No, no acknowledgement or any indication he is aware of my critiques. Been wondering if I should try and tag him again in hopes of some charitable dialogue. I honestly wouldn’t bother, except someone the likes of Dane Ortlund commending his work prompts me to keep trying to engage some actual discussion.
In my opinion, Timothy Keller’s tweet was an example of the language of spiritual abuse. Two things he said make me come to that view.
1. Keller used absolutist language: “nothing more important...” No room for shades of grey there. No room for individuals having different priorities that the one Keller insists on.
2. “Have to” comes across like an order, a command. This is especially so when a pastor or celebrity leader says “we have to” or “you have to”. Commands are hard and insistent -- they allow for no exceptions. No discussion. No negotiation. “You should” or “we should” can come across as even harsher. (I call “should” the S word on Christianese.)
Non-abusive discourse uses invitational / exhortational language. “Let us...” is a good example.
Yea, I understand the concern. Still, there is a difference between using a statement as an example of language that can be abusive and calling the statement itself abusive. People would have an easier time seeing the difference if they read David’s definition of spiritual abuse. But again, my concern is not online discourse. It’s how local church leaders can use the shortcomings of online discourse to write off embodied reactions to their abusive leadership.
Has Samuel James made any acknowledgment or response to your critiques, Aaron?
No, no acknowledgement or any indication he is aware of my critiques. Been wondering if I should try and tag him again in hopes of some charitable dialogue. I honestly wouldn’t bother, except someone the likes of Dane Ortlund commending his work prompts me to keep trying to engage some actual discussion.
In my opinion, Timothy Keller’s tweet was an example of the language of spiritual abuse. Two things he said make me come to that view.
1. Keller used absolutist language: “nothing more important...” No room for shades of grey there. No room for individuals having different priorities that the one Keller insists on.
2. “Have to” comes across like an order, a command. This is especially so when a pastor or celebrity leader says “we have to” or “you have to”. Commands are hard and insistent -- they allow for no exceptions. No discussion. No negotiation. “You should” or “we should” can come across as even harsher. (I call “should” the S word on Christianese.)
Non-abusive discourse uses invitational / exhortational language. “Let us...” is a good example.
Yea, I understand the concern. Still, there is a difference between using a statement as an example of language that can be abusive and calling the statement itself abusive. People would have an easier time seeing the difference if they read David’s definition of spiritual abuse. But again, my concern is not online discourse. It’s how local church leaders can use the shortcomings of online discourse to write off embodied reactions to their abusive leadership.