So, every time this sort of dustup happens in response to my interviews & writings on empathy, I find that it's a real opportunity *for me* to do a couple of things:
1) It's an opportunity to obey Jesus by rejoicing when people slander and misrepresent you. 2) It's an opportunity to obey Jesus by praying for opponents and critics who willfully misrepresent you and attack strawman versions of your arguments.
3) It's an opportunity for gratitude for critics who actually take the time to understand one's position *and represent it accurately*. I have friends who disagree with my framing in the Man Rampant video. I've been helped by their feedback & gotten clarity in my own mind.
4) It's a reminder of the importance of the education that we're offering at @BCS_MN. I am to impart to my students "Golden Rule Hermeneutics": Treat authors the way you want to be treated. Restate their position accurately (and then feel free to evaluate & criticize it).
5) It underscores for me the importance of the distinction I made in that video (and in subsequent articles). Faithful critics & friends have helped me refine my position & arguments. But thus far, the reactions have confirmed that I'm onto something.
Some reflections as things become clearer in the aftermath of last week (apologies for the length). Obviously the situation is still in process and I've not looked at everything. But the following (at this point) seems to me to be the case:
At the Capital we've got different groups:
1a) normal marchers, waving American flags & wearing MAGA hats (who went back to their hotels after the rally)
1b) Selfie-taking attention-seekers: those who were there to see a show & those who were there to put on a show (Viking man)
1c) Angry protestors who wanted to put pressure on their representatives about certifying the election.
1d) Angry rioters who wanted to find their political opponents & beat them into submission (& who assaulted & killed police officers in the process).
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.
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."
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/