Human cognition is plagued by motivated reasoning and a tendency to invent narratives that legitimize morally indefensible social arrangements.

In other words, what we do has an effect on what we believe—corrupt habits tend to corrupt beliefs.
So it’s unsurprising that men who enslaved other human beings would cultivate an ideology of racial hierarchy to legitimize their morally indefensible conduct toward fellow image-bearers.
And since our regard for fellow image-bearers reflects our regard for the God whose image we bear, it’s unsurprising that white supremacists would manipulate theology to underwrite their ideology—mangling the doctrine of the Trinity with their paradigm of authority & submission.
What’s surprising—or rather shocking but not altogether surprising—is that 21st century theologians who claim to understand the wickedness of white supremacy would proudly appeal to that very paradigm of authority and submission in making their case for the subjugation of women.

• • •

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

18 Dec
Textbook DARVO: the real victims in all of this, according to @RevKevDeYoung , are “his people”—namely, average white evangelicals like those he pastors. Image
Not those harmed by the conduct or political preferences of white evangelicals, but white evangelicals themselves—forced to live under a cloud of castigation for their alleged epistemic and moral shortcomings.
The real victims are none other than (arguably) the single most powerful political constituency in the most powerful empire in human history—whose obstinate indifference to others’ well-being threatens everything from public health to the survival of our democratic institutions.
Read 15 tweets
16 Dec
I’ve seen some guys expressing big feelings about my comments on the effortless Christianity of many white evangelical men in the US—particularly as it pertains to marriage and gender.

This has occasioned a few additional thoughts.
If I were to take every single statement about marriage and gender in that thread and reduce it to the basic proposition it expresses, I guarantee you that I could find an identical proposition endorsed in one or more best-selling evangelical books on marriage and sexuality.
Read 7 tweets
15 Dec
While we’re on the subject of virtual church:

What’s striking about large swaths of the American evangelical church is that if you’re a white American man with conventional tastes and modest abilities, being an evangelical Christian is just. so. easy.
In fact, if you’re a white male in the US just looking out for your own personal interests, you’d be crazy to choose any other way of life.

To start with, you get to just show up and start theologizing from your own point of view, that just counts as ‘theology’.
You get married and then you never have to make your bed or do laundry or cook ever again.

And you get to be the decider of things.
Read 8 tweets
3 Dec
I saw some folks on this website today having big feelings about Christians who note the hypocrisy of the sort of “pro-life” position that favors legal protection for the unborn while opposing measures that would, e.g., expand access to healthcare for children.
The complaint is roughly that Christians (like me) who worry about this kind of hypocrisy have drawn a false moral equivalence between permitting the active termination of unborn life and, e.g., permitting a child to perish in the natural course of some untreated infirmity.
But as far as my own views are concerned, moral equivalence is totally beside the point.

In my view, the salient point is *integrity*. Before elaborating, I think it will be helpful to clarify exactly what integrity means and why it's important.
Read 10 tweets
2 Dec
Good question.

I don't make such an assumption; and my reasoning doesn't implicitly depend on such an assumption.

I'll elaborate.
There are a number of moving parts here, so it's important to be clear about the relevant contrast class. I think 'willful taking of human life' is suitable.

But 'espousing an economic policy' obscures what's at stake.
The salient point is that we know certain policies will result in avoidable human death.

So the relevant contrast class is:

willful taking of human life v. knowingly allowing avoidable human death
Read 10 tweets
2 Dec
Nowhere is the moral fragmentation of American evangelicalism more apparent than in many white evangelicals’ frail embrace of the right to life.
According to the pro-life position, all persons—including both born and unborn persons—have a “right to life,” and that right should be protected by the force of law.
But many evangelical Christians who self-identify as “pro-life” are also healthcare libertarians.

According to healthcare libertarians, we shouldn’t have laws that ensure widespread access to healthcare—or the taxes and administrative burdens that would follow upon such laws.
Read 19 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

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(