Kayla Koslosky has rounded-up some tweets and other commentary from evangelicals on the Deborah Ramirez accusation. Here is a taste of her piece at “Christian Headlines”:
Many Christian leaders are offering their opinions on Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and they are divided.
Though the schism has only become greater since Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault on two occasions, faith leaders were divided on his potential appointment well before then.
Here is what they have had to say:
Read the rest here.
The reactions of all of the parties are no big surprise, but I will comment on two of them.
Russell Moore always attempts to cast himself as a “more thoughtful evangelical” who has successfully shucked his parochial Southern roots while at the same time remaining safely within the SBC orbit. After a few years of Russell Moore’s carefully measured public statements on a variety of issues, I find myself longing for a denominational voice which is less equivocal. In my opinion, Russell could profit from St. Paul’s noted dictum, albeit in a different context, to keep his speech to others from generally being both “yea and nay.”
Rachel Held Evans sets up a false dichotomy in her statement by introducing a shopworn homosexual comparison. None of Kavanaugh’s defenders are calling for acceptance or affirmation of youthful heterosexual dalliances in the way that certain voices are calling for acceptance and affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. None of Kavanaugh’s defenders are saying that “boys will be boys” or that teenage heterosexual sexual experimentation is proper. By the way, would Mrs Evans be less hostile to a nominee who had been accused of a same-sex assault thirty-five years ago? After all, should not certain protected classes be afforded more latitude? Some people seem to lean toward that view.