Throughout my writing, I happily treat the Scripture as free of error, yet culturally embodied, subject to my own misinterpretation, & containing many statements & ideas that SEEM weird, difficult, & even wrong that cause me to say, "here is truth, but I don't yet get it." 1/
2/ But when I think, "okay, this just seems wrong," it's not because I believe it is, but because I'm trying to apply the analogy of faith, seeking to see how it fits with the Scripture's overarching presentation of God in all His love, purity, compassion, and generosity.
3/ As a result, there are many passages I have come to understand by listening to others who are very different from me, outside of my own tradition and social location, allowing them to peel away assumptions I did not know I had.
Yet there are other passages I still am
4/ unable to square. These, again, I hold to be true, but I simply don't know what the truth is. And I'm okay with that.
But I refuse to use such passages as polemical weapons to marginalize others, especially when they're hard to understand in light of much more clear passages
5/5 and overarching themes and messages, hoping that with prayer and study I will fully grasp God's goodness in them in time.
You won't catch me engaging in debates over words, phrases, and sentences I just don't yet get.
In case anyone was wondering, hahaha.
6/5 As an addendum, some will say I'm just refusing to "submit" to such difficult passages because of my own sin and my own cultural embodiment, to which I reply, okay, I'm sure that is true in some cases. And it's true of you as well. But what else is a brother to do?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I can think of little that is more divisive than spending 5 years daily telling Christians that every form of antiracism, except that which is acceptable to White conservatives, is incompatible with the Gospel, especially after 400 years legal, economic, & social White supremacy.
The spark of desire throughout our nation to achieve racial justice could've been embraced by White evangelicals as a cause dear to the heart of Jesus, but instead it was attacked on the very same terms that enslavers & segregationists used to oppose abolitionism and integration.
I am among those who eschew "worldview" talk, and always have. Inasmuch as it means something like "the way you generally see things" or even "belief system," I think it's pretty straightforward. But it is often used by apologists to be some sort of totalized system of ideas, 1/
2/ answering all "basic" (doing a lot of work here!) questions, and I dare say every truth in the set is treated as a theorem. As such, contradicting one piece contradicts the whole, and accepting one piece requires acceptance of the whole.
3/ To me, this is just some strange Josiah Roycian idealistic nonsense. Nothing like this exists for flesh and blood humans. And I'd argue further that whatever we do have that is closest to this idealistic nonsense is something that we literally ALL ALREADY SHARE.
Racism IS material heresy, and ought to be acknowledged as formal heresy (as the Eastern Church has). It strikes at the basic assumptions of the creedal Christian faith.
A brief outline: [Thread]
1. Jesus Christ bore the nature of a specific "race."
2. In bearing the nature of a specific race, Jesus Christ bore complete and full human nature (substance) as such.
3. To say that races can differ by superiority or inferiority necessarily implies that they differ in nature (substance).
2/ intertwined with Christianity in White American consciousness that the two are nearly indistinguishable.
Every age must do this self-critical work to avoid the ever present, and wildly toxic, age hubris from which we all suffer to varying degrees.
3/ (I mean, the SBC, for example, was created to defend the institution of racial slavery, and I'm glad many have since located the broad social philosophies that lived parasitically within that "Christianity" since. The forces of stasis, as we are seeing today, relentlessly
Here @sandylocks locates a central problem with the universalism and "interchangeability" of liberalism, as often expressed in "color-blindness"; very important points. (Note: there is no rejection of liberalism's egalitarian goals as such. The goal is shared; the means are not.)
This accords with Gary Peller's explanation of where Critical scholars diverge from traditional liberalism:
And, again, I don't think this is too far from Dr. King as well: