But this view doesn’t strike me as either intellectually coherent or consistent with Christian teaching.
One argument made in favor of conservatism is the importance of stability to the functioning of society. People can’t order their lives in the face of changing rules.
/2
While stability is important, it can’t be a higher value than justice. Particularly as Christians, we can’t observe a traditional social arrangement that is unjust and refuse to remedy it on the ground that change would be disruptive.
/3
To do so would be to commit the same moral error as was made by opponents of the Civil Rights Movement. The argument made by conservatives in the 50s and 60s was that swift change to the unjust system of racial discrimination would be socially disruptive and destabilizing.
/4
The result was that professing Christians more committed to conservatism that to biblical justice fought to preserve the status quo in the American South rather than fighting in favor of upending tradition to accomplish racial justice.
/5
Conservatism is also problematic because it assumes that ideas are right because they are old. To be sure, we shouldn’t dismiss ideas simply because they were held by ancient societies we view as more “primitive” and thus un-enlightened. That’s the error of presentism.
/6
At the same time, there’s no necessary reason to think that ideas are more likely to be right just because they are old. Cultures of the past didn’t face the economic and technological challenges of today. There’s no reason to assume that ideas of the past fit today.
/7
Still further, as Christians, we know that people of all ages are sinners. They, like us made errors and suffered from blind spots that require correction. To unduly venerate the past is to overlook the persistent sinful condition of humanity.
/8
All this to say that, particularly for the Christian, I don’t think political conservatism is an available option. It *is* possible as a Christian to share some of the same policy views as conservatives, but not for the same reasons that conservatism offers./end
** Meant to say that conservatism is the mirror opposite error of presentism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
During the last two weeks, I read the book "Reparations" by @dukekwondc and @_wgthompson. I also read, and re-read, the review of that book by @RevKevDeYoung. A few thoughts: 🧵
First, the book was excellent. Deeply researched, both with regard to American racial and theological history. I also thought it wise that the book avoided making definitive pronouncements about what we must do, acknowledging that the issue is complex in application.
/2
Second, I found surprising DeYoung's central argument--that too much time has passed to make reparations. This was an unusual argument given the historical facts. Convict leasing (called "slavery by another name") continued well into the 1900s.
/3
94% of criminal convictions in state court are the result of guilty pleas. It’s 97% in federal court.
Why would 94-97% of criminal defts waive their right to trial and plead guilty?
Understanding the answer to that question is key to diagnosing how broken the system is.
/1
The reality is that prosecutors can put enormous pressure on criminal defendants to plead guilty. Here’s how:
At the beginning of 2020, about 2.2 million people were in jails and prisons in the United States.
/2
About 550,000 of those prisoners were being held prior to trial—meaning they were being held in jail even though they had not been convicted of anything.
How does that happen, you might wonder?
Typically it happens because poor people are unable to make even modest bail.
/3
I've seen a number of people claiming our education system is just fine when it comes to history because we teach kids about "slavery" and "racism."
Well, my history education was not fine: A 🧵
I grew up in the northeast. I went to a public high school. I have a college degree, a masters-level seminary degree (with an emphasis in church history), and a law degree (from a top 25 law school). Here are *some* of the things I never learned about:
1. Nobody ever told me about lynching, much less its purpose (intimidate blacks out of voting), its frequency (at the peak, in 1892, averaging 4+ a week), the horror (burning alive, cutting off fingers and toes as souvenirs, pregnant women), or the spectacle (1000s of observers).
Wild story about the 1898 white supremacist coup in Wilmington, NC: a 🧵
In 1885, a small group of members from First Baptist Church of Wilmington started a Sunday school class in a vacant store owned by the Police Chief John Melton.
/1
That small Sunday school class grew quickly and, in 1886, was organized as Brooklyn Baptist Church of Wilmington. The first worship service of this new church was held on Apr 4. In Nov 1893, the church called as its pastor the Rev. John W. Kramer.
/2
In Nov 1898, white supremacists in Wilmington rigged the election of county officials and then violently overthrew the existing city government. Rev. Kramer was a significant participant in the riot and overthrow of the city government.
/3
If your grandparents robbed a bank and bequeathed the stolen money to your parents who then bequeathed it to you, would you (if you are a Christian) believe that you had a moral obligation to repay the inherited money to the bank? Even though you didn’t rob the bank?
In 1898, 73% of revenue of state of Alabama was derived from convict leasing. It was stolen money. Which means that whatever assets the state government of Alabama holds *today* were obtained in part with stolen money. Is there a moral obligation to give the money back?
I don’t need the story of Zacchaeus to understand that. I can get that from the Eighth Commandment.
I listened to a podcast this week hosted by a conservative at a prominent DC think tank with a large following. He claimed that MLK didn’t believe the US was systemically racist. His evidence for this claim was King’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech.
Actually . . .
“White Americans must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society.” — #MLK (Where Do We Go from Here? 1968)
“The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.” — #MLK (speech to the SCLC board, Mar. 30, 1967)