The appeal "2000 years of Christian history" on various subjects needs to be called out for the deceptive manipulation tactic that it truly is.

Why?

1/8 First of all, the one thing Christian history teaches us beyond doubt is that there is no unified Christianity over those 2000 years. There might be similarities, but those Nicene Bishops would be excommunicating today's evangelicals and Catholics.

2/8

Plagiarism in evangelicalism has come up again, and (h/t to @laurchastain22 for the key information), I've been doing some research into someone that you would never have expected to see in this conversation.

1/ Tim Keller’s sermon “Parents and Children,” preached in 1991 plagiarized Lewis B. Smedes’ 1989 book “Mere Morality.” Ironically, this sermon is from the same year as the one that Ed Litton is accused of plagiarizing off of Keller in 2012

2/

I have said that this story has a lot to do with how I presently view evangelical Christendom, and it does.

https://twitter.com/DavidDzimianski/status/1555567514477797378

While “regular” people like John Chau and myself burn ourselves out in faithfulness to the theology, evangelical leadership does not. While we spent our last cent to spread the gospel, they sit in their comfortable chairs collecting massive paychecks.

John Allen Chau was almost the second dead American in the last decade on the beach of North Sentinel Island instead of the first.

1/ I grew up a Christian fundamentalist, but after a “revival” experience at 19 years old, it truly became my whole life.

2/

I’ve been debating whether or not to post my thoughts on the particular key that flipped a switch for me on abortion or not.

I know many don’t change their minds because of what they read on Twitter, but I know that I have had my mind changed on Twitter, so I’ve decided to share A lot of people have more eloquently shared a lot of what I would call the personal, humanizing, and anecdotal elements that started to open my eyes to the fact that more complexity and nuance existed than I had been willing to allow as a pro-lifer.

A lot of conservative evangelicals miss the point that Jesus makes in his answers about divorce.

Rather than providing a "stricter" or "higher" bar, Jesus is actually undermining the whole system of "male headship" and patriarchy.

I'll explain: In the first century, Jewish thought on divorce was primarily dominated by the teachings of Rabbis Hillel and Shammai.

Generally speaking, Jesus aligns with Hillel - with occasional departures, such as in the case of the divorce question.

One of the deep secrets of complementarianism is that it's endgame isn't wives submitting to their husbands.

Rather, it is about church congregations submitting to the pastor.

The husband-wife relationship is just one way of achieving that goal. I've repeatedly seen pastors override "wifely submission" and claim authority over a woman b/c her husband isn't in line with the pastor - whether a non-Christian, differences of opinion, or simply not as "engaged" as the pastor wants on the pastor's mission.

We need to talk about the messages underlying this kind of reaction coming from a prominent evangelical leader.

Thread: 1/10 "Down with the patriarchy!!"

This Freudian slip while Mohler is trying to be humorous reveals an interesting tidbit: All the militancy against "gender neutrality," whether in Bible translations or toys is about one thing: Protecting the patriarchy

2/10

There is a concerning trend in evangelicalism:

Whenever a leader's evil behavior is exposed, a lot of people run to protect the institution they built/ran.

While this is usually couched as concern for the reputation of Christ/Christianity, it seems an odd focus. /1 1) If the institution was so connected with the leader, then was it truly a monument to Christ at all? Rather, was it not a monument to the man?

2) Why is it the organization that gets sympathy, while the victims of the leader go without justice or even acknowledgement? /2