1/ The deepest attention problem in conservative circles is de-location. We've let news make the place we actually inhabit feel irrelevant. Neil Postman diagnosed this in 1985. The cause goes back further.
2/ Postman traces it to the telegraph. The moment news could travel faster than a horse, information became untethered from place. "The annihilation of space," one paper called it in 1844. We've been living in that annihilation ever since.
3/ Thoreau, for all his issues, saw it coming: "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate." It took 170 years to learn that lesson, and we still haven't.
4/ What the telegraph introduced, Postman called "context-free information": news valued for novelty rather than relevance to any decision you might make. It has nowhere to land.
5/ The result: our thoughts are everywhere but nowhere in particular. Our knowledge is abundant but irrelevant to daily existence. In place of action, there's an unending awareness campaign where we share news that leads nowhere.
6/ One practical filter: Does this information require me to take some action today, this month, or this year? If no, it's inert. Most news is inert. The ratio has only gotten worse since Postman wrote that sentence in 1985.
7/ Your attention is a limited resource. Invest it primarily on the place God put you. This is the basic premise of biblical localism, and the direct opposite of what your news feed is training you to do.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Turns out that the #SavethePCA cause was ahead of the curve....
Here is the first of many overtures that the progressives in the PCA are working on to move forward their Function Female Officers goals...
This overture, which just passed Metro Atlanta Presbytery of the PCA by roughly a 70–30 margin, is framed as a call for “flexibility” on the diaconate because, they claim, Scripture gives us “very little data” about the office.
On paper, it insists it is not revisiting ordination or church office. In practice, it rewrites the BCO to allow Sessions to label women “deacons,” place them in the diaconate, and normalize a mixed-sex diaconate across the PCA.
The argument is built on three claims:
(1) the Bible is unclear about deacons,
(2) the Westminster Standards don’t define the office, and
(3) Christian liberty therefore requires institutional diversity.
That framing directly contradicts the assumptions and practice of the Westminster divines, who treated the diaconate as a real church office tied to qualified men, even if not as heavily elaborated as the eldership.
What it recommends
It amends the BCO so that Sessions may choose between:
• only ordained male deacons,
• male deacons plus women called “deacons,” or
• a fully unordained diaconate of men and women called “deacons.”
Once adopted, the PCA constitutionally enshrines women in a titled diaconal office, even while verbally denying they are “officers.”
This is not a neutral “local option” clean-up. It is a strategic redefinition of the diaconate that embeds women into an office category the church has historically reserved for men. Whatever the stated assurances, this is exactly how male-only offices get eroded: start with deacons, normalize the language, shift expectations, then move upstream.
This is about female ordination.
2/ BTW, they edited their overture to be more conservative because they know there is one on the way that is pushing for an ordained female diaconate.
They are coming at this from every angle to get FFO passed, and a lot of teaching elders, even conservative ones, are in denial of what is happening ("It's not that bad," "I've been at this since you were a kid, sport.").
We warned last summer. They are going fight to enshrine their practice, and the good ole boys will let it happen if you don't light a flame under them.
3/ I got the exact vote: 52 to 30. They put up a good fight.
1/ “Are you patriarchal, complementarian, or egalitarian?”
Well, it depends what is meant by these terms.
If by patriarchal you mean God uniquely designed men to be the leaders in society, then I’m patriarchal.
2/ If by complementarian you mean men and women complement each other through different roles God assigns to them per their sexual nature, then I’m a complementarian.
3/ If by egalitarian you merely mean both men and women were equally made in the image of God, then (believe it or not) I’m an egalitarian.
1/ Everyone keeps asking about the vival that's happening at East River Church.
It's true that for the last 2+ years people have been gathering every week to…
2/ …praise God, confess their sins, be assured of their forgiveness, sit under the preaching of the Word, enjoy the Lord's Supper as a family, and be sent out back into their daily responsibilities with the blessing of God.
And here's the kicker…
3/ …they aren't just gathering. It's an important part of it but it's also a springboard to help them to aspire to live quietly & to mind their own affairs & to work with their hands, as Paul instructed us, so that they may walk properly before outsiders & be dependent on noone.