J.D. Greear and Tim Keller Keep Carrying Water for the Left

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. My name is John Harris. We're gonna talk a little bit about J .D.

Greer and Tim Keller today, and this won't surprise anyone who has listened regularly to this podcast, at least, but more compromising, in my opinion, more showing true colors, really,

I think is what it is, more exposing and showing true colors, because the tweet I'm about to show you from J .D.

Greer, I have a feeling that he would not have shared it while he was the president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I could be wrong. He shared a bunch of other things while he was president of the Southern Baptist Convention. I don't know that he would have shared this one.

I'm not sure, and I'll highlight why I think that is. Tim Keller, we're gonna spend a lot more time on.

He has congratulated the chief of chaplains at Harvard University. The appointment was,

I believe, last week, early last week, and he's a personal friend with him. Not only that, he actually voted for him to be in that position, and then publicly went out and congratulated him.

A lot of people thought this is insane. An atheist chaplain? I mean, this sounds like an oxymoron, and Keller tries to defend it.

So let's go through his logic. Let's see what he's using to try to defend this, and I'm gonna evaluate what

I, I'm gonna at least analyze what I think the issue actually is, why people are actually upset about this, because there's all kinds of other religions that Christians would consider to be false religions represented at Harvard.

I mean, would there have been an outrage if it was another religion? There might have been against him, Keller. Why are you voting for a

Hindu chaplain or a Muslim chaplain or something like that? But I think it's, it's more, it seems more absurd, and I think there's more outrage over this, in a way, just because we haven't actually really gone there.

As a society, this is kinda like the, for years, really, since at least the 50s, and really it's before that, but I think since JFK, if I really wanna put a line there, that we had a

Catholic president, and ever since then, there's been kind of this really strong current towards ecumenicism, and of course, there was that strong current in the mainline denominations much earlier,

World Council of Churches, right? But I think society overall, there's just, the attitude is that there's really no difference between denominations.

It's ecumenical, there's really, as long as you're a good person, right? That's kind of the American, the majority of Americans respect the

Bible, but they think, as long as you're a good person, religion works for you, that's good, that's good for you.

So, I mean, that's a problem, that's a compromise, that's bad, that's wrong thinking, that's not biblical thinking, but I think there's always been this idea that you need some kind of divine command, you need some kind of standard to appeal to that's transcendent, that's rooted in religion.

You don't have that in atheism. Why would we bring atheism into religion?

And you get these stories from Europe about atheist pastors and things like that.

I know in Germany a few years ago, and it was like, people were making fun of it. Like, how can you be an atheist and pastor?

Like, wouldn't you wanna find another line of work? I thought atheists were supposed to be scientists or something, right? And so this is, it's an interesting phenomenon because it dilutes religion in general.

I'm just talking, I'm not talking from a Christian. I mean, look, Christianity itself has been diluted for years and years and years.

We've been the boiling frog in a way. And really through immigration and through other religions being adopted in this country, that's just taken place.

But this next jump, it's a bigger jump in a way because you're just saying that in the category of religion, of transcendence and divine, moral,

I guess the basic quality that most people look at for religion, even if they're not Christians, divine moral guidance, you can put an atheist in there.

You don't need God for that either. So then what's the purpose of religion? What's the point? Why even have it? Why even have chaplains?

Why not just have counselors, right? So this is kind of, I think, what people are, one of the things that people are just like outraged at.

And then the second thing is just that Keller's a Christian pastor. Why is he endorsing any of this? We're gonna evaluate it.

We're gonna go through it. So I'm gonna blow this up for you. So you can see some of the things I've gathered here to show you about the situation.

And then we'll go through Keller's article. So first, J .D. Greer, J .D. Greer. This is what he retweeted on September 1st.

It is a quote, and look, Christopher Cuomo was the one who retweeted this, Chris Cuomo.

And he says, thoughts, he asked the question. And here it is. It's from the Occupy Democrats.

Yeah, so these are like radically left -leaning socialists right here, the Occupy Democrats, right?

They're about as far left as you get. And this is what they posted. This is from a law professor at Washington and Lee University, Carlis Chapman, and she said this.

If a fetus is a person at six weeks pregnant, is that when the child's support starts?

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U .S. citizen? Can I insure a six -week fetus and collect if I miscarry?

Just figuring, if we're going there, we should go all in. Now, J .D.

Greer reposted this. And what he said is, yes, yes, and yes, only one way to do this, all in for life, nothing else is logically coherent.

Now, I'm gonna evaluate this, and J .D. Greer may not have any knowledge of this, but I wanna show you the source of this. Here's the tweet from May 9th, 2019.

She says what I just read. If a fetus is a person, you should be able to get child support, you can't deport the mother, and you can insure the fetus.

Here's what she followed it up with. Here's the second tweet. Since so many folks are on this thread, I'd like to encourage you to make a donation to my favorite

Planned Parenthood affiliate, as evidenced by the latest legislation affiliates in the

South face an especially difficult challenge. She's saying, look, these Planned Parenthood places in the

South, it's difficult down there. Please donate to them. What is this revealing? Let me just ask you, what do you think this is revealing?

Who says this? If they're valuing life, if they're pro -life, why would they just, the follow -up tweet is, hey, make a donation to Planned Parenthood, because, because this isn't about being pro -life, that's why, this has nothing to do with being pro -life, this is mocking pro -life, and J .D.

Greer fell for it. That's all this is. It is making a mockery out of the pro -life movement. Let's go back to the original post by the

Occupy Democrats, who are not concerned with pro -life in the least. If a fetus is a person at six weeks pregnant, is that when the child supports starts?

All right, so you can go get, I guess, extra food stamps. You can get government help to, and by the way,

I believe there already is government help for that kind of thing. If you're, but it would be the pregnant mother.

It doesn't fall under the purview of the baby. The baby is, because they're not born yet, the category that the pregnant mother and the baby fall into is, it's the pregnant mother.

The pregnant mother is the one completely and totally keeping that baby alive. By the genius of God and the way he designed the body of the pregnant mother.

After the mother brings the baby into the world, the baby is not being kept alive by the mother involuntarily, it is voluntary at that point.

And the mother has to actually go out and feed the baby. And there's a difference between those two things.

There's a recognition, there has been in Western societies for centuries, that the mother, when she is pregnant, is to be respected.

In fact, it used to be, if you went back in time, even probably 50 years, maybe to some extent today in certain areas in the

South and Midwest, you might still see it. Where there's respect and deference given to pregnant mothers. You give them the seat, you open the door for them.

There's special parking places for them, even today, in some places in the South, like grocery stores. There's a general respect that's given there.

And it's because you recognize she's got an obstacle in a way to her walking and just basic things she could do if she didn't have a baby, but she's making a sacrifice to help that baby, to feed that baby.

There's a symbiotic relationship between the two and they're both persons. And there's something very significant about this.

So there's a recognition, it's a baby, but at the same time, it's completely dependent on the mother, not the state at that point.

So it's the mother that is the significant entity in that arrangement.

So to make a statement like this, well, hey, she should be able to get child support. Well, yeah, there's already, some of that's already available.

But there's a difference between when the baby's born and when the baby is involuntarily in the mother's body, relying on the mother directly for its nutrients.

And the Lord made it that way. It gets more, that, okay, all right, we'll give it a pass a little bit, but still it's kind of like tongue in cheek.

You're kind of poking fun at the pro -life people, but it gets worse. Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a

US citizen? Now, this is absurd. It's been codified in our law. Even in the constitution, you will find this, but in the 14th

Amendment, you'll certainly find. It's based on birth. Natural born citizen, right, is the category that someone must be if they are to run for president of the

United States, for instance. It's all based on birth. Someone who was born in the United States. Now, there's some challenges to whether or not this can actually apply to an illegal migrant, but let's sidestep that.

What she's saying, what she's suggesting here is that if someone crosses the border and they're just pregnant, should they, six weeks pregnant, can you deport them?

Well, they shouldn't be able to be deported at that point, I guess, because they have an American citizen because by nature of crossing a line, a geographic line, that person is now an

American citizen. Now, this is kind of absurd. If you're going to take this to its logical conclusion, then I guess it really would mean that anyone conceived in the

United States is an American citizen. And at conception, you'd have to, I guess, they'd get some kind of documentation to prove they're an

American citizen or something. It's always been done at birth. You don't know if the baby's going to always make it to birth.

But again, there's sort of this respect for and this recognition of it's the mother who is keeping that baby alive.

And when the baby is born, that's when a lot of the significant things happen. It doesn't mean it's not a baby yet.

It just means that that's when there's a recognition that the baby is in the world now.

The baby is having to breathe on its own. The baby is now going to be raised in a home in which the parents will support the baby, but it's voluntary, it's not involuntary.

And this has just been the habit and the tradition for centuries in the

United States and Western cultures in general. That's the point at which birth certificates are issued. It's eight days after that, right?

Even in the Old Testament, when circumcision occurs. Birth is a very significant moment.

Don't take away from that. And that's, I think, part of the just absurdity of this is someone could cross the border and if it's found that they have a baby, you can't deport that person.

So this is a wedge issue used to try to say, ha ha, if you're pro -life, then you have to support illegal aliens who come across that have pregnant babies, are pregnant and have babies and you can't deport them yet.

That's the whole issue here. She says, can I insure a six week fetus and collect if I miscarry?

And that's a very impersonal thing to say in a way about insuring your children, I guess, insuring a six week fetus.

I mean, this is just, it's kind of a weird concept in my mind that you would even wanna do that.

It seems kind of impersonal. But she's, again, the whole point of this is to mock pro -lifers.

And she's just figuring if we're going there, we should go all in. And that's the whole point, guys. That's the whole point.

He's saying, if we're gonna be pro -life during Donald Trump's presidency, if we're gonna try to protect babies in the womb, then guess what?

You gotta be able to insure them. You gotta be able to issue more food stamps or whatever, more child support.

And the most absurd of all, you need to allow any illegal migrant who happens to be pregnant to basically stay here because you know what?

They're carrying a citizen of the United States. Automatic citizenship if you cross the border and you're pregnant, apparently, for the baby.

So J .D. Greer just goes all in on this. Yes, yes, and yes. Only one way to do this. That's the only way.

Nothing else is logically coherent. Do you realize that no one in the centuries of Christian tradition then was logically coherent?

No one. I mean, no political thinker, no pastor, none of them.

They were all, I mean, look, is J .D. Greer even consistent? I mean, did he? He got a birth certificate,

I guess, when his kids probably were born, I'm guessing, right? He didn't go, it wasn't before that. So this is just, it's absurd, it's stupid.

But it's J .D. Greer. What's the purpose? Why do this? Why be this absurd? Even when he's not even, this isn't something that he probably would even think of or follow in his own life.

Why in the world would he go this direction? And I submit to you,

I think the reason is very obvious. It's because it's the occupied Democrats. It's Chris Cuomo. It's showing that, hey, look,

I'm not like these people, these maybe pro -lifers you're mocking. I'm actually consistent.

I'm all in for life, as he puts in his hashtag there. And really what he's doing, he's just falling for someone who's advocating

Planned Parenthood, advocating absurdity on purpose, and trying to point out supposed contradictions in order to say, you know what, this pro -life thing, not workable, not realistic.

In fact, pro -choice makes more sense. That's really the point. And so J .D.

Greer just, you know, there's a lot better way to make this point if you're a pastor who's got a platform than to repost

Chris Cuomo and occupied Democrats and a pro -choice, pro -abortion law professor from Washington and Lee.

A lot better ways to do it, right, than going to people who are actively supporting murder and evil.

So wanted to just briefly mention that to you. And then to go here, because we're gonna kind of make the transition to Tim Keller, but as I was looking through some slides,

I came across this, I forgot about it. And I wanted to just point it out. It's kind of, you know, something that already was talked about, but Votie Bockham, right, was accused of plagiarism because of some block quotes.

And, you know, the format looked like a block quote. It looked like, oh, he's got in his book some quotations he's using in a block quote format, and yet he's adding commentary.

So that's, he's adding to what the author said in a block quote. And Tim Keller, by the way, and it's from his book,

Every Good Endeavor, does this constantly. And this is what I wanted to just show you.

Someone pointed this out to me, page 249. He has an itemized list of certain principles.

He says it's about Christians and the Lord's Supper. And so he's going through, and in this, he quotes scripture.

So there's a mixture of quoting scripture and then Tim Keller's own comments in a block quote format. It happens, there's more block quote formats where he quotes other people, page 14 and 15 of the book.

So anyway, I just wanted to point this out to you that if you wanna go after Votie for it, you gotta go after Tim Keller for it.

But who wants to go after Tim Keller for it, right? Or at least, at the very least, there's a similarity here that no one seems to care about when it's

Tim Keller. So it just shows you kind of the people going after Votie for this. Didn't notice it in a

Tim Keller book that's been very popular for a number of years. Yeah, okay, all right. All right, so here's the main attraction, what we're gonna be talking about today.

Tim Keller tweeted this, congratulations, Greg, on your appointment to Greg Epstein.

Greg is a friend whom I have debated, and while I don't agree with him on many things, I do wish him well. And what was the appointment to was the head of the chaplains at,

I believe it was Harvard. And so I wanna just read for you some things. So take me 30 seconds, right?

Greg Epstein, is he pro -life? Is he pro -abortion? He's pro -abortion. In fact, he just won the best team costume dance competition at an

Abortion Access Triathlon. That was in 2012. 2015, I'm extremely committed to LGBT inclusion.

It's just as much as a humanist value as feminism. So he's a humanist, he's an atheist, and I didn't do a lot of searches, but I'm like, yeah, okay, he supports some evil here that Christians would consider evil, the

Bible would consider evil. And here's the real issue here. Here's the main thing I wanted to focus on,

I wanted to show you. Humanist Canada, Greg Epstein is a humanist chaplain and rabbi, spokesperson, advisor, and author.

He's the humanist chaplain at Harvard and MIT, and was recently named president of the Harvard chaplains in a landmark decision.

Now here's the thing, guys, why is this a landmark decision? Why is humanist Canada celebrating this if it's no big deal?

If it's just, hey, it's just like putting a Catholic there or anyone else, why is this a landmark decision?

We know why, it's pushing the envelope even farther. That's why. It is injecting atheism and humanism into the category of religion, giving them some access to,

I guess, probably funds at Harvard for this, but also, and more importantly, giving them credibility.

That's what it's all about, giving atheism credibility. It's just as good at helping people navigate the life decisions and problems they have and moral dilemmas as religion is.

In fact, being good, being a good person, you know, atheism provides the answers to that just as much as any of these other religions do.

That's kind of what's going on. That's why it's a landmark decision. That's why this is new. That's why this is pioneer work for the atheists.

And humanist Canada is very proud of this. So they put a little quote there from his book, Good Without God, What a

Billion Non -Religious People Do Believe. I mean, this is actually offensive stuff. You mean good without God?

I mean, yeah, because God wired you, but the point is to try to build a moral system without God at all.

Sarah Levin, I'm always proud to be an atheist, but I'm holding my head just a bit higher today.

Here's hoping that atheist inclusion and leadership, all caps, exclamation point, in interfaith spaces becomes a norm rather than the exception.

Representation matters. So this got a lot of traction too. Here's the key phrase, holding my head just a bit higher.

This is why they're celebrating. Look, I can be proud, more proud today than I was yesterday. We're more accepted now.

This is more mainstream now. Atheism is making inroads now. This is about the promotion of atheism and humanism.

This is about the denigration. And look, there ain't no mistake. Atheism, humanism, this is the denigration of religion.

This is religion doesn't matter. God doesn't matter. This is, you don't need God. Relegate it to, it's just a hobby.

At the very, at the best construction you can put on it, it's a hobby to go to church.

That's where we're going here. And the logic now, or the thinking at places like Harvard, and now it's becoming more mainstream, is that it makes no difference whether you believe in God or not, none whatsoever.

That's why this is a landmark decision. That's why Sarah Levin's holding her head higher. That's why this is significant.

And that's why when Tim Keller says, congratulations on the appointment, people got upset.

It's exactly why. Here's religion's news service.

Supposed to be a Christian outlet, I thought. Mary Ellen Geis, who's the

Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at Interfaith Youth Corps. This is what she says. There are better ways to approach our cultural struggles over belief and values rather than assume we're trapped in a zero -sum game.

We can and need to build our skills for empathy. We can welcome the celebrations of the humanists who finally feel represented, and we can appreciate another step forward toward inclusion for all.

We can also sit alongside the Christians who lament the implications of this choice, seeking to understand the beliefs that inform this view.

We can maintain our own perspectives while respecting the authenticity and sincere motivation of others. As his friend,

I'm celebrating with and for Greg, but I'm listening and seeking to understand. I learned that from Greg.

So what's this person? This is the, by the way, I saw a bunch of other reactions similar to this. They are, they're sort of like a celebration of their own.

The Christian's saying, hey, look, we can maintain our perspectives. We can, while also respecting this authenticity.

And look, it's a lie, guys. Atheism's a lie. That's the thing.

Like Christianity teaches this, right? What's the beginning of wisdom? Fear of the Lord. What's denying

God? I mean, it's the most basic form of rebellion, denying your creator. Romans 1. And you're gonna call that authentic and sincere?

This is truth suppression according to the Bible that Christians say they believe in. It's truth suppression.

But somehow that's authentic, that's sincere. We can welcome the celebrations of the humanists who finally feel represented.

Because that's the only important thing now. This is social justice stuff, guys. This is the equity, diversity, inclusion. That's why it always gives way to ecumenism as well.

This whole everyone needs to be included, it leads towards a bland, meaningless, one -world kind of religion.

Yeah, you can respect someone who's an atheist because they're made in God's image. And despite the fact that they think they can be good without God, we know they can't.

They get morality from somewhere. You can work with an atheist on certain things, towards certain objectives.

Look, James Lindsay's an atheist. He's explained critical theory for a lot of Christians out there.

Does it mean that we're gonna trust him on other things? I mean, he's done homework on critical theory.

He can explain it. Is he, he may know a lot about Marxists, about postmodernists.

He doesn't have wisdom, though, the wisdom from above. And we can't go there. We can be friends with someone like that.

But to put them in a place where they're the chief chaplain, it's weird for one thing, but it's strategic, guys.

It's strategic. There's a plan behind this. And it is to, it is the dismantling of what

Harvard's original purpose was. Harvard was started as blatantly a

Christian institution. Blatantly. No more. In fact,

I'll look it up real quick because I can't remember off the top of my head. Let's see, I'll search for it here.

I'll duck -duck -go it. Harvard's original motto. What was it?

Let's see, it comes right up. Truth for Christ and the Church. Truth for Christ and the

Church. Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae. That's what

Harvard, that's the trajectory here. And now that place has an atheist that's the head, not a chaplain, the head of the chaplains there.

So with all that having been said, let's work through this article that Tim Keller shared. At first,

I thought Tim Keller actually wrote this, but no, he shared it on Twitter. It was another guy named Pete Williamson, I guess, who

Tim Keller works with. And he shared it, or he wrote it on Christianity Today.

And so this is not written by Tim Keller, but Tim Keller agrees with this. He tweeted it out and basically said, if you want a more in -depth analysis, this is where you go.

The subject is why I voted for the atheist president of Harvard's chaplain group by Pete Williamson.

Subtitle, participating in interfaith work at the Ivy League University is a help, not a hindrance to the exclusivist claims of the

Christian faith. So he's basically saying, look, you got this all wrong, guys. I support the exclusivist claims of Christianity.

Only one way to God, that's Jesus. And it's for that reason I voted for the atheist. That's where we're at, guys.

All right, so let's go through some of this. It says the New York Times ran a provocative piece stating that the new president of the

Harvard chaplains is an atheist. Well, he is. And I mean, did we misunderstand something?

No, we didn't. Pete Williamson, okay. He doesn't contradict that, but he is an atheist. Greg Epstein was elected unanimously.

And he's one of this gentlemen, is one of the people who voted for him. For seven years, I've worked at Harvard.

Why would I vote for an atheist to lead the chaplains? The answer lies in the unique decentralized approach of the Harvard chaplains.

And I don't wanna bore everyone to tears, so I'm gonna try to skim this and read at the same time. The real Harvard chaplains group, not the one poorly represented in the media, tells a different, a significant story of how evangelicals can flourish in interfaith spaces without compromising faith.

Okay, that's all high sounding good stuff, but where's the meat here? In response to the

New York Times profile, that many Christians and conservatives were upset about this.

They said there's a rising tide of secularism. They're concerned that even faith spaces will be ruled by secularists should

Harvard have its way. Yeah, I mean, I guess that's a reasonable, I mean, that's what the atheists are thinking.

They're like, hey, look at the prominent position we just got. He says, had

I not been in the room, I might have thought the same thing. It was a Zoom call. Of course it was a Zoom call. And Greg Epstein was voted in as the humanist chaplain.

Let's see, there's no meat here yet. Some media outlets have called him the chief chaplain. Okay, so he's getting into the meaningless stuff.

Who cares whether he's the chief chaplain or what's the word here? President.

So there's no difference between chief chaplain or president. Oh, the big difference there, this is not.

These aren't significant things here. Okay, let's keep going here. These reports fail to appropriately portray.

So he's saying everyone's misunderstanding. No one understands what's really going on. They're casting stones. They don't know what they're throwing them at.

He says, look, we are a consensus -based community and that somehow matters to this whole thing.

The president is chosen from among us. Okay, good. So all the religious people voted for the atheist. Chaplain presidents are chosen not to reflect whose tradition is ascendant.

They are an indicator of a bold new vision of Harvard chaplains. They get selected because they are trusted and competent members of our group.

So he's saying, look, this is all a meritocracy. This guy, Epstein, he's really good at what he does.

He's really good at being a chaplain, even though he doesn't believe in God. And that somehow really helps the exclusivist claims of Christianity.

You're tying yourself up in pretzels here trying to figure this stuff out. He's well -equipped for the role.

We should elect a meat eater as the president of the vegetarian society. Let's go to PETA and be like, look, we got this.

We want to make Ted Nugent the poster child for PETA. I mean, look, this is about inclusion, right?

I mean, come on. And who would write an article saying, look, the reason I voted for Ted Nugent is because I think he'll help us with our commitment to protecting animals and animal rights, et cetera.

Okay, so much of this, he's basically insinuating people have a nostalgia for the past and that's part of the reason that they're upset about this.

So it's like, hey, get over it, guys, basically, right? He doesn't say that, but you got shallow concerns about this.

Here he admits that there might be some significant merit to evangelicals who fear that interfaith spaces, let's see, might forsake exclusive claims like that Christianity is the only way.

But he basically tries to argue against that. He said, I used to harbor this fear, but not anymore because look, this is an interfaith work and it brings together theological liberals and progressives of various religions to share, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

In my experience, I've seen interfaith spaces increasingly realize the limits of excluding people who hold exclusivist claims.

So he's like, look, we're included. That's the bottom line here. Look, the Christians are still included. We should be so thankful. And the chaplain, at the place that was first instituted because it was about truth for the church, we should just be so thankful that Christians still have a place at the table.

Isn't that great? And it's about, again, there's that buzzword. It's about authentic expressions of faith, authentic.

Look, if you believe the Bible, atheism is not an authentic expression of faith unless you're,

I guess you could say it's you're trusting yourself. You have a faith in your own mind or something.

But why is that to be respected in a religious, for chaplains, in a religious institution, in a religious organization, why respect someone's belief, someone's authentically held belief against the very principle and the very reason for an organization to exist is a cause for celebration, is a cause for, we should support.

Again, the analogy holds true, I think. We got to include the meat eaters in our vegetarian group or the vegetarians in our meat eaters group or whatever, like something diametrically opposed to it.

They disagree with everything that our whole group is predicated on, but let's bring them in because of inclusion.

And look, hey, we're still sitting at the table. We're still here. We should be thankful. Oh man.

His vote for great Epstein was motivated by a desire to build trust. Let's see here.

I don't know, how do you trust someone who disagrees with the whole premise behind why the group exists? Unless that's not the premise, unless the whole thing's a joke and there's really, the chaplains really don't, they don't actually believe in any kind of divine order or divine set of moral principles or any of that.

They're just there because they represent students who hold different beliefs, different beliefs about metaphysics.

Then just welcome in the flying spaghetti monster and everyone else. Welcome in the Star Wars nerds.

Welcome in everyone who just has a metaphysical belief, no matter how kooky, because it's a joke. The whole thing's a joke now.

I mean, it's one or the other. Um, underneath the, this is the last sentence, under, it's the last two sentences.

Underneath the overreaching headline is a model of how evangelicals can flourish in interfaith spaces and do so without compromise.

It's a model evangelicals would do well to emulate rather than condemn. So everyone needs to do what they did here at Harvard, including

Tim Keller. And so here's something I may have gotten wrong.

So Pete Williamson is the one who voted for the atheist chief of chaplains. I don't know that Tim Keller actually did.

Pete Williamson did. Tim Keller's just supporting that vote. Not that it makes much difference, but I think earlier

I had said Tim Keller voted for him. So here's the meat though. Here's the bottom line of all of this.

Harvard continues to go in a bad direction. Ivy League's our country. It continues to slide.

And now you have Christians, instead of lamenting it, you have Christians in authoritative positions praising this slide and saying, this is the model we should all adopt.

And this will be the key to Christianity's survival, to play well with others who completely disagree with everything

Christianity stands for. And I mean, look, we gotta go with the Bible's teaching on this.

They're suppressing the truth and unrighteousness. They're making war on the creator. It doesn't matter. Like you can be friends with someone on a personal level, but once you're inviting them into, like would you have them guest speak at your church one

Sunday? Why not? And so these are questions that I think they're important to ask because what he's trying to say is that, hey, look, you just misunderstand what this whole thing is at Harvard.

This whole, all the chaplains. I mean, we're just, we're not, you know, trying to compromise in our views at all.

We just all, we just kind of operate as a body, but we do so while holding onto our convictions.

And I mean, it sounds good. It's that principle pluralism stuff, but in the end it doesn't really work. It just doesn't really work.

You have people with diametrically opposed views that think each other are evil, that their gods are false.

That, and with this one, that they're, believing in God is wrong or stupid or crazy or something.

And that person's gonna be the one who's the chief of all the rest of them. There's no way that you can have people with diametrically held views operating in such a way that they advocate for public policy that they all agree on.

That's just not gonna happen. They're going to disagree. Now you can have a loose, I guess, group of people who, but then you have just a meaningless organization in a way, just loosely, we have a board, we come together and we do, we vote on things, but there's no significance to our actual beliefs, really.

I mean, you could have that, but you can't really have, you can't have what this guy's trying to have. Well, he's trying to maintain two things.

He's trying to maintain, we are holding to our convictions without compromise, absolutely. And at the same time, we can have people that are, according to scripture, truth suppressors who don't have wisdom, not the wisdom that comes from God, who are denying the very truth of our own religion, who leading people to hell.

And we can also say that, look, they just have, they have just as much merit to be where they are as we do.

And what they're saying is valuable because it's authentic and we can affirm their belief, which is the bottom line.

We can affirm their belief and affirm our belief and everyone's saying kumbaya. It's naive, it's just absolutely naive.

And it won't work, it won't work. This is, there's a whole, there's sort of like this weird brief moment, I think, in Western societies in which we have the illusion of this because we're coming out of Christianity.

We're coming out of a Christian society and we're making a transition to a very secularized society. And for this brief moment, there's an illusion that that can kind of work, but it can't.

Freedom of conscience doesn't work. As soon as you stray too far from Christianity, it's gone. You don't have it anymore.

And there will be a top -down authoritarian, it'll be a religion of government is really where we're going.

It's a state religion of some kind. And a little Christian veneer here, a little Muslim veneer there, but it's not, they're not actually

Christianity or Islam or any of those things. So how much better would it be to just, if you're gonna operate in a secular place, to do so without compromising anything, without voting for someone who's an atheist to be in charge of the chief of chaplains, to just make friends with people like that, sure, for the purpose of evangelism and just to be friends.

I mean, you can be friends with people who don't share your beliefs on those things, but you'd be careful of that, right? Friendship with the world is enmity against God and you can be very influenced by the people like that to be careful, but you can be friends with people like that and you should be.

I'm friends with, there's an atheist I'm very good friends with. We debated though, we debated on a secular university campus. I was the head of the

Christian group at a state university. He was the head of a atheist group and we held a debate moderated by a philosophy professor.

You can go check it out on YouTube, it's on the channel. Sunni New Paltz debate, John Harris, it'll come up.

Pretty sure it's on YouTube still. It's on Sermon Audio if it's not on YouTube. You can check it out. We didn't compromise our beliefs though.

I wasn't affirming anything that he believed. I was arguing against it. I wasn't saying how authentic it was and how much we can work together on religion, on our deep set of convictions.

Cause then I would have realized it's not a deep set of convictions anymore. If it's that trite that I can, you know, hey, look, atheists, me, we have the kind of, we're common goal here.

Not really. I can probably work with my friend on maybe some political things.

We have some agreements on some things, but on religion, there's no agreement there. And we can still be friends.

And he operates in the atheist group, I can operate in the Christian group. And anyway, it's just, the whole thing feels weird and I think it should feel weird.

This article doesn't really help. It just makes the concern even more concerning,

I guess. Even, there's sort of, okay, I'll say this. There's a part of me that wants to kind of like say,

I can kind of see if you're gonna start out with the idea that there's students of different religions who come here and this is a secular campus, right?

I don't even like the, I don't even like the assumptions I'm already making, but I can kind of see probably, cause

I was raised in this and most of us were, kind of like, okay, if there's a board that's gonna govern some of the rules that apply to different religious groups on campus and what they have access to and they don't have access to, just like,

I'm not talking about like affirming that their faith is valid or authentic or any of that.

I'm just talking about like logistics, right? Like I could kind of see like a board for that, where these different people come together.

I could see that. And I don't know that I'd have a huge problem with it if it was really just about logistics.

But as soon as you start authenticating someone's faith and as it's so authentic to them and it's so deeply held that we must respect it.

That's where I'm like, yeah, no, hold on, hold on. Those aren't criteria for respecting something or for authenticating something.

The bigger thing though is, if this is for like different faiths, you're bringing an atheist in, someone who's by definition against faith, against faith in a transcendent or a divine.

Like it just, like they already have the rest of the university. It's already all humanistic.

There's little space carved out for people who don't maybe wanna go along with that in every way. You're gonna bring them in there too.

Like why even have it then? So that's my little rant about it and my thoughts on it for those who are curious.

But I hope that was helpful for you just to kind of parse some of this. Cause it is difficult. We're in this weird kind of transitional phase in Western culture, but ultimately it's a compromise.

And there's no doubt about it. And it's weird. And to go so public about it. And for Pete Williamson to be like, a

Christian should follow this example. And Tim Keller to say, to go publicly thank this person, Epstein.

It's just, why? Why are you trying to purposely get other Christians to go along with all this?

That's the point. And it's coming down from the halls of elitist. For the people that condemn power all the time, they're the most powerful people.

It's these, the halls of power that are trying to convince the regular ordinary Christians that this is normal and we should all go along with it.

And I say, no, I say no. So that's where we, and I think God says no.

God has a lot to say about atheism. And I would start with Romans one. All right.

That's the conversations that matter podcast for today. Hope that was helpful for you. Just two examples of how the left, the hard secularized left is basically using people like Keller and Greer.

They're carrying water for them. And it's sad, it's sad to see this. But thankfully the church advances and the church is built by Jesus Christ, not by Tim Keller or J .D.

Greer. So that's where the hope is. And Jesus doesn't have any problem bypassing people like Keller and Greer to build his true authentic, in the authentic use of the term authentic, his true authentic church.