We are living through a strange phenomena due to evangelicalism's determination to follow (instead of lead) the culture, the result of which is a culture that is reforming and an evangelical establishment that isn't.
This disconnect is reinforced due to the evangelical establishment largely living in the urban, academic, corporate bubble the left currently occupies.
Where politics and leverage determine what people say and do, who gets promoted, and who gets cancelled.
Meanwhile the culture, having reached the bottom of the "fallacious" slippery slope, is realizing their future, represented in their children, is forever threatened by the ideological absurdities being forced upon them from the left.
As many of these folks begin to realize that the government is the way in which the left intends to enforce it's ideology upon them they will naturally begin to think through what could be a higher authority than that government, from which to appeal.
This is already happening, as a great many people are beginning to find a renewed interest in a religion of divine authority, particularly the Christian religion.
This awakening is only going to accelerate as the cultural conflict rages on.
When these folks start attending church again, or perhaps for the first time, what do you think their response will be to evangelical establishment disciples offering a "lite" version of the ideologies that drove them to church in the first place?
What do you think their response will be when they are told that it is not the Church's place to fight the culture war?
They will not submit to men who are themselves following in the direction they are aggressively sprinting away from.
They will then look to those men in the Christian religion who are publicly pronouncing the divine authority of King Jesus to the culture and to the government.
These will be the leaders the LORD will raise up, because they are already leading, not following.
By following an obsolete culture the evangelicalism establishment is making themselves obsolete as well.
By the time they recognize this and pivot it'll be too late. Most of their flock will have either left for someone who is leading or become apostate.
When they write their pearl-clutching fear-mongering hit pieces on Christian Nationalism they aren't wrong about one thing.
CN is most certainly a threat.
And it will continue to grow as they continue to wither and die.
The end.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Liberalism's achilles heel is that it must accommodate evil rather than punish it, and evil, once established, has no intentions of returning the favor.
It's not even that evil, once established, won't tolerate or accomodate the good.
It's that evil also will not tolerate liberalism.
You will reject idealistic pluralism at the onset or you will come to reject it under the boot of totalitarianism.
Either way, pluralism is a deconstructive ideology that is transitional and self-terminating.
This is seen in the West where laws against sodomy are no more and in their place we are seeing laws against speaking out against sodomy.
One of the things we are told to celebrate about sexual perversion is that it no longer has to be "in the closet."
"In the closet" is a euphemism for "publicly suppressed."
Let's skip LGBTQ stuff for now.
Let's talk about if public suppression is bad.
The first thing to note, as a side, is that public suppression is always happening.
It's why we have cancel culture.
So it's not *whether* we will publicly suppress expression.
It's *which* expression will be suppressed.
Not whether, but which.
That's important to remember.
In Deut 19:19-20 God tells Israel that in the case of purgury in a criminal matter, that the guilty party should *publicly* receive the penalty the person he/she lied about would have received had they been convicted.
Since the SBC is a cooperation, and we clearly aren't cooperating very well, because we clearly do not all want the same things or have the same goals, it would seem wise that if we do begin to see another conservative resurgence that a managed split is negotiated.
Since the SBC is a cooperation and not a hierarchal denomination, the only thing we are really fighting over are the institutions, the messaging, and the money.
Certainly going our separate ways would be better no?
We don't want to be represented by them, they don't want to be represented by us.
We don't want our pastorate trained by them, they don't want their pastorate trained by us.
The divide is ideological, and thus, aside from repentance, irreversible.
I genuinely think Paul Washer's "Shocking Youth Message" started a genuine reformation, was partly co-opted by the YRR for the purpose of steering youth toward neo-marxism, and 20 years later we are seeing two tribes emerge from it.
Reformers and Revolutionists.
In that sermon Washer says a lot of profound things.
He's a perfect system shock to those in a spiritual slumber.
One of those things that I think is most profound was him saying...
"You do not make Jesus LORD, he *is* LORD."
Reformers never lost this perspective.
If you look at the woke and woke-adjacent spaces in evangelicalism, which include many of the leaders that were the YRR darlings of the last two decades, you see a tremendous amount of willful ignorance of who exactly is LORD.
Who it is that has all authority in heaven & earth.
White boy summer memes are a wholesome way of fight hate against the most hated people group in America.
The fact that, even among some conservatives, they are found offensive shows how much the tilted scale of identity politics still frames matters of race.
What is wrong with telling white boys they have a place and value?
That they don't have to embrace the guilt and self-loathing society demands of them?
To enjoy their summer? Work hard, play hard, invest in family, and go to church?
As their ancestors did before them.
Some call this an unnecessary distraction.
Here is why it is important, vital even, to push back at exact this point.
The terms "racism" and "white supremacy have classic definitions. We must oppose the broadening of these terms.
I understand that there's a contingency of folks in the trenches of the SBC fight that don't like Ascol's cordial demeanor with our opposition.
Ascol has to be this way. If he wants to win he has to win the middle. The Mohler vote of 2021.
That Mohler vote was largely swayed to Litton in the runoff because the smear of Stone worked, and the establishment, who was advocating Litton, was still widely trusted.
Stone won the first round, had the Mohler vote just split evenly in the run off he would have won.
So examine the Mohler contingency.
They're largely lean-conservative neo-calvinists that are too old or too suburban or not hipster enough to have fully embraced the woke slide of the YRR movement.
They don't have a lot of the pressures and temptations of urban ministries.