Evangelicalism's "social vision is fragmentary, often lacks substance and strategy, and focuses mainly on a one-issue or single-candidate approach." -- Carl Henry, 1980
In 1980, evangelicals were surging into politics. Henry: "Yet some observers fear--and with good reason--that this involvement may eventually become as politically misguided as was the activism of liberal Christianity earlier this century."
Henry: "If evangelicals settle only for single-issue or fragmentary [political] involvement, evangelicals will treat public concerns as but a marginal appendage to evangelism, and remain highly vulnerable to more comprehensive political strategies of nonevangelical groups."
This is an admirable piece by @JohnPiper. But I'll confess I'm perplexed by the argument that pride is killing people equivalently to abortion, and that we should include that as part of our *political* reasoning. desiringgod.org/articles/polic…
One question is simply empirical: *does* a "culture-saturating, pro-self pride" actually kill people in the sense relevant that we could even compare it to abortion?
It certainly kills the soul, and we should fear that worse than the death of the body (Mt. 10:28).
While pride's effects on the polity may be considerable, they also seem indirect. Whether and how the government constrains the evils that arise from pride would therefore seem like an extraordinarily difficult matter of prudential judgment.
Evangelicals who spend their time opposing the 'false teachings' that are infiltrating the church so often miss the real task, namely, creatively rearticulating the faith so that the needs those 'false teachings' are responding to fall to the ground.
Discerning how the faith we have received addresses the needs of the hour can only be done by carefully hearing our critics, rather than reactionarily dismissing them.
This applies widely, I think, but seems especially pertinent to matters of ethics these days--namely, race and sex.
@DavidAFrench I suspect the best way to think about @HawleyMO's bill is to treat it as supply-side regulation: it's not *opposed* to 'personal responsibility,' or individual freedom, but is aimed at altering the marketplace conditions in which those are expressed.
@DavidAFrench@HawleyMO Whether this sort of approach is justified hangs, I suspect, on whether you adopt the prior commitment that big tech and social media companies are *predatory* in the way pharmaceutical companies were in spreading opiods.
This is a good thread by @DouthatNYT, though I think conflating 'integralism' with an interest in preserving a soft establishment of religion is conceptually confusing given the way the former is explicitly grounded in RC doctrine.
I think it also lends credence to my suspicion that beneath the French/Ahmari debate lies specific differences in how evangelicals and Catholics are interpreting the failure of the 1980-2008 attempt to forge a socon consensus.
I've had a few more thoughts since writing yesterday's newsletter about civility, decency, and political discourse among conservatives right now.
If you sat down LGBT activists and asked whether "too much civility" was why conservatives are losing that cultural battle, I suspect they'd enjoy a very hearty laugh.
I suspect today's progressive anti-liberalism on that issue is still shaped more by narratives about how social conservative activists--not legal minds, but activists--conducted themselves in California around Prop 8, and (more importantly) in Colorado around Romer vs. Evans.