Thabiti has written a kind-hearted piece about how to deal with the “crazy Confederate uncles” of the extended Reformed family. Having dealt with some of the crazies that are out there, I believe that in some respects Thabiti is being too kind, while in other respects he is not being kind enough. And that is because an additional distinction must be made.
In pressing for this distinction to be made, I will be asking (again) for a question to be addressed, one that was not addressed in my earlier and otherwise fruitful exchange with Thabiti. But for that, you will have to read on.
I would like to work my way to that point by citing the centerpiece of Thabiti’s post, a point I wholeheartedly agree with. I do this because I like agreeing with Thabiti, and because it is actually the hinge of the whole matter. The only thing I would want to do with his point is strengthen it a smidge, and I believe that Thabiti would agree with that strengthening. Here it is:
“So, in this view, one could study systematic, historical or biblical theology and give very little reflection to ethics—what to do with all that theology besides write more theology. Theology became something for the head and occasionally the heart but very seldom the hands—especially if those hands were going to be lifted to help the poor, marginalized, and oppressed.”
I would want to modify this by adding the phrase “including public square ethics” after his phrase “very little reflection to ethics, including public square ethics.” Theology must engage with all of life, and if it does not engage, then to Hell with it because that’s where it is going anyway.
