It's shameful that in the church, those who want to pursue justice for victims have an ungodly standard placed upon them to be considered trustworthy. One slight misstep, one word said out of turn, one phrase misinterpreted is used as the lynchpin by detractors.
All the while those who are engaging in abuse are given huge leeway for their "indiscretions" and "mistakes," and second chances become fifteenth chances.
We have created and maintain a standard of a perfect victim and a perfect advocate. Instead of recognizing that ongoing
trauma in a victim's life has ongoing repercussions and expressions, we wrongfully chalk them up to be unreliable, untrustworthy, and divisive because they don't fit within the paradigm of perfection. Instead of walking with victims and caring for them as they need, we end up
perpetuating a culture of silence and fear, where victims have to live in the darkness and shame.
It cannot be said too often - false accusations of abuse are so rare that they are statistically insignificant. To not listen and believe in an accusation of abuse is to not only
standing on the side of statistical improbability, but it is almost assuredly standing against Jesus' heart for the broken, bruised, and beaten.
Believe victims, not because they have proved themselves to be perfect without a shadow of the doubt, but because
the act of them coming forward is testimony in and of itself of the veracity of their account. They have everything to lose when they come forward with their story of abuse and nothing to gain. These are the same standards by which we hold the testimony of the early church
as trustworthy - because no one in their right minds would willingly place themselves in harm's way for a lie about a God who died and came back to life. The fact that they risked everything with nothing to gain demonstrates to us that they were committed to the truth over all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There are Reformed circles that act as though doctrinal orthodoxy covers over a multitude of sins. While claiming they believe in a "high view" of the ministry of the Word, they believe that an ordained minister who is ungodly and unloving is nevertheless preaching God's Word.
A low bar of ordination (i.e. passing theological examination) is seen as a license to preach and administer the sacraments regardless of whether or not the private life of the minister is in step with the gospel of Jesus Christ. As long as he "preaches the gospel," his "rough
around the edges" parts of him are explained away and excused.
I will say this with the deepest sadness - out of the Reformed ministers I have been in close proximity with in their private and family lives for extended periods of time, I can count less than the fingers on one
What's been unveiled about the underbelly of the SBC is just a microcosm of what's going on in many Evangelical denominations and institutions in the U.S.
The question is, are we going to learn? Are we going to dig deeper into what's going on behind the scenes in our circles?
This is not just an SBC problem, and to frame it as such will cause even more harm. Lay people in the pews of Evangelical denominations need to ask their leadership about what's being done to make sure these same things aren't happening in their own denominational circles.
Students at Evangelical seminaries need to ask what kinds of policies are in place to prevent and deal with these kinds of heinous actions and to increase transparency between the leadership and everyone else.
Cornelius Van Til argued that we don't deal with just bare facts, but we interpret facts based upon our presuppositions. The presuppositional preference of protecting reputation and power have again and again overridden accountability, justice, and protection.
Further, "slander" requires falsehood in order to be slander. People telling their experiences of abuse in the OPC and PCA does not amount to slander in any thoughtful definition of the term. That would be equivalent to calling a whistleblower policy a slander policy.
Even further, your comments and similar comments are exactly why people have not and continue to not come out in public with their stories of abuse in our church circles. They are met with gaslighting, preposterous accusations of "slander" and "insubordination," while the
It's historically been a minority view to argue that "Junia" was a man (i.e. "Junias"). Ever since the Greek New Testament began using accent marks, it accented the name in such a way that it *had* to be rendered as feminine. It's only in recent history that that's been
"Outstanding among the apostles" *can* be rendered "outstanding by the apostles." But, Matt. 2:6 has a parallel construction of en tois when it says "Bethlehem... not least among the rulers of Judah." The similar construction would lead you to exegete it similarly.
There's no exegetical necessity to translate it as "outstanding by," but there is precedent to translate as "outstanding among/within the group of the apostles."
"Apostle" can be used in a less technical sense, like for Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus. But, in the NT, it
@MeditarMestizo is just citing and quoting straight up facts of the legal history of the U.S. You cannot look at all of this data and say that the U.S. was not constructed to be a White nation with White supremacy at its core.
when @MeditarMestizo encouraged Christians and churches to think about the laws that have created the communities where they find themselves today. What laws and practices intentionally excluded and disenfranchised people groups in order to create the cities and neighborhoods you
find yourself in? And, how can the church, as an embassy of grace, enter into and bring healing, justice, and correction knowing that history?
White Christians often like to think that the "lack of diversity" in their churches as something accidental or unfortunate, when the
From my understanding (I could be wrong), I don't believe that wine and bread are intended by the Lord to be the exclusive, universal elements of the Eucharist.
Rather, I think it's clear from a biblical theological perspective that wine and bread symbolize
rejoicing/mirth and sustenance/fullness, respectively.
Churches in different parts of the world have employed this understanding when they have chosen what to use for the elements of the Eucharist, especially when wine and bread are not at all within their regular cultural
experience. They choose a drink of celebration and a food of core sustenance to remind themselves that in Christ is rejoicing and fullness, signed and sealed in a covenant meal.
I'm aware that this can bring up some odd situations, especially within the U.S.