People aren’t leaving the church because they think “The World” is a safe place.
They’re leaving the church like someone runs out of a burning building—or jumps out of a 30 story window in a burning building, not because they have an overwhelming desire to jump to their death, but because the alternative is unbearable.
If you’ve been hurt really badly in a church, or if you’ve seen behind the curtain, it can be overwhelmingly to try to start over—especially if it’s happened several times.
It’s also pretty devastating to look around and see that a majority of evangelicals are completely delusional on issues like economics and public policy.
Sometimes people leave churches for frivolous reasons. But a lot of people are now leaving church because they just can’t bear the lack of integrity, or the racism, or the misogyny. And none of those issues are trivial.
Integrity matters. Racism and misogyny are real problems in a lot of evangelical spaces.
Instead of dismissing everyone who leaves the church as spiritually immature or unserious or resistant to accountability, consider for a moment that some of their criticisms may be warranted.
Maybe test the smoke detectors.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Biblical manhood” (whatever that may be) isn’t the same thing as “being a Christ-follower.”
They’re two different things—they must be, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible for women to be Christ-followers.
(“But wait!” you may say, “that’s what biblical womanhood is for—Christianity for women is biblical womanhood; and Christianity for men is biblical manhood.”
But that would mean there are two different Christianities: one for men and another for women. And that can’t be right.)
So Christianity and “biblical manhood” are two different things.
Which takes priority—being a Christ-follower, or being a “biblical man”?
It cannot be that both objectives are equally important, since that would be tantamount to serving two masters:
In the context of a theological or philosophical disagreement among fellow believers, appeals to a ‘Christian worldview’ are either irrelevant or hopelessly question-begging.
The thrust of the appeal to a Christian worldview is this:
“These ideas are incompatible with the kind of worldview that a Christian should have. So Christians, as such, should reject these ideas as inconsistent with their Christian faith.”
Here’s why that reasoning just doesn’t work.
Suppose that ‘Christian worldview’ refers to an epistemic framework (or some feature thereof) which corresponds to the truth claims of Christianity.
Appealing to the authority of Scripture to settle a debate about how to interpret Scripture is a form of propaganda—it invokes a virtuous ideal in service to a goal that actually does violence to that very ideal.
This tactic functions much like the rhetoric of States’ Rights, according to which federal enforcement of civil rights is a violation of freedom—namely, the freedom of some to violate the civil rights of others (via slavery, segregation, Jim Crow or what have you).
Notice that States’ Rights rhetoric appeals to a virtuous ideal: namely, liberty. But it does so in order to preserve, e.g., the institution of slavery, which violates liberty—in fact, that *just is* the primary argument against slavery: it deprives people of liberty.
From what I’ve seen, much evangelical anti-CRT rhetoric suffers from three basic confusions.
Clarity on these points is prerequisite to fruitful dialogue.
The first confusion stems from different senses of the term ‘racism’—specifically, a conflation of ‘racism’ qua racist attitudes and ‘racism’ qua racist systems or institutions.
The objection goes like this: “What do you mean America is systemically racist? I’m an American and *I’m* not racist—I hardly even know anyone who’s racist! So that can’t be right.”
Within the evangelical community, discussions of “social justice” often emphasize charity and devote little attention to the moral significance of institutions.
This paradigm allows evangelicals to advocate for political institutions that deprive the poor of their due, and then dispense charity as though it were a substitute for justice.
We need a new paradigm. Christ followers are required to advocate for public institutions that reflect the truth about what people deserve—