Read on Twitter
THREAD:
A few months ago, I thought it might be true that I was overreacting about CRT etc. But now people in my Christian circles are passing around DiAngelo as a helpful resource for how to love neighbor.
Let’s make no mistake: DiAngelo offers an alternative gospel.
A few months ago, I thought it might be true that I was overreacting about CRT etc. But now people in my Christian circles are passing around DiAngelo as a helpful resource for how to love neighbor.
Let’s make no mistake: DiAngelo offers an alternative gospel.
She offers a different doctrine of sin. She offers a different doc of justification.
She offers a different notion of the eschaton and of hope.
She offers a different notion of the eschaton and of hope.
No amount of good intentions can compensate for the normalization of a false Gospel.
At the outbreak of this thing, we had two options: spend our energy emphasizing the danger or emphasizing what good things *might could* come of it.
At the outbreak of this thing, we had two options: spend our energy emphasizing the danger or emphasizing what good things *might could* come of it.
Pastorally, the best reflex is always the former, imo. Why? Because you can always moderate and adjust with more knowledge and understanding later.
But the movement to normalize something none of us understood has paid destructive dividends.
But the movement to normalize something none of us understood has paid destructive dividends.
This worldview is unique. It offers more than observations or conclusions, some of which we may agree with. It offers a *method* and *altered assumptions*. You must assent to these assumptions to use their analytical tools.
Example: to use a hammer as a tool for painting your car, you have to agree with the assumption that a hammer is the proper tool to use. It turns out that the tool matters.
Common grace is real, but it doesn’t necessarily give us a theological Mario Star Power, making us immune to all error. We should wake up each day believing in our own proclivity to deception and error.
Furthermore, to muddy the waters, Christians have tried to baptize the movement’s terms into more anodyne definitions. Example: “Anti-Racism” is spoken of in Xian circles as no more than working against racism. But that’s not what the Movement’s Literature says Anti-Racism is.
This has served to make Christians in the pew more comfortable with terms and movements they don’t understand. They hear their pastor re-define a term and they think the saccharine definitions are the real ones. This further opens the gate to really bad ideas.
But news flash folks: the culture isn’t impressed with our novel “contextualization.” And our half way measures won’t appease the movement.
What if we could just offer something distinctively Christian instead of repackaging the culture’s ideas in Christianese?
What if we could just offer something distinctively Christian instead of repackaging the culture’s ideas in Christianese?
