Pinned Tweet
Looks like we're going to have some new folks around here. Here's what you can expect:
1) general disapproval of modernity
2) endearing vignettes of bickering w/ my 17yo son about Napoleon
3) love of Appalachia
4) deeply protective of working class
5) probably too ecumenical
I’m getting the sense that a lot of evangelical men have not read Elisabeth Elliot’s work on Christian womanhood and marriage while a lot of evangelical women have and unfortunately, it’s really relevant to the current conversation.
This is part of what previous 🧵 is trying to illuminate. The path to Ecuador was non-traditional for both men & women, but especially so for women. The exact interplay btwn ministry & marriage as a vocational endeavor is relevant insofar as the Elliots story was mainstreamed.
Replying to @sometimesalight @CTmagazine
I’m a Catholic priest so theres a lot I don’t know on this: All the “Auca” missionaries were married, right? At that time, were single women going into more challenging mission fields yet? Is there reason to think Elisabeth assumed she’d only get to go to difficult lands married?
Re: @CTmagazine article about Elisabeth Elliot. Does her sexuality matter? Should it be part of the conversation around her legacy and life’s work?
I think yes but not for the reasons most people talk about.
It’s because of I Cor 7:32-34 and the nature of mission work.
What shaped her understanding of what she was doing in both ministry & mission? Is she typical or does the outlier reveal the truth of a context? And these are really significant questions to entertain if only b/c it will tell us how to read Elliot more faithfully.

