Read on Twitter
Yeah, when people are trained by the whole world that they *must* vote for a politically viable option and the two options are:
“Shred the constitution”
And
“Chemically burn unborn children to death”
Evs are going to be conflicted https://twitter.com/JemarTisby/status/1325075784218800129
“Shred the constitution”
And
“Chemically burn unborn children to death”
Evs are going to be conflicted https://twitter.com/JemarTisby/status/1325075784218800129
Sure, hyper-political folks and their nearby associates might escape orbit on this and, for example, rightly vote Kanye2020.
But the real problem is, the Church is very confused about how to do political engagement.
But the real problem is, the Church is very confused about how to do political engagement.
What few may remember is that a major turn in the conservative church in 1910-1925 was against political engagement in general.
It wasn’t until the 1960s that evangelicalism became politically active again (for some good and bad reasons).
It wasn’t until the 1960s that evangelicalism became politically active again (for some good and bad reasons).
But that political reengagement had a partisan feast/apolitical famine dynamic to it. This was not a political theology ressourcement.
We are *just now* doing that (first with Kuyper, now with Anglo political theology via @DavenantInst). This has not trickled down yet.
We are *just now* doing that (first with Kuyper, now with Anglo political theology via @DavenantInst). This has not trickled down yet.
