I think one other factor in this is the role of response to legitimate ignorance.
There are times when someone may legitimately not know something. But how their respond to that ignrance does matter when part of their role is evaluation or discernment.
Two examples come immediately to mind. John Piper and others raised the profile of Puritains, especially Jonathan Edwards in the 90s and early 2000s. I know Piper addressed Edwards' owning slaves in 2013 but he claimed he was unaware of it. But Piper had written a short biography about Edwards. And Marden's biography of Edwards came out in 2003 which discussed it. And other things like the receipts for the purchase of Venus I saw in graduate classes on early American Puritanism in the mid 90s.
I am assuming that Piper didn't know, but part of that for me is about judgement. What is important to your evolution of history and theology is relevant and Piper not knowing that Edwards owned slaves until 10-15 years after it was being pretty widely discussed in the academy is relevant to how we think about his theology.
I also think about Denny Burk and others sharing Joe Rigney's article about feminism that had the statue of Perseus with the Head of Medusa as the main image. I think it is entirely possible (and likely) that Rigney and Burk and others didn't know that in at least some of the myths of Medusa, she was raped in Athena/Menerva's temple. And Medusa ended up getting punished and eventually beheaded as the victim of rape. When there was push back about that statue as the image there was no movement to change the image or apologize but Burk went on a blocking spree on twitter and Rigney just claimed people were misreading his point.
I bring this up because I don't think we can expect that someone always knows relevant details, even if in your examples it is clear that they should have. But openness to new information and the ability to process the information and change is part of what we should expect from leaders. Doubling down on denial or claiming persecution, etc is just another example of information that should inform us about our leader's ability to lead.
I’m often haunted by Wilberforce’s blistering speech on the horrors of the slave trade:
“Having heard all of this you may choose to look the other way but you can never again say you did not know.”
Yes. And thanks for subscribing!
I think one other factor in this is the role of response to legitimate ignorance.
There are times when someone may legitimately not know something. But how their respond to that ignrance does matter when part of their role is evaluation or discernment.
Two examples come immediately to mind. John Piper and others raised the profile of Puritains, especially Jonathan Edwards in the 90s and early 2000s. I know Piper addressed Edwards' owning slaves in 2013 but he claimed he was unaware of it. But Piper had written a short biography about Edwards. And Marden's biography of Edwards came out in 2003 which discussed it. And other things like the receipts for the purchase of Venus I saw in graduate classes on early American Puritanism in the mid 90s.
I am assuming that Piper didn't know, but part of that for me is about judgement. What is important to your evolution of history and theology is relevant and Piper not knowing that Edwards owned slaves until 10-15 years after it was being pretty widely discussed in the academy is relevant to how we think about his theology.
I also think about Denny Burk and others sharing Joe Rigney's article about feminism that had the statue of Perseus with the Head of Medusa as the main image. I think it is entirely possible (and likely) that Rigney and Burk and others didn't know that in at least some of the myths of Medusa, she was raped in Athena/Menerva's temple. And Medusa ended up getting punished and eventually beheaded as the victim of rape. When there was push back about that statue as the image there was no movement to change the image or apologize but Burk went on a blocking spree on twitter and Rigney just claimed people were misreading his point.
I bring this up because I don't think we can expect that someone always knows relevant details, even if in your examples it is clear that they should have. But openness to new information and the ability to process the information and change is part of what we should expect from leaders. Doubling down on denial or claiming persecution, etc is just another example of information that should inform us about our leader's ability to lead.