,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I know I am in the minority on a lot, so probably here too—I think the principal players in the ShepCon Q&A did what they needed to do and that will make people who don’t agree unhappy. None of it was surprising to me and was actually pretty consistent w/ each’s M.O.
While I disagree w/ Mohler’s views on church & culture (justice being a subset), I don’t see anything wrong w/ him choosing & defending his own strategy for addressing this issue. His angle was political in a legit sense of that term (stewardship of influence & power).
Duncan articulated a theological strategy aimed at applying Bible to all problems so Scriptural authority is set as the standard and leaders have credible integrity. A basically good strategy, but may be better fitted for the academy than current ecclesiastical landscape.
Phil did all a service by putting the issue on the table and I think he did it with skill and carefulness. He tossed neither softballs or grenades, and that’s tough to do. Important, I think, was raising the issue of incrementalism. Ground is being lost, I think, and rapidly.
Bottom line is the discussion unfolded just as one would expect it to unfold. A philosopher, a theologian, & a pastor all answered in ways consistent w/ how they have done so on many other issues.
Bonus tweet (ha): what I would really like to see is a discussion re the church’s (vs personal) responsibility for cultural change and social justice between the same panelists.
