The biblical picture of false prophets bears a striking resemblance to the handful of theologians in the SBC whose dalliances with heresy have redounded to their own professional benefit.
Some proponents of ESS misrepresented the very nature of the Trinity in an effort to legitimate a niche research agenda that they were well-positioned to lead (largely because the most fertile theological minds of our era simply have no interest in advancing male headship).
These men spend their days stirring up controversy, insisting that God’s people break fellowship over the secondary effects of tertiary issues that are a matter of grave importance only to men whose professional advancement depends on it.
It’s clever in a strictly Machiavellian sense: find a subject that none of the really talented people in your field care about, create a journal for it, publish in your own journal, and then leverage politics and personal connections to demand that it be taken seriously.
Now these men are attempting to persuade God’s people that demands for systemic justice are false teaching. “Everything’s good,” they say. “God has instructed me to assure you that the status quo is just fine, and judgment is not forthcoming.” faithphilosophyandpolitics.org/2020/10/14/whe…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
By Southern Seminary's account of its history, when the SBC "...established SBTS in 1859, the prevailing orthodoxy of its white clergy included commitment to the legitimacy of slavery.”
The phrase ‘prevailing orthodoxy’ is doing a lot of rhetorical work here: ‘orthodoxy’ evokes the safe harbor of official sanction, while ‘prevailing’ conjures a sense of resignation to the inertia of established norms.
Yet the question must be asked: in 1859, how prevalent was the view that the institution of slavery was morally legitimate? Across the West? No: America’s N. Atlantic peers abolished slavery in the 1840s. Among Americans? No: Civil War was two years away. Among Protestants? No.
Well now you just seem more confused than before.
You still haven’t answered my question; but I gather that your assessment of Gen.1 derives from the interpretive principle that Scripture should be read in its plainest sense unless the text itself clearly indicates otherwise.
I agree with this principle; but I suspect we disagree on how to apply the ‘unless’ clause: I think that if reading a text as a straightforward recounting of empirical facts renders that text incoherent, this *just is* the text indicating that it’s not meant to be read that way.
Centuries upon centuries of Christian scholarship—including luminaries like Origen and Augustine—have questioned or rejected your assessment of Gen.1, on precisely these grounds.
For over four decades, American evangelicals have embraced the special-interest paradigm of political engagement—arguing, in effect, that the interests of Christians should take priority over conflicting claims of other interest groups.
This has been a terrible mistake.
If there is objective moral truth then there is objective truth about what people deserve and what we owe to each other—which is to say, justice.
Objective moral truth entails objective truth about justice. It’s as simple as that.
And if there is objective truth about justice, then our efforts in the political sphere should conform to that truth—which is to say, achieving justice should be our only political objective.
If @MBTS is determined to give Owen a platform for his pronouncements on institutional ethics, its administration might consider granting him a teaching reduction that would afford him leisure to familiarize himself with the basic contours of the subject.
One of the culture war’s more absurd mantras is the threat of evangelical leaders capitulating to worldly demands for justice out of an appetite for popular esteem.
In fact the opposite is true: those who give any thought to popular opinion relish every opportunity to shock unbelievers with their abrasive rhetoric—thereby inviting backlash, which serves as a pretext for claims of persecution.
Under guise of combating “wokeness”—a vacuous notion contrived to provoke illiterate fear—men with evangelical platforms make unlearned and outrageous pronouncements on subjects ranging from political economy to public health.
A myth says what is false in order to reveal truth.
A lie says what is false in order to obscure truth.
The myth at the core of our nation is that America provides liberty and justice for all in equal measure.
The truth underlying the myth is that equality before the law is a worthy aspiration.
We lie to ourselves when we act as though this myth reflects the reality of our present existence: we obscure the truth when we tell ourselves that the aspiration has been realized, or realized enough.