When Valid Criticism Comes Wrapped in Bad Doctrine

Last week I was with a group of friends and we discussed a lecture that Tim Keller gave recently in London. Darryl Dashhouse posted a summary and notes from the lecture that is worth reading (HT: Justin). I plan to buy the messages myself.

One section caught my attention. In it Keller is commenting on the need for evangelicals to acknowledge areas of weakness and sin in response to criticism from post-evangelicals. He makes the point that the gospel itself is what enables us to see and admit our sin and repent of it. It tells us we're sinners and it makes forgiveness possible. Then Keller goes on to talk about the fact that the bad theology they sometimes advocate shouldn't keep us from considering the "core of truth" in their critique:

All the criticisms of the post-conservatives are wrapped in horrendous doctrinal proposals, and yet at the bottom there is usually a core of truth. It usually has to do with our practices.

Never believe that criticism of our doctrine is all that's going on. It's also criticism of our practices. And don't think that by writing books defending your doctrine you've dealt with the criticisms of our practice.

So, for instance, we may be criticized for being unkind to homosexuals, that we don't know how to be kind to them or pastor them. We may be told that we need to change our understanding of what the BIble teaches about homosexual practice. The answer to that is no, but the first part is true. We can hold to our doctrine and admit that we have been unkind. Can we do that?

Or, some may say that conservative evangelicals don't care about the poor. So, we're told we have to redo the entire gospel, so that Jesus Christ on the cross is only dealing with corporate, structural evil, and becoming a Christian is simply joining a community that is working for peace and justice. Our answer has to be yes and no: yes, we need to care about the poor in a way that we haven't; no, we're not going to re-engineer the gospel.

Can we go back through every single criticism wrapped in these horrendous doctrinal proposals and catch the core of valid criticism, no matter how poorly motivated and exaggerated? Is there any way we can do that? See, if we understand the gospel, we won't get on our horse and say, "How dare you say that?"

There is a whole slew of younger leaders out there. They are watching us. We can't avoid drawing boundaries. Everyone does it, and if they say you're not doing it, then you're drawing a boundary by saying you're not doing it. But what matters is how we treat the people on the other side of the boundary. We're going to win the younger leaders if we are the most gracious and the most kind and the least self-righteous in controversy toward people on the other side of the boundary.

Some may say, "They should care about truth and they shouldn't care about things like that," but doesn't Jesus give them a warrant here when he says that we would be known by our love? Isn't orthopraxy part of orthodoxy? Of course it is!