Brian - I have never done a lecture on speech act theory. I’ve never said that anyone should disregard any of the Ten Commandments either. In the NY Times article, I argue that people can differ over how a biblical commandment should be put into public policy. 1/8
For example, think of the first commandment against worshipping other Gods and the second one against making graven images. Do you believe they should be made into a law in a pluralistic democracy? Do you think non-Christian religions should be illegal in the U.S.? Probably not.
But does that mean you are personally disregarding the first two of the Ten Commandments because of cultural context? Not at all.
You also say I’ve violated the ninth commandment—namely, that I must promote and cherish the good name and reputation of others, even opponents. 3
I’m sure I can find times in which I have failed there, just as you are failing to do so right now.
But no one has ever before said that I live in “utter disregard for the 9th commandment.” I think that’s at the very least an egregious overstatement. 4/8
And let me say again, I spent the first nine years of my ministry working in a heavily blue-collar southern town. My first church had only 2 people with a college degree—two elementary school teachers. 5/8
I preached 1500 times there and had a heavy ministry of pastoral care and visitation. These were the most formative ministry years of my life. We lived our lives among the people—all my children were born there. Many of my best friends are still there. 6/8
To say that my ministry is out of touch with the needs of ordinary, working-class people is to be out of touch with reality. Forgive me for calling you out on this Brian. And I feel somewhat like a fool talking like this (2 Corinthians 11). 7/8
But your brief tweets are at the very least extremely misleading, and I want to set the record straight. 8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
LONG THREAD: Here is a simplified generalization of American Christianity adapted from a Mark Noll paper. Every positive advance in evangelical history has been accompanied by unfortunate side effects. (1) Martin Luther proclaimed enduring evangelical principles 1/19
(God’s free grace, justification by faith, the supremacy of Scripture). He also relied heavily on his prince to promote reform in Saxony’s churches and so remained committed to organizing all society, if necessary by force, according to God’s will.
(2) The Great Awakening 2/19
of George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards (1740s) inspired personal belief, church renewal, and significant outreach to Native Americans and enslaved Africans. But it also turned evangelicals into activists focused on immediate conversions and personal sanctification, and 3/19
Advent Question: What did Jesus come into this world to do?
“He was sold, to buy us back; captive, to deliver us; condemned, to absolve us; he was made a curse for our blessing, sin offering for our righteousness; marred that we may be made fair; he died for our life; 1/4
so that by him fury is made gentle, wrath appeased, darkness turned into light, fear reassured, despisal despised, debt canceled, labor lightened, sadness made merry, misfortune made fortunate, difficulty easy, disorder ordered, division united, ignominy ennobled, rebellion 2/4
...subjected, intimidation intimidated, ambush uncovered, assaults assailed, force forced back, combat combated, war warred against, vengeance avenged, torment tormented, damnation damned, the abyss sunk into the abyss, hell transfixed, death dead, mortality made immortal. 3/4
Of course I will do some soul-searching, Kell. I’ve been talking to folks like you who have been the victims of bigotry for years. I never want to become immune to that hurt. 1/4
You seem to be saying that an argument like Edwards’ that (a) acknowledges the reality of very good and virtuous non-theists yet (b) shows the serious problems and implications of non-theism for ethics—necessarily dehumanizes and demonizes non-theists. 2/4
I’d like you to consider that his assertions are carefully thought out and reasoned. And there are articles and books being written right now, often by non-theists themselves, that are pointing out the same problems. 3/4
Interestingly, some read my other thread as advocating FOR centrism, when in reality it was noting that EVERYONE is a centrist to someone else so the claim is problematic. Perhaps some missed the argument. So here is another thread on the non-centrism of the gospel: 1/8
Jesus in Luke says, “To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other: “‘We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not cry.’ 2/8
For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating & drinking, & you say, ‘Here is a glutton & a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by all her children.” Lk 7:31-35
Political advocates for both the Right and the Left devote great energy to criticizing ”moderates” and “centrists” as people who are “selling out” to the culture and refusing to take brave stands. Let me tell you a story! 1/9
When I was teaching at Westminster in Philadelphia I got to know Chip Stonehouse (now deceased) who was the son of one of the founding faculty members, Ned Stonehouse (New Testament). He served for years with John Murray, a Scotsman who taught Theology. Ned died in 1962. 2/9
At that time Chip told me that he was approached by John Murray who expressed love for his father but concern that he died watching TV on a Sunday and therefore, in Murray’s view, breaking the Sabbath. I asked Chip if he was offended and the good-natured Chip said not at all. 3/9
Hey Kell--Thanks for engaging. You deserve a response. I see your comments on my Twitter account here and there and I’m sorry I don’t have the ability to engage more. I’m not sure you’ll be happy with my response, but I don’t want you to think I ignore what you say. 1/9
1st, as to this idea (that nontheists are incapable of nontransactional love) being offensive—I hope you will agree that most truths usually offend someone. So if a statement is offensive that doesn’t really speak to its truth or falsity. 2/9
2nd, as to this idea being ‘completely false’. Edwards’ “The Nature of True Virtue” is a highly sophisticated philosophical text. It contains no Biblical references—it relies on philosophical reasoning. It is basically an Augustinian argument. 3/9