"Laws can't change hearts" comes from an imbalanced prioritization of the intellect and the internal.
A Christian anthropology recognizes that actions and practices form what we value. Legislation, therefore, can create individual and societal habits that can form people away
from certain kinds of wickedness and toward what is for the common good.
While laws can't remove the sin of racism, they can make it more difficult to be done in a publicly celebrated and supported way. They can shape people into seeing that racism is sick and twisted. They can
protect people's lives and provide legal recourse when wrongs have been done. They can give a voice to those who have been silenced.
The "Laws can't change hearts" idea sounds true, but it has historically caused great harm, not only because it has prevented the protection
of the vulnerable and oppressed, but also because it provides a deficient understanding of humanity as embodied, connected, and habitual beings who are shaped and shaped by their loves.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In general, there are two different "worlds" within Christian homeschooling.
Many assume that all Christian homeschoolers choose this form of education because of the perceived "evils" of public education and to "protect" their children with a "biblical worldview and
education." There's a reason for this. Historically, Christian homeschooling, not unlike Christian private schools, saw a huge increase during fundamentalism and as a reaction against integration in the Civil Rights era (e.g. "segregation academies"). Much of the Christian
homeschool curricula finds its roots in this world of Christian homeschooling, which is ultimately defensive and reactionary. You can find really awful examples from curricula like Abeka and BJU press. You can find many examples of whitewashing of history, glorification of
There's a lot of pastoral "wood, hay, or straw" that's going to be burned up in the fire of the Lord (1 Cor. 3:12-14). There are also going to be church leaders to whom Jesus will say, "I never knew you" though they claim to have done great things for Him and His kingdom.
There will also be those with influence in the church who will claim that they never saw Jesus naked, thirsty, and hungry, to whom He will say, "Depart from me."
These passages are frightful to those who abuse power, are willful hypocrites, and self-righteous.
They are comforting for those who have been bruised in the church for being faithful, those who are at the end of their selves, and those who may feel forgotten and unnoticed in their little acts of faithfulness.
To them belong a crown that Jesus will place on their heads
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
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.
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