I've often seen evangelicals argue that their movement is not inherently political.
The only way this could be true is if one honestly believes white cisheteropatriarchy to be THE neutral, natural, and entirely objective position.
Which, FTR, is a deeply political view.
Recently saw someone claim it was only the "talking heads" who were actually political, the average person in the pews at an evangelical church is just a good person doing a bunch of good behind the scenes.
I want to explore that for a moment.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay all, it's a quiet night and I happen to like this topic.
So...I'mma do a thread.
Specifically, I'm going to talk for a minute about patriarchal interpretation and why inerrantist readings of Scripture stifle imagination and uphold systems of oppression.
Our test passage for this is going to be John 8.
For those not familiar, this is the passage traditionally given a heading about "Jesus and the Adulterous Woman."
You can read the passage here if you need it for reference:
The scant details given on the church website about his military service (fbcbelleview.org/stan-hannan-se…) along with what @JustinPetersMin has said give us enough info to research exactly what Stan's role was in the Rhodesian military.
Notice that motive and faith are literally all that matter in Castleberry's system.
If you're a great person with good motives doing amazing justice work and helping lots of people, but you aren't a Christian, then it's all against God.
But if you're a Christian who is trying to honor God and practice your faith as you best understand it but end up doing a bunch of harm instead, well congrats you're still a good person because at least you tried.