"When I read his First Things essay two years ago, I was skeptical of Renn’s “three worlds” framework. I thought it was a blunt instrument that ascribed questionable motives to leaders embracing an engagement model for Christian political and cultural participation."
Trying to understand the statement above from the CT article - it's that Aaron is pointedly ascribing questionable motives to Christian leaders still pursuing cultural engagement in the negative world? If a questionable motive is a failure to understand that cultural engagement is no longer as effective a model, possibly owing to a refusal to accept the loss of Christianity's privilege in America, I could see that. I'm not familiar with what 'very tough' things he has said about R. Moore, who presumably is one of these Christian leaders.
It is not at all surprising that the Reddit thread got locked and deleted. Sometimes the truth is just too spicy for the leftist admins to take.
"When I read his First Things essay two years ago, I was skeptical of Renn’s “three worlds” framework. I thought it was a blunt instrument that ascribed questionable motives to leaders embracing an engagement model for Christian political and cultural participation."
Trying to understand the statement above from the CT article - it's that Aaron is pointedly ascribing questionable motives to Christian leaders still pursuing cultural engagement in the negative world? If a questionable motive is a failure to understand that cultural engagement is no longer as effective a model, possibly owing to a refusal to accept the loss of Christianity's privilege in America, I could see that. I'm not familiar with what 'very tough' things he has said about R. Moore, who presumably is one of these Christian leaders.