1. One poisonous byproduct of the rising outcry against Critical Race Theory/Marxism is the false, malicious, public labeling of individuals and institutions as heterodox enemies of the church. Another word for this is Slander. It is a grave sin, and it must cease.
2. Slander is a violation of the 8th commandment (the theft of one's good name, "a much dearer possession" [Aquinas] than even physical property) and the 9th commandment (bearing false witness against neighbor).
3. According to our Christian forebears, when guilty of slander, we must not only publicly confess our sin. We must also make amends for these public thefts of reputation. Alas, restitution is required for the sin of slander.
4. For example, Richard Baxter asks: “How must satisfaction be made for slanders, lies, and defaming of others?” His response:
5. “By confessing the sin, and unsaying what was said, not only as openly as it was spoken, but as far as it is since carried on by others, and as far as the reparation of your neighbour’s good name requireth, if you are able.”
6. John Tillotson says similarly: “If thou hast defrauded and injured any Man in his good Name, thou art obligated to make him a Compensation, by acknowledgement of thy Fault, by a studious Vindication of him, and by doing him honour and repairing his Credit in all fitting ways.”
7. This is not to say that we should not weigh and examine erroneous teaching in the church; scripture and conscience demands that we we must. But we must do so with such prudence and care that guards us against careless (or wanton) violations of the 8th and 9th commandments.
8. And when we do fall into such sin, we must not only confess it. We must also publicly repair the good name and reputation we have damaged and stolen. We must make restitution for our slander.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
While the postbellum promise of "40 acres and a mule" is typically credited to Union General William Sherman, the idea itself was derived from the words and advocacy of Reverend Garrison Frazier, pastor of First Bryan Baptist Church in Savannah, Ga. #BlackReparationsHistory
On January 12, 1865, Gen Sherman and Sec of War Edwin Stanton met with a group of twenty black ministers from Savannah discuss what they wanted for their newly freed people. The highly respected Rev. Frazier, aged 67 at the time, was chosen to speak on behalf of the group.
During the meeting, later known as the Savannah Colloquy, he was asked a series of questions. Frazier, who had purchased his & his wife's freedom for $1k in gold/silver only 8 years prior, responded with powerful and persuasive words, such as the following:
• Original DA shielded the suspects from arrest (showing them "affection and favor") and obstructed police. She has been indicted for the coverup.
• Case was handed over to a second DA, who 1) wrote a letter to police arguing that there was insufficient probable cause to arrest suspects, 2) then recused himself, 3) but only after Arbery's mom highlighted a conflict of interest involving his son.
• The case turned only after cellphone video went viral and gained nat'l attention. The video was 1) recorded by one of the now convicted murderers, not a bystander, and 2) leaked by a local lawyer with support of the suspects, who may have expected the video to exonerate them.
1. Although we are not the major characters in this plot, I want to offer some brief thoughts in response to @JonathanLeeman's recent article, which cites my/Greg's work as a noteworthy example ("to a T") of the so-called deconstruction project's discursive script.
2. Notably, we are set in close proximity to deconstructionist "wolves," or wolves-in-denial who "never think they are wolves," or prospective wolves who "soon discover their sitting on the very [confessional] branch the project is trying to saw through." Well, alright then.
3. Foremost, it strikes me as odd that Leeman identifies us as proponents of a project that "doesn't begin with exegesis but with exegeting the exegete" when the beginning of our public engagement was a book we wrote that broadly surveys 300+ years of exegesis/ethical reflection.
1. The “third way of the gospel” has been used as a rubric for public life. Its main point is to stress that Christ's kingdom (upper register) reveals a politics “from above” (Jn 18:36). The gospel transcends human political categories (and false binaries)—and critiques them all.
2. However, this “third way” is often presented with a rhetorical “balance” (e.g., “the gospel is neither...nor...”) that implies that kingdom faithfulness necessarily entails political-cultural centrism and an equitable critique of each side.
3. But the gospel doesn't critique each side in symmetrical fashion on every issue. At times the best public expression of a particular kingdom principle or priority may be found on one end of the spectrum. The still transcendent gospel might make us “lean left” on one issue...
To all who repeatedly cite Ezekiel 18:20 as if it were the scriptural deathblow to all things reparations:
Stop it. 😉
A Christian account of reparations isn't grounded in the imputation of a predecessor's personal guilt to an innocent party.
Rather, it is grounded, in part, in an old Christian ethical tradition that reads Numbers 5:8 as requiring stolen goods to be returned to descendants of the originally injured party, i.e., heirs whose rightful possession those good would have been had they not been stolen.
See, e.g., Aquinas (1456), Robert Some (1562), John Wemyss (1632), William Fenner (1648), Watson (1668), Baxter (1673), Ezekiel Hopkins (1692), William Beveridge (1711), Randolph Ford (1711), White Kennett (1719), Thomas Boston (1773), Thomas Ridgley (1814), William Plumer (1864)