More from @dukekwondc

Duke Kwon

@dukekwondc

23 Jul

To all who repeatedly cite Ezekiel 18:20 as if it were the scriptural deathblow to all things reparations:

Stop it. 😉

A Christian account of reparations isn't grounded in the imputation of a predecessor's personal guilt to an innocent party.

Rather, it is grounded, in part, in an old Christian ethical tradition that reads Numbers 5:8 as requiring stolen goods to be returned to descendants of the originally injured party, i.e., heirs whose rightful possession those good would have been had they not been stolen.

See, e.g., Aquinas (1456), Robert Some (1562), John Wemyss (1632), William Fenner (1648), Watson (1668), Baxter (1673), Ezekiel Hopkins (1692), William Beveridge (1711), Randolph Ford (1711), White Kennett (1719), Thomas Boston (1773), Thomas Ridgley (1814), William Plumer (1864)

Read 5 tweets

Duke Kwon

@dukekwondc

21 Jul

1/ I’d like to offer a some responses to several of the questions raised by Rev. DeYoung in his review. Some critics are suggesting that we focused on methodological concerns in our essay b/c we—intimidated by his arguments—had no substantive response. We predicted this reaction:

2/ Again, this is false. As explained, we regularly engage these questions & study them; they warrant sustained reflection. But we also believe DeYoung's methodology shapes/distorts many of his questions. This is why we sought to expose and critique his method first and foremost.

3/ What follows, then, are brief and provisional responses to some of DeYoung’s critical assessments. Importantly, they are offered against the backdrop of our previous essay. We continue to reflect on these questions & others, and invite you to do the same with curiosity & hope.

Read 67 tweets

Duke Kwon

@dukekwondc

20 Jul

This essay is intended to be more than a response to one review. It’s also not just an essay about reparations. It is also an attempt to address one important reason why the Reformed and evangelical tradition(s) has repeatedly, across centuries, thefrontporch.org/2021/07/sancti…

found itself in collusion with the worst embodiments of white supremacy in America even while presuming its orthodoxy at each juncture. The answer, we believe, is found in its methodology—its culturally captive mode of theological reasoning/application— thefrontporch.org/2021/07/sancti…

and the implicit theology it engenders. It is one that centers white cultural concern, performs the basic impulses of white supremacy. It masquerades as sound—and mere—theological reflection. thefrontporch.org/2021/07/sancti…

Read 7 tweets

Duke Kwon

@dukekwondc

18 Jul

Deep basketball thoughts:

• Booker is very good at basketball

• Giannis is not good at free throws

• The Suns like playing at home

• The Bucks need to score more points, and stop the Suns from scoring so much, if they want to win

• When your team starts a game making all of their shots, eventually they will regress to the mean

• When a player misses all his free throws, eventually he will regress to the mean

Read 4 tweets

Duke Kwon

@dukekwondc

4 Jun

1. You have heard it said that restitution is required only if *specific* victims of theft can be identified. But I say to you, this is simply not true according to historical Protestant (and especially Reformed) ethical thought.

2. Baxter, for example, explains that "public oppressors, who injure whole nations, countries or communities" are bound to make restitution (CD). He cites as examples unjust judges, oppressing landlords, and deceitful tradesmen, who repeatedly steal from nameless multitudes.

3. Further, those who are guilty of theft but cannot locate their victims are still required to relinquish the stolen goods by returning them to God. And the best proxy for God in this scenario is THE POOR, says Watson, Ridgley, Beveridge, Baxter, et al, based on Num. 5:8.

Read 6 tweets