One who is truly expositing the Word of God does not simply ignore the latter half of Romans 1 and certainly does not twist it in order to ignore what it clearly is saying. He also shows an appalling lack of awareness of the Biblical use of the pulpit to influence culture and address society. Without the power of the pulpit, slavery might well have continued for at least another generation. If I’m not mistaken, there’s quite a strong expectation that we be salt and light. It’s not noble to simply emphasize the parts of Scripture that don’t offend or which are politically palatable.
One who is truly expositing the Word of God does not simply ignore the latter half of Romans 1 and certainly does not twist it in order to ignore what it clearly is saying. He also shows an appalling lack of awareness of the Biblical use of the pulpit to influence culture and address society. Without the power of the pulpit, slavery might well have continued for at least another generation. If I’m not mistaken, there’s quite a strong expectation that we be salt and light. It’s not noble to simply emphasize the parts of Scripture that don’t offend or which are politically palatable.
I don’t disagree with you about Tchividjian’s use of Romans 1, and I don’t agree with his emphasis generally. I think he’s antinomian. I also agree with you that there is a place for addressing culture. Dr. Kennedy, however, in my opinion, was seriously out-of-balance in this area. Slavery and dueling and such were not the weekly topics of our forebear’s sermons.
Discussion
NewSurprised
I am pleasantly surprised that I am in substantial agreement with Tullian Tchividjian in this instance. The pulpit is for the Word of God.
NewI'll disagree...
One who is truly expositing the Word of God does not simply ignore the latter half of Romans 1 and certainly does not twist it in order to ignore what it clearly is saying. He also shows an appalling lack of awareness of the Biblical use of the pulpit to influence culture and address society. Without the power of the pulpit, slavery might well have continued for at least another generation. If I’m not mistaken, there’s quite a strong expectation that we be salt and light. It’s not noble to simply emphasize the parts of Scripture that don’t offend or which are politically palatable.
NewDLCreed wrote:
I don’t disagree with you about Tchividjian’s use of Romans 1, and I don’t agree with his emphasis generally. I think he’s antinomian. I also agree with you that there is a place for addressing culture. Dr. Kennedy, however, in my opinion, was seriously out-of-balance in this area. Slavery and dueling and such were not the weekly topics of our forebear’s sermons.