Really interesting reading the replies to this. There’s surely TONS more thinking behind this short press release. No press release ever tells the whole story. But insofar as this lays bare the basic reasoning, I think it’s a disappointing and inconsistent decision.

/1 https://twitter.com/albertmohler/status/1315827590599507968

First, the “burdens and blessings” framework is inadequate for the scope of issues in view. Many of the people comfortably compare abortion w/ slavery. Imagine any of them settling for a “burdens and blessings” framework for abortion. They’d be right to reject such sophistry.

/2

Second, I fail to see a significant difference b/t the original slaveholding founders of the institution (whose names will remain on the buildings) and the endowed chair that’s been vacated (because of use of convict leasing).

/3

To say the founding slaveholders’ theology *defines* the institution is GREATER reason to remove their names and to interrogate their continuing influence on the institution. To emerge from this process still honoring them is itself dishonorable.

/4

Third, the effort to appeal to David and Moses as biblical examples of fallen heroes still honored is chalk and cheese. None of David’s or Moses’ or Paul’s sins are on the scale of the humanity-denying, lifelong exploitative sin as chattel based slavery. Not even close!

It staggers the mind to think anyone would look at pro-slavery voices like Boyce, etc. and think, “Oh, they’re like David.” This is not “all our heroes have clay feet.” This is simply continuing to honor dishonorable men. It’s a *failure* to confront their lives and history.

/6

Fourth, this is not the gospel—at least not the full-orbed teachings that adorn the gospel. The gospel nowhere tells us to “move on” without substantive adjustment of our views in repentance.

It’s fine if we want to call this a “start.” But at what? Keeping everything as it was?

Finally, this press release fails to call things what they are. The scholarship ought to be called an effort at reparations. Even critics on the other side see that for what it is. And “racial supremacy” ought to be called “white supremacy,” for that’s the legacy dealt with here.

I don’t think this is the best that could be done. I don’t think honoring the “blessings” of slaveholding history and persons is in keeping with the gospel. And I don’t think it ought to be too much to ask that buildings and other institutional monuments reflect Christ not man.

Maybe one day the institution gets there. But this ain’t it.

/end