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
 

Keep Current with Scott Coley

Scott Coley Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @scott_m_coley

5 Nov
“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:
Read 16 tweets
15 Oct
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.

Now let ‘P’ be any (set of) proposition(s).
Read 11 tweets
13 Oct
When college-educated, white evangelical men complain that they are marginalized among “elites,” what are they actually complaining about? ¹
Every modern U.S. President has claimed a commitment to some form of Christianity. ²

All but two have been Protestant.

Every U.S. President has been male, and all but one has been white.
Observe the composition of the U.S. Senate or the Supreme Court: majority white, majority male, majority Christian.
Read 21 tweets
26 Aug
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.
Read 16 tweets
9 Aug
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.”
Read 14 tweets
1 Aug
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—
Read 39 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(