Thread by @sometimesalight

Feeling another thread on conservative evangelical inside baseball

Last week, I offered up a few thoughts on John Piper's article calling for evangelicals to consider the effect of toxic character, including:

1) Piper's position is entirely consistent if you know his metanarrative
2) Everyone else is acting true to form, too.

(As in previous threads, these are just my observations. They are not statements about morality or goodness. Don't make them more than they are.)

Yesterday, Al Mohler, president of SBTS, released an article reiterating his previous support of Trump, titling it "Christians, Conscience, & the Looming 2020 Election." I think it's fair to read this piece as being in converstation w/ Piper's.

Mohler's reasoning is what it is. Not going to analyze it point by point but I do think it's important to remember Mohler's context & political DNA. I honestly don't think he's deviating from previous positions so much as we're watching his political theory play out.

And the best place to gain greater understanding for Mohler's approach isn't in civil politics but in denominational politics. Mohler is & was primary player in Conservative Resurgence w/in the SBC.

Set your feelings about CR (whether pro or con) aside for a minute & remember how it played out structurally & politically. It's *essentially* the same argument that conservatives like Mohler are making for Trump now: Reform comes thru control of the institutional machinary.

The CR was very open about its process of reform: Gain control of high level positions over the course of a decade in order to change the direction of the ship. And in this respect, they've succeeded. Again, whether this was for good or bad is not the question.

That Mohler is advocating a similar approach now should surprise literally no one. He's got a long game in mind & he'll work w/ those who can get there.

The dilemma, of course, is exactly the question that separates Piper & Mohler in this moment: What role does personal character play in this process? Who can be useful to the cause? What affect will deficits of character have on the larger goal?

But here's where this gets dicey: We have advantage of time to give perspective on this approach, in particular, b/c several key leaders of CR turned out to be men of... deficient character.

From a strucutral standpoint, they got the job done. (Albeit to a loss of moderates & a level of infighting that continues to this day.) But what are we to make of the approach holistically? Was this the best way to reform a denomination? Is it the best way to reform a nation?

The difference btwn Mohler & Piper, as I observe it, is that they would land on different sides of this Q. Again, this not a critique of either so much as an argument that their metanarratives explain why they've landed where they land in Election 2020.

And I suspect that where one lands in relationship to the inside baseball of conservative evangelicalism also predicts where one lands in Election 2020.

In some parts of the country, the way denominational politics play out has direct & real parallels in how civil politics play out. It's often hard to tell which is leading which. Whether you think this is normal & good is a key divide w/in conservative evangelicalism.

Also, I think it's worth observing that SBC has had it's own share of scandal in last few years. Whether ones see this as systemic or as aberration, it still comes on the watch of CR. That's important b/c it predicts what might happen should this approach succeed nationally.

If we take the approach that outcomes > individual character, we must be prepared for & expect individual corruption. That's built into the calculus.

What cannot happen is a pragmatic approach that says outcomes > individual character combined w/ a culture that refuses to check the corruption & harm that individual will inevitably enact b/c of their deificient character.

IOW, if you take a pragmatic approach to Election 2020 & preference outcomes > character, you better be the first in line to keep that person accountable so they don't harm others.

And honestly, I'm nost sure the approach of CR has proven that it can do *this*--it hasn't proven that it can work pragmatically AND keep people accountable when their character deficiencies lead them to abuse & harm others.

In conclusion, CR in SBC proves that pragmatic approach will likely secure institutional power. We've already seen this irt SCOTUS & federal judges. But it will come at a cost & we must be clear about that cost. It's not just a vague category of "public witness" or neg PR.

Left unchecked, character deficiencies overlooked in favor of outcomes will lead to real world harm, culture of corruption, & loss of trust that down the road will collide w/ stated goals. Left unchecked, scandal will be the inevitable end.

If you're making a pragmatic calculus, you must be honest about what's on the scales. It's not simply a Q of piety vs. pragmatism. There's legit Q of whether the gains are worth cost, but we must be honest about the cost.