If this were true, it would be perfectly irrelevant: it is not the Church's mandate to preserve America.

But Jack's claim isn't true at all. In fact, it's the opposite of the truth.
The reason that our nation is disintegrating before our eyes is that we, as a society, lack a shared conception of justice--a common understanding of what people deserve and what we owe to each other.
So although Americans share a patch of earth, we do not share a horizon: we've degenerated into a collection of special interest groups--our highest political aspiration is to secure benefits for ourselves and those like us.
Folks like Jack think that Christianity is just another interest group. That's why he's so easily seduced by talk of "doing more for Christians than anyone"--which, on a conceptual level, is nothing more than unadulterated nonsense.
(Honestly, I don't know what it's supposed to mean. The only way I can make sense of it is to understand "doing stuff for Christians" as something like, "granting access to individuals, like Jack, who purport to represent the interests of American Christians.")
But Christianity isn't a special interest group at all, except insofar as Christians are commanded to identify our interests with the pursuit of justice.

And this is why Jack's statement is the opposite of the truth.
What will save our republic is a political reformation that calls our attention to the truth about justice--a reformation that the Church is uniquely positioned to lead, if only we'd stop behaving like a special interest group in the political sphere.
(Note: I assume that by 'liberal Christianity', Jack means to indicate Christians who understand the pursuit of justice as integral to the practice of our faith. He attempts to conflate that kind of Christianity with a low view of Scripture, which I reject.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Scott Coley

Scott Coley 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 @scott_m_coley

7 Nov
Excellent question. (QT for thread)

Regarding the why: two recent books at the intersection of history and sociology address the politicization of conservative evangelicalism:
'Jesus and John Wayne', by @kkdumez ; and
'Taking America Back for God', by @socofthesacred and @ndrewwhitehead .

Both books are excellent and I commend them to anyone interested in the interplay of politics and religion in the context of American evangelicalism.
Regarding any formal connection between Mohler's official role at Southern Seminary (or within the SBC broadly) and his enthusiasm for broadcasting personal political views that are unrelated to his expertise in theology:
Read 15 tweets
2 Nov
Just one thing to add.

It is beyond ludicrous for a prince of the SBC's Conservative Resurgence to express concern over censorship among Catholics. Conservative Catholics can say just about anything they please, without fear of any reprisal whatsoever.
Censorship is the calling card of conservative Protestants who insist on ideological conformity.

Now it would be one thing if this insistence on conformity were strictly or even primarily theological.
But the worst-kept secret of the Conservative Resurgence is that the reforms of the '80s and '90s were motivated as much by devotion to cultural and political conservatism as a commitment to God's Word.
Read 8 tweets
2 Nov
As a conservative Protestant who has spent much of his professional life at Catholic institutions, I can say that this statement from Mohler shows especially poor judgment on his part.
Pope Francis’s full statement—consistent with his other statements on the subject—is supportive of civil unions *instead of* same-sex marriage, where the relevant alternatives include ‘marriage’ and ‘civil union’.
Here’s a detailed treatment of Francis’s statement in context:

patheos.com/blogs/throughc…
Read 10 tweets
1 Nov
The reason that conservative evangelicals don’t take the time to critically examine the impact of their vote on abortion policy is that their vote is over-determined: they don’t just favor overturning Roe; they also favor right-wing economic and immigration policies, etc.
When they speak of being “conflicted” about their vote, they don’t mean they’re conflicted about policy. They mean they’re conflicted about voting for a candidate who revels in his own viciousness—a man who enjoys being human poorly.

But they’re fine with his policies.
In this way, the chaos of the current political moment allows evangelicals to wring their hands and claim they’re “conflicted” about politics, while continuing to embrace the exact same iniquitous policies they’ve aided and abetted for decades now. It’s sleight of hand.
Read 7 tweets
1 Nov
Like countless pastors who’ve neglected their own children in favor of leading a church, public evangelicals like @albertmohler are now sacrificing younger generations of believers in their effort to influence a culture—
which influence is both beyond the scope of their calling as a ministers of the Gospel and, judging from the utter destruction that their culture war has visited on our public discourse, well beyond their capacity to fruitfully exercise.
I’m particularly troubled by @albertmohler ’s cavalier attempts to minimize his own contradictory public statements by dismissing previous comments as merely "dumb" or careless. Such explanations shouldn’t satisfy his own conscience, let alone the church.

Read 9 tweets
28 Oct
Grudem says it’s not about the candidates’ character; it’s about laws and policy.

So ask yourself: if your argument comes down to abortion and nothing else, are you really voting for laws and policies, or are you just voting for character?
By now it should be obvious that voting for nominally pro-life candidates isn’t going to change the laws surrounding abortion: it's been over 40 years at this point, and they've done exactly nothing. So it's a vote for character, at best.
At worst, it's ineffectual virtue-signaling and moral cover for supporting iniquitous policies that deprive the poor of their due and forsake God's image-bearers who come to us for refuge from the political chaos wrought by decades of U.S. policy toward Central America.
Read 8 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!