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
 

Keep Current with Duke Kwon

Duke Kwon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dukekwondc

14 Oct
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...
Read 5 tweets
23 Jul
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)
Read 5 tweets
21 Jul
1/ I’d like to offer a some responses to several of the questions raised by Rev. DeYoung in his review. Some critics are suggesting that we focused on methodological concerns in our essay b/c we—intimidated by his arguments—had no substantive response. We predicted this reaction:
2/ Again, this is false. As explained, we regularly engage these questions & study them; they warrant sustained reflection. But we also believe DeYoung's methodology shapes/distorts many of his questions. This is why we sought to expose and critique his method first and foremost.
3/ What follows, then, are brief and provisional responses to some of DeYoung’s critical assessments. Importantly, they are offered against the backdrop of our previous essay. We continue to reflect on these questions & others, and invite you to do the same with curiosity & hope.
Read 67 tweets
20 Jul
This essay is intended to be more than a response to one review. It’s also not just an essay about reparations. It is also an attempt to address one important reason why the Reformed and evangelical tradition(s) has repeatedly, across centuries, thefrontporch.org/2021/07/sancti…
found itself in collusion with the worst embodiments of white supremacy in America even while presuming its orthodoxy at each juncture. The answer, we believe, is found in its methodology—its culturally captive mode of theological reasoning/application— thefrontporch.org/2021/07/sancti…
and the implicit theology it engenders. It is one that centers white cultural concern, performs the basic impulses of white supremacy. It masquerades as sound—and mere—theological reflection. thefrontporch.org/2021/07/sancti…
Read 7 tweets
18 Jul
Deep basketball thoughts:

• Booker is very good at basketball

• Giannis is not good at free throws

• The Suns like playing at home

• The Bucks need to score more points, and stop the Suns from scoring so much, if they want to win
• When your team starts a game making all of their shots, eventually they will regress to the mean
• When a player misses all his free throws, eventually he will regress to the mean
Read 4 tweets
4 Jun
1. You have heard it said that restitution is required only if *specific* victims of theft can be identified. But I say to you, this is simply not true according to historical Protestant (and especially Reformed) ethical thought.
2. Baxter, for example, explains that "public oppressors, who injure whole nations, countries or communities" are bound to make restitution (CD). He cites as examples unjust judges, oppressing landlords, and deceitful tradesmen, who repeatedly steal from nameless multitudes.
3. Further, those who are guilty of theft but cannot locate their victims are still required to relinquish the stolen goods by returning them to God. And the best proxy for God in this scenario is THE POOR, says Watson, Ridgley, Beveridge, Baxter, et al, based on Num. 5:8.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(