1
This question came into my mind today after reading this great blog post last night and thinking about the article today while driving home.
When a revival leader has moral failures, the other revival leaders claim that the moral failure of the revival leader does not invalidate the revival. However, when a revival critic is found to be in a moral failure, the revival leaders claim that the moral failure of the revival critic invalidates the criticisms brought forth.
How can this double-standard be so blindly accepted as truth?
Back to top