of Jesus'

Luke 6:23: "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets."

Tim's Explanation:

Verse 23, in its context, with all this talk about the poor and all that, is a complete refutation of Karl Marx. Because Karl Marx said, "Oh, you don't want to tell people about they're gonna go to heaven some day, that's the opium of the people. They're not going to work for justice in the world, they're not going to make the world a better place if you tell them they're gonna have pie in the sky by and by." Karl Marx says, "No no no, that idea of heaven means that you're not going to work for justice here," and that's just not true. Somebody wrote it this way years ago: "This text, Luke 6, shows that Karl Marx is wrong, think about this: ...if this world is all there is and all my comfort must be found in this life, then if fighting injustice means I lose my job or lose my reputation or lose my life, I'm not gonna do it, I can't do it because this life and its wealth is the only life and wealth I've got." I'm not gonna fiercely fight injustice if it means I'm gonna get killed, because this is it! This is all I've got! But if this life, this wealth and this material comfort I've got, is not all there is. If I've got something waiting for me guaranteed at the end of time, then I'm free to blow the whistle, I'm free to make waves, I'm free to stand up for injustice, even though it costs me. So the gospel is not the opium of the people, it's more like the smelling salts.

My Question: I've heard non-Christians make the argument that the existence of a heaven 'incentive' actually renders the charitable actions of Christians worthless. They will say something like this: "If you need the idea of a God (plus heaven and hell) to help others and work for justice, then your motivation must have been impure all along."

Tim makes a practical argument that those who can't hope for heaven are too selfish to act charitably. The non-Christian may respond by pointing to actual good works performed by the irreligious and claiming that those works are supported by a morally superior motivation. Whose argument is more compelling?

Blessed are the Poor; Must we be Poor?

2010-06-13T22:53:00.010-04:00

From Tim's sermon on 6/6/2010: 'Money and the Woes of Jesus'

Luke 6: 20-23: "Looking at his disciples, he said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.'"

Tim's explanation:

He says 'blessed are the poor, the hungry, the greiving, and the excluded.' Now, what does that mean?

Now, some people say “It's simple, what it's saying here is Christians are people who seek those things, that's it.” But it's a little too simple. Not only does that not fit in with the way in which he spoke to people (he spoke to the rich young ruler, he said give all your money away; he spoke to Zacchaeus, and he was happy with fifty percent; other people, he never brought it up, even some wealthy people like Nicodemus.) If somebody takes that and says, “Jesus is saying you must not be successful if you're a Christian, you must not be popular if you're a Christian, you gotta be persecuted, you gotta be poor," it's difficult to square that with everything else in the Bible.

And besides that, I have to tell you, the few people who I've ever met who believe that...what would motivate you to say, “As a Christian I'm going to seek to be persecuted, I'm going to seek to be poor”? What would motivate you? One thing that would motivate you is pride, so that you feel noble, better than all those comfortable Christians. You're a real christian! Or, another motivation would be fear. I'm afraid of having things, I'm afraid of recognition, I'm afraid of success. Which means they're still, to some degree, controlling you.

Now, Jesus isn't saying that Christians seek poverty and seek persecution. What is he saying? You get a little bit of a hint of it when you try to compare the woes and the blessings. You know when Jesus says “woe are you who are successful”, "woe to the successful," ...what is he saying? He's saying: though success looks good on the surface, it really can be a source of terrible woe. So when he says 'blessed are you who are poor, blessed are you who are persecuted, blessed are you who are grieving,' he's saying the same thing. He's saying 'on the surface, these look awful, but they actually can be a source of blessing.'

[later...]

You see, the way you can tell the difference between a person who's in jesus' kingdom and a person who's in the world's kingdom is that...when the poverty hits, when the persecution hits, when the grief hits, it's not the end of the world, we can grow, we can deal with it, we can even value the experience of suffering, because we know it's going to produce something in us.

**********

My question: is that really all Jesus is saying? Tim almost makes it sound as if Jesus has no preference between the rich and the poor. But it's harder for the rich to get into heaven, right? (Matthew 19:24) And Jesus basically healed, spent time with, and entrusted his ministry to the poor, right? , Jesus pronounces judgment on those that fail to help the poor. (Matthew 25:41-45) Jesus even says, at one point, "any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:33) Tim's interpretation seems to be that poor versus rich is beside the point, and Jesus' true priority is the state of your heart with respect to God. Is he right?

I Pity You, Says Jesus

2010-06-12T03:30:00.007-04:00

From Tim's sermon on 6/6/2010: 'Money and the Woes of Jesus'

Luke 6: 24-26: "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.”

Tim's Explanation:

Verses 24-26 pronounce woes on a certain way of life. When you see the word “woe”, you might think he's talking about (the word woe means) condemned: you're condemned or you're cursed. But that's not true. Because, when someone in olden days used to say “woe is me” the person was not condemning himself, but was pitying himself. And the word “woe” means “alas”. Jesus is expressing pity for people who are living in this way. He's saying 'Oh you have no idea what's going to happen to you'.

Now, what is this way? What are these priorities? What are the values of the world's kingdom? What Jesus is pronouncing a woe on are four things. He's saying 'woe are you if you prize and if you make a priority four things: power, comfort, success, and recognition'.

See, first of all power. Woe to you who are rich. Riches isn't the only form of power, but it's one of the main ones: getting power over people, power over your life, power over the world. Secondy, it says 'woe to you who are well-fed.' It's a word that literally means to have your physical desire satiated, full. Thirdly, woe to you who laugh. Now, wait. That looks like he's saying woe to you who are happy. But that's not what he's saying, because the word “laugh” is a Greek word that means to gloat and it means to gloat because you've won. So he's actually saying, 'woe to those who make a priority of, set their hearts on: power, comfort, success, and recognition.' Woe to you when all men speak well of you: celebrity, recognition, acclaim.

Now, you say: wait a minute! Is he saying woe to anybody who has those things? No, you heard me say the kingdom of this world is seen in that these are bottom line identities. The way we know that is verse 24. It says 'woe to you who are rich for you have already received your comfort.' That's the word paraklesis, and it's a very important Greek word in the New Testament. It means deep consolation, deep solace and comfort, but it's a word that Jesus uses to describe the Holy Spirit. So you're a member of this world, not necessarily if you're successful. He's not putting a woe on anybody who happens to be successful or who happens to be acclaimed. What he's actually saying is when these things are your comfort, when these things are your bottom line identity, if these are the things that you live for.

You may believe in God, you may believe in Christianity, you may come to Redeemer and take notes in the sermons, but if you're actually living for power and comfort and success and recognition, you're a member of the kingdom of this world. And, he says, if you set your heart on these things this way, they will disappoint you, because though you are well-fed now, you will go hungry. Though you laugh now, you will mourn and weep. He doesn't explain that. He doesn't say when that's gonna happen: this life, next life, whatever. What he's actually saying is that if you set your heart on these things, if they're your comfort, they're your pereklesis, they're the deepest consolation you have, you will be disappointed. I pity you, says Jesus.

Test

2010-04-26T02:42:00.000-04:00

Test.