A thread in light of the present moment: We need to make a distinction between respectable nonsense (& evil) & despicable nonsense (& evil), with respectable meaning “engenders respect among mainstream society” & despicable meaning “provokes derision among mainstream society.”
I think many Bible-believing Christians want to speak truth, reject nonsense, and condemn evil wherever it occurs. But speaking truth about despicable nonsense is significantly easier, since our denunciations are cutting with the grain of mainstream, polite society.
We can let our denunciations fly, knowing that the only ones that might object are those who are despised by mainstream society. No need for nuance or distinctions, & easy to turn our condemnations up to 11. We discover words like "outrageous," "horrific," &, yes, "despicable."
On the other hand, speaking truth about respectable nonsense and evil is possible, but we are typically more careful and qualified and nuanced. What's more, these denunciations are either easily ignored by the powers that be or misrepresented by mainstream society.
As an example, think about the difference between the way that Christian condemnation about the Capitol riots were reported versus the way that Christian condemnation of transgender transition surgery is reported in the press. One is despicable evil; the other respectable.
Another example: the “Christian” elements of the Trump rally a few weeks back (with the shofar and such) is a good example of despicable nonsense. Easy to mock, easy to condemn, cuts with the grain of mainstream society. (And it really was nonsense).
Respectable nonsense would be the Rev. Cleaver’s prayer the other day (and I don’t mainly mean the Amen and A-woman part, which was apparently a lighthearted pun). I mean a “Christian” minister praying to "the monotheistic God, Brahma, who has gone by many names.”
From the mouth of a Methodist minister, that’s blasphemous (but respectable) nonsense. And it's typical, normal, reasonable, acceptable in polite society.
But here’s the thing: God doesn’t recognize our corrupt and self-justifying standards of respectability. And thus, he regularly unleashes despicable nonsense upon us in order to hold up a mirror to our respectable nonsense. As one meme captured it:
So for myself, I simply make it a habit that, whenever despicable nonsense & universally condemned evil shows up, I try to remember all of the respectable nonsense & respectable evil that our society tolerates.
And I try to say Amen to God’s judgment on both, and resist the impulse to be shaped by what Richard Hooker called the “perverted and wicked customs” of our society that smother the light of natural understanding and obscure the law of God.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One more thread for the day. I want to talk about X. But it’s hard to talk about X these days. X is incredibly controversial, and when it is brought up, tempers quickly flare. People have very strong feelings about X. People who are concerned about X fall into a number of camps.
There are those who believe outlandish things about X despite evidence to the contrary. These people often react very strongly to attempts to point out that their beliefs about X don’t necessarily accord with reality. Even raising questions about their beliefs provokes a reaction
Other people have reasonable and legitimate questions about X. They are deeply concerned about X, and the way that X affects them or others in our society. And of course many people concerned about X fall along a spectrum between radical and reactive, and reasonable and measured.
We're currently preaching through Titus at @citieschurch. It's a remarkable and timely little book. A few notes, based on preaching one section and listening to my fellow pastors preach others.
1) Titus is a book about the church & its leadership. Paul exhorts Titus to establish & strengthen churches in Crete by appointing elders. And Titus is supposed to find these elders among Cretans who are "always liars, evil beasts, & lazy gluttons." That's what the gospel does.
2) Titus 2 contains clear & relevant ethical instruction for all types of people: older men, older women, younger men, younger women. Lots of wise & profound & particular exhortations to these groups of people.
Watching some Christians react to election news is a sober reminder of how easy it is to forget the unborn and the horrific evil and injustice that is legally done to them every day in this country.
Take this sentiment expressed by a Christian journalist, which is simultaneously ignorant, tacky, and completely callous to the horror of the murder of innocents.
It's ignorant, because 1) correlation does not equal causation, and 2) a far more plausible reason that abortion rates declined in those years is owing to pro-life legislation at the state level. christianpost.com/voices/no-demo…
Great post here from @scottrswain on important theological categories for thinking about sex identity (who and what we are as male and female). scottrswain.com/2020/05/14/mor…
Three additional thoughts: 1/
1) An additional fact that Swain doesn’t directly highlight is that the “common” Adam starts off in the body of a single man. In other words, the common Adam is not de-sexed or de-gendered, but is in fact male. 2/
This establishes the temporal progression and polarity of Adam as original (and therefore, head) and Eve as eschatological (and therefore, glory). 3/
The question before the house is this: Is the difference btw narrows & broads merely a matter of *application* of shared biblical principles, or is it a matter of a different understanding of biblical principles themselves?
To make the question concrete, let's consider one of the key passages: 1 Timothy 2:11-15. There Paul grounds the prohibition on women teaching and exercising authority in the order of creation (Adam first) and the nature of the first sin (Eve deceived).
I'm eager to dig in to the new @9Marks journal on the reckoning among complementarians. 9marks.org/wp-content/upl…
I've already read or skimmed a few articles and it looks helpful and clarifying in many respects.
For example, I agree with @samueld_james that the inter-comp debate is often a matter of different instincts:
That said, the opening editorial by @JonathanLeeman contains this line:
"Turning to the inside of the church and home, broad and narrow complementarians agree on the basic biblical principles, but they tend to *apply* those shared principles differently."