Thread by @JonathanLeeman

When do we become morally culpable, esp as pastors, for an ignorance of our history? (Reading about 20th-century housing discrimination and the creation of the ghetto in American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass prompts the ?, but the ? is a broader one.)

For instance, living with my wife "in an understanding way" means seeking to know her history. So with marital counseling. I'd be foolish not to inquire into a couple's history before giving counsel, and marginally culpable if my lazy counsel leads to further sin btwn them.

Okay, how about pastoring a congregation? Do I possess some responsibility to understand that church's history? Or to understand how various social movements have impacted its members, esp. if I presume to speak or write on the topics affecting them, like race?

What if 20 percent of my congregation is Black, or second generation Chinese-American, or physically handicapped, or an abuse victim? Yes, I would be *wise* to understand any such things and their histories, right?

But would we take the next step and say, not only is it wise to do so, but we are *morally culpable* (i.e. sinful) if we don't?

My sense is, sometimes, yes, insofar as (i) my historical ignorance can be remedied with the resources of time and knowledge available to me;

and (ii) not learning such history leads to misguided, insensitive, underdeveloped, or hurtful pastoring, as w/the marital counseling illustration.

I'm not saying pastors must be subject-matter experts on everything. But it does seem love should impel us to learn what we can.

And when we do presume to speak and write about morally fraught and contentious issues like race, how much more do we become culpable for an ignorance of history. Teachers are held to a stricter judgment.