When's the last time you've seen an influential Evangelical and Reformed figure publicly retract something they wrote and apologize for being off the mark?
In my experience, I've usually only seen people dig in their heels even deeper when they get challenged. Or, I've seen people simply ignore the challenges until the dust settles and then they privately retract or edit.
It's one thing to hold strongly to your convictions and not be tossed to and fro by opinions. It's another thing to be pridefully unteachable and stubborn to gargantuan proportions. Taking the L seems to be nearly impossible for these people in influential positions.
It should be the opposite, however. Christians should learn from their leaders what it looks like to publicly repent and retract. Christian leaders should pave the way for what a Christ-formed life looks like that is willing to take the L and own it and recognize their influence.
Instead, many Christians are being formed to think that being a spiritual leader looks like always being right and never having to take back your words and apologizing. Spiritual success is being modeled by a form of spiritual narcissism. Being right is next to godliness.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Spiritual abusers are often some of the most charming and charismatic people because that aids their ability to be master manipulators. They fabricate a "That can't be true!" aura about themselves and surround themselves with die-hard acolytes with "Leader can do no wrong."
We need to disavow ourselves of imagining spiritual abusers as something monstrous and overly obvious. They are crafty, subtle, and work in the shadows. They are well-liked and well-spoken of because that gives them a water-tight alibi on the surface if things go south for them.
This is important to realize why people do not speak up about the spiritual abuse they've received. Spiritual abusers will respond with DARVO techniques (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) when accusations become public, and their acolytes and enablers will fight
Folks, theologically speaking, the discussion about universal healthcare is not within the locus of charity/mercy but on justice. The question is not "should the state legislate charity," but rather, "can the state be just when it prioritizes $ over the lives of the vulnerable?"
This is an important theological distinction. When we frame basic necessities of human survival in the category of charity/mercy, we make it supererogatory (i.e. bonus points). If we frame it in the category of justice, we make it a necessity, a sine qua non.
Theologically, we believe that justice requires the imago dei to have to health needs met sustainably. We believe that God works sovereignly through providential means, including through the state and taxation. We believe that justice for the vulnerable is a necessary
John Calvin, like most of the reformers, understood "the poor you will always have with you" as meaning that Christians are to care for and provide for the poor with every opportunity we have available:
"Do we wish to lay out our money properly on true sacrifices? Let us bestow
it on the poor... When [Christ] says that the poor will always be with us, we infer from it, that if many are in poverty, this does not arise from accident, but that, by a fixed purpose, God presents to us those on whom our charity may be exercised. In short, this passage teaches
us that though the Lord commands us to dedicate to him ourselves and all our property, yet, with respect to himself, he demands no worship but that which is spiritual, and which is attended by no expense, but rather desires us to bestow on the poor what superstition foolishly
According to contemporary conservative White Evangelical standards and definitions, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and a majority of the Protestant Reformation would be deemed "Marxist" and "Socialist" for their views on money, welfare, and the role of the state and taxation.
"bUt i Am ReFoRmEd AnD tAxAtIoN iS tHeFT" is both historically ignorant and thoroughly ironic.
But, that's how many White Evangelicals have been taught about Reformation theology - as if it's some sort of abstract, intellectual, and hermetically sealed philosophical inquiry.
But, when you read Calvin, Luther, et al, you realize that their theological conclusions both framed and were framed by their ethical convictions. Luther's fight against indulgences and papal abuses was entirely centered on injustices against the poor and the common people.
Also, is there a legitimate theological argument to claim that taxation is theft in essence?
In fact, Christians of nearly every other time and every other location on earth recognized taxation as a necessary and secondary means of God's provision for the poor and vulnerable.
Especially for Christians who think of themselves as theological offspring of the Reformation, you'd see very quickly that Calvin's Geneva & Luther's Germany very much had an expanded view of both taxation and the diaconate. "Taxation is theft" was the furthest from their minds.
I think theological understandings of taxation and healthcare are interrelated because many people will make some modified version of "but taxes!" as a reasoning against universal healthcare (again, that's not thinking theological first though). But, if theologically,
Is there a legitimate theological argument against universal health care? It seems that on a strictly theological basis, Christians should want to see health needs met in a sustainable manner that would result in more opportunities for thriving amongst the least of these.
A biblical anthropology would argue that imagebearers have inherent dignity that is not determined by what they do (e.g. employment) but rather by whose they are (i.e. made in the image of God). Likewise, the imago dei is corporate in its nature, and we therefore are all
knit together so that we are responsible for the wellbeing of others and not just ourselves. Further, the second greatest commandment of love should be the guiding principle that determines that every person should receive care for their health that is not financially crippling.