Thank you, and very well done! I won't hold my breath that they will come...the allure and seduction of power is too great, in my view. I quit using the E word to describe myself more than 6 years ago and I don't think I will live long enough to be willing to reclaim it.
Thank you Scot. This is my favorite invitation in the Bible: "The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life." (Rev 22:17). It's so simple - it speaks of meeting a real need - who doesn't get thirsty? And it speaks of beauty - what bride is not beautiful inside and out, on their wedding day, dressed up and radiant with happiness (hopefully)? It's not triggering either for anyone who has trouble with images of abuse and violent death. Invitations open things up rather than locking them down. Evangelicalism in my experience seems to be about locking things down rather than opening them up. The gates of hell shall not prevail means the gates have been opened. Things might get messy when we fling the doors wide open but isn't that what Jesus wanted? He said ""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." Jesus spoke of people actually trying to get in, and they couldn't because the religious experts of his day were stopping them. I think if you try to get rid of the messiness then grace is lost along with it.
In many ways, the evangelical expansion was not unlike the western expansion of the colonists. Manifest destiny tends to determine what is or isn't "God's plan" by looking back at the powerful's ability to conquer it, build it, and overcome it. Evangelical leaders simply renamed the obstacles. To the colonizers, rivers, mountains, animals, people groups, cultures, and religions were blocking the path to what their god wanted for them. The evangelicals (which I have been most of my life. God help me.) built bigger buildings, events, platforms, celebrity, and sought more power, position, and benefits (sounds opposite to Phil. 2?), all the while trampling on women and people of color like colonists killing buffalo, only their weapon was not a long gun, it was the Bible.
I guess "divine right" is just as present in this not so "Christian" nation as it was in the old country.
It's very interesting to look into the revision of the Westminster Confession and the writing of the US Constitution. Common threads everywhere. Separation of church and state was about removing the powers of monarchial leaders (Trump?) from having religious powers, particularly, setting doctrine, sacerdotal duties, and church discipline. Unfortunately, what remained were many of the ideas that drove the crusades, the inquisition, and the counter-reformation. The early colonizers and expansionists believed that driving out the 'pagan religions' was part of "god's will" for this country (and much of Canada). Unfortunately, this meant any religion or spirituality that was not like the white man's religion. Our revisionist history was written by the conquerors and even the "christian" people COMPLETELY disregarded the mandate to bring good news to the poor, care for the brokenhearted, freedom for the captive, and release for the prisoners.
God forgive us for our oppression, brutality, and slavery.
As a European, my observation is that evangelicalism in the USA is too much poisened with what many Americans perceive as patriotism. Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world". It is not the USA! In Europe, the evangelical flavor is quite different and not tied to nationalism.
Interestingly, when American evangelical preachers come to Europe, you will find much less of this "America-ism" in their preaching. Of course, there's no point to speak too much about America if they are abroad. They also don't try to acquire policital influence, because they are not in their own country. Abroad, they have to focus on their spiritual message. To me it explains why I haven't seen the issues mentioned here for a long time. For decades, many evangelicals in Europe have looked up to the USA as a better country, with better Christianity, and so on. I think it's also because of the internet that many have learned more about the reality and the days of exaggerated appreciation are coming to and end. But, we still love you! ;-)
I really appreciate your work on this, Scot. It certainly shows the way in which your ecclesiology has adapted over time. I think that's important for all of us as we journey alongside each other and alongside Christ.
Honestly, though, I wonder how effective the word evangelicalism is to the gospel story today. It only means one thing in the eyes of people who have little or no faith experience. And for those who are struggling in the aftermath of spiritual abuse, it is a word that brings back painful memories. That's why I would never, ever call myself an evangelical and I never use the word evangelical to describe what Christians should be. It's not a helpful word anymore.
Now, that leads to a different question--what is a better word to describe who we are? I tend to be more mainline anyway, but growing up as a Baptist in the south I still hold on to Jesus' instructions that we serve as witnesses to who Christ is. So, perhaps, the word I would use is witness. What could be more appropriate for Christians than to actually witness (martys) by sharing our story, which is the gospel story itself.
Again, I really appreciate your work on this. I just think it's time to kill off that E word completely because it doesn't mean what it once did.
As a member of an international missions organization, operating in many difficult places where the term "Christian" is anathema (and likely to get you killed), we have switched to the term, "Jesus Followers." Not sure if that answers your question, but it does sidestep a lot of the political (and often toxic) implications of some other terms we grew up and loved.
From my vantage point most of our evangelical theology is written from the position of at least some privilege. That's not to dismiss it in any way. Rather it is to say that we have perhaps ignored the margins of say African American or Hispanic theology, not to mention theology coming from the 2/3rs world. I am really grateful for the evangelical influences of NT Wright, Scot Mc Knight, Stanley Hauerwas, Walter Brueggemann, Craig Keener, The GOCN, Stanley Grenz, Dallas Willard etc. in my own life, but when I read that list it puts me with 'my own' so to speak. These are admittedly my predominent shaping influences. But I need hear from the poor about the poor. From women about women etc. It's a newish adventure for me and one I am really enjoying. The brand of 'American Israelism' that infects the evangelical world at present is disturbing to say the least...thanks for this. Good food for thought.
First time caller. Never had you as a prof in Deerfield, but all my guy friends liked & respected you so much. #Fave I hope someday to see that same, deserved respect here in your comments sections.
Agreed. The marriage of conservative evangelicalism to right-wing politics (I am a centrist) has moved a contingent of E's to an anti-immigrant mindset. It is unfortunate that the very people who declare their love of the Scriptures tend to ignore those lessons of kindness and inclusion to the foreigner which has both Old and New Testament foundations. The book of Ruth goes a long way in showing how the immigrant enriches God's people, and how this woman from Moab is a vital link in the line of Christ. A point I have made in teaching on this book is that the Church must be seen as an international, diverse body of believers; people who neither look like us, or speak our language. This must be remembered; tribalism is not Christian.
Scot, I think I need to create a new bookmarks folder for, "Things that make me go, hmmm..." ;-) Seriously though, I'd always thought of myself as Evangelical, but recently dropped that moniker as it has become more of a Right-wing political affiliation than a doctrine or even a true historical narrative. However, as I read here, maybe there could be a way to pick up that tag again, but in a way that reflects the wonderfully diverse, sometimes beautiful and sometimes horrific, world wide, passionate (driven?), human and divine story which is Evangelicalism. Thank you for your constant reminders...
I simply want to commend something that you and many true scholars say. As you mention below, this is not your area of expertise. That said, your wide reading demonstrates you know more about this area than the vast majority. Too many are confident that their view is correct, even though there is a superficial understanding of the issue. I wish Christians (and all Americans) had more self-awareness to know what it takes to be literate on an important issue.
"I’m jumping lanes outside of my discipline so I may need to be corrected about some of this. But this is what I think. I welcome your comments. There are huge gaps in my reading. Forgive them."
Thank you, Scot for this balanced and fair treatment of the issue at hand. I love your heart for the church as a whole. May God bring healing to his church and humility in us all to see where we need to change…
Modern critiques from social constructivism, without any basis in truth, don’t lead to good or correction. They are a toolbox for obtaining power.
Some who are against critical social theories, such as myself, have been deeply entrenched within its lenses, and have come out the other side saying “the slippery slope is real”. We’ve seen too many friends and family members turn on those that love them most with cries of patriarchy! White supremacy! Nazi! Transphobe! And the like. We’ve seen how gender ideology is destroying young people across the country, many in our own churches. Weve seen a lot of Christina Cleveland’s and David Darks and others who have joined a new fundamentalist religion that looks a lot more like Derrida and Marcuse than anything resembling Christianity, mainline, evangelical or anabaptist.
I don’t need critical social theories to see the progressive revelation of scripture towards women. I don’t need critical social theories to see how the biblical narrative relates to empire. I don’t need disingenuous social constructivists spinning the worst possible narratives to have eyes to see when the church is or has been wrong. I do need our academic thought leaders/celebrities to take a healthy pause and see what they are doing; aligning with the coastal elite against the people they are supposed to be serving. Critical social theories have all ready entered the leadership void of mainline Protestantism, colonizing those institutions (oh the irony). Now we’re “deconstructing evangelicalism” by broad brushing millions of people, labeling and in many cases dehumanizing them, and dismissing any critque with racist, mysogynist, etc.
I’ll say - as a Christian pacifist - I first realized something was wrong when my cohort started openly supporting antifa, talking about punching nazis. That gave me enough pause to be able to step back and look from a birds eye view and see the cultural revolution that was occurring.
They will come for the church once it’s no longer useful. What they cannot colonize they will problematize and attempt to destroy.
Some of us have livelihoods to protect from those who wish to slander dissidents while others make money and gain clout selling historiographies attacking working class people and rednecks for not blindly accepting their luxury beliefs.
It doesn’t seem to matter that I lived for a decade in one of the poorest neighborhoods in a large southern city, experienced literal violence as well as threats of violence, tried my best to practice radical hospitality with folks on the margins, and yet if I criticize an ideology that I for half a decade subscribed to, get called all sorts of names…. Names that prevent getting jobs or can destroy one’s business or family, and by alleged progressive Christian’s and exvangelicals to boot… why might I be behind a pseudonym?
Which ideology is the ideology of the powerful; the media l, academia, the mega corps, the laptop class yelling about white supremacy and deplorables from their bourgeois digs in gentrified urban areas and Tony inner ring suburbs? And which ideology is a group of people whose jobs have been shipped away, whose towns have struggled for 3 decades, whose kids are hooked on fent?
But the latter are all white supremacists, or patriarchs getting their just deserts so the suicide rate for young men is just a consequence of equity.
Yes - luxury beliefs. Rob Henderson writes eloquently about the phenomenon from the perspective of a kid who grew up in poverty and dysfunction and ended up at Harvard.
Here’s the problem: when a person has been in a position of authority (privilege) for the majority or entirety of life, it’s difficult to ever see the legitimate responses of the disinherited. And, then, to cry foul when people call out supremacy, deplorable theology, misogyny, etc. is completely disingenuous. I’d prefer to meet the challenges head on rather than stick my head in the sand hoping the problem will go away.
That still doesn't engage the substance of the comment. It essentially dismisses it by resorting to an ideological assertion, which assumes that "meeting the challenges head on" means resorting to the very perspective the commenter is questioning.
Scot can you elaborate on this policy? What do you mean you respond to names? I’ve often had conversations with my favorite twenty somethings about sweeping statements and vague, shifting accusations that are difficult to respond to. I’d love to hear more about your approach.
I agree we don’t need critical social theories to reveal the biblical truth of systemic sin that degrades image bearers, such as orphans, widows, strangers, the poor, women, indigenous groups, people of African descent, various groups in the minority — image bearers marginalized and oppressed by empires and empires’ privileged. But why have I not heard these matters addressed from white-evangelical pulpits by the preachers who purport to teach the whole counsel of God? Why is there so much more concern about resonance between certain critical social theories and the thought of many sisters and brothers currently drawing attention to the aforementioned negligence than there is about the negligence itself? Why do we ignore the board of this negligence and angrily dig at the splinter of “secular” (“all truth is God’s”) theories?
Everywhere I’ve gone to church has addressed specifically that thing. My current congregation is currently moving to a more egalitarian position.
I’ll grant that there are some straw men on critical theories, but it’s not just conservative evangelicals sounding the alarm bells. Plenty of atheists, Jews, Catholics, etc. John McWhorter has done great work, as has Abigail Shrier, are they racist bigots because they share the same concerns?
I find it very troubling how evangelical academic elites are so quick to broad brush a large, diverse group of people with very serious accusations. It almost seems like there’s a class lens that we need to observe this through. Du Mez just the other day, in her quickness to demonize working class evangelicals, accidentally did so to working class black folks (the hallmark card incident).
One can look to Whiteheads research on “Christian nationalism” actually rates black folks highest on the “christian nationalism” scale.
We need more of what NT Wright terms critical realism. I think it is helpful to look at the Bible through that lense. What we don’t need is friere, gramsci, Derrida, god forbid Judith Butler to tell us how we should read the Bible and how we should engage the leaders of our institutions. That type of critical lens exists to destroy, not to build. And it certainly doesn’t have a place of forgiveness for anyone who falls on the oppressor side of the matrix.
I agree. I'm completely disappointed and disgusted by the direction of much of evangelical academia, who seem much more interested in the praise and approval of an anti-Christian intellectual and social order than they do in a genuine search for truth.
My observation, from being around them for roughly the last two decades, is that much like secular academics, they often seen to be sequestered in the academic bubble and don't have a lot of interaction with people unlike themselves. There views frequently strike me as a function of their class and social location rather than as the result of genuine thinking.
I see your "Just as I Am" reference at the bottom. Nice touch. We may need all 15 verses for this invitation.
Thank you, and very well done! I won't hold my breath that they will come...the allure and seduction of power is too great, in my view. I quit using the E word to describe myself more than 6 years ago and I don't think I will live long enough to be willing to reclaim it.
Thank you Scot. This is my favorite invitation in the Bible: "The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life." (Rev 22:17). It's so simple - it speaks of meeting a real need - who doesn't get thirsty? And it speaks of beauty - what bride is not beautiful inside and out, on their wedding day, dressed up and radiant with happiness (hopefully)? It's not triggering either for anyone who has trouble with images of abuse and violent death. Invitations open things up rather than locking them down. Evangelicalism in my experience seems to be about locking things down rather than opening them up. The gates of hell shall not prevail means the gates have been opened. Things might get messy when we fling the doors wide open but isn't that what Jesus wanted? He said ""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." Jesus spoke of people actually trying to get in, and they couldn't because the religious experts of his day were stopping them. I think if you try to get rid of the messiness then grace is lost along with it.
In many ways, the evangelical expansion was not unlike the western expansion of the colonists. Manifest destiny tends to determine what is or isn't "God's plan" by looking back at the powerful's ability to conquer it, build it, and overcome it. Evangelical leaders simply renamed the obstacles. To the colonizers, rivers, mountains, animals, people groups, cultures, and religions were blocking the path to what their god wanted for them. The evangelicals (which I have been most of my life. God help me.) built bigger buildings, events, platforms, celebrity, and sought more power, position, and benefits (sounds opposite to Phil. 2?), all the while trampling on women and people of color like colonists killing buffalo, only their weapon was not a long gun, it was the Bible.
I guess "divine right" is just as present in this not so "Christian" nation as it was in the old country.
Wow, thanks for this powerful image to consider.
It's very interesting to look into the revision of the Westminster Confession and the writing of the US Constitution. Common threads everywhere. Separation of church and state was about removing the powers of monarchial leaders (Trump?) from having religious powers, particularly, setting doctrine, sacerdotal duties, and church discipline. Unfortunately, what remained were many of the ideas that drove the crusades, the inquisition, and the counter-reformation. The early colonizers and expansionists believed that driving out the 'pagan religions' was part of "god's will" for this country (and much of Canada). Unfortunately, this meant any religion or spirituality that was not like the white man's religion. Our revisionist history was written by the conquerors and even the "christian" people COMPLETELY disregarded the mandate to bring good news to the poor, care for the brokenhearted, freedom for the captive, and release for the prisoners.
God forgive us for our oppression, brutality, and slavery.
As a European, my observation is that evangelicalism in the USA is too much poisened with what many Americans perceive as patriotism. Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world". It is not the USA! In Europe, the evangelical flavor is quite different and not tied to nationalism.
Interestingly, when American evangelical preachers come to Europe, you will find much less of this "America-ism" in their preaching. Of course, there's no point to speak too much about America if they are abroad. They also don't try to acquire policital influence, because they are not in their own country. Abroad, they have to focus on their spiritual message. To me it explains why I haven't seen the issues mentioned here for a long time. For decades, many evangelicals in Europe have looked up to the USA as a better country, with better Christianity, and so on. I think it's also because of the internet that many have learned more about the reality and the days of exaggerated appreciation are coming to and end. But, we still love you! ;-)
ADD American Blindspot: Race, Class, Religion, and the Trump Presidency by Gerardo Martí (2020) https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/153811609X
My local friend Gerardo! He is wonderful.
I really appreciate your work on this, Scot. It certainly shows the way in which your ecclesiology has adapted over time. I think that's important for all of us as we journey alongside each other and alongside Christ.
Honestly, though, I wonder how effective the word evangelicalism is to the gospel story today. It only means one thing in the eyes of people who have little or no faith experience. And for those who are struggling in the aftermath of spiritual abuse, it is a word that brings back painful memories. That's why I would never, ever call myself an evangelical and I never use the word evangelical to describe what Christians should be. It's not a helpful word anymore.
Now, that leads to a different question--what is a better word to describe who we are? I tend to be more mainline anyway, but growing up as a Baptist in the south I still hold on to Jesus' instructions that we serve as witnesses to who Christ is. So, perhaps, the word I would use is witness. What could be more appropriate for Christians than to actually witness (martys) by sharing our story, which is the gospel story itself.
Again, I really appreciate your work on this. I just think it's time to kill off that E word completely because it doesn't mean what it once did.
As a member of an international missions organization, operating in many difficult places where the term "Christian" is anathema (and likely to get you killed), we have switched to the term, "Jesus Followers." Not sure if that answers your question, but it does sidestep a lot of the political (and often toxic) implications of some other terms we grew up and loved.
So good. "Abuelita Faith" is really a stirring read that came out last year
From my vantage point most of our evangelical theology is written from the position of at least some privilege. That's not to dismiss it in any way. Rather it is to say that we have perhaps ignored the margins of say African American or Hispanic theology, not to mention theology coming from the 2/3rs world. I am really grateful for the evangelical influences of NT Wright, Scot Mc Knight, Stanley Hauerwas, Walter Brueggemann, Craig Keener, The GOCN, Stanley Grenz, Dallas Willard etc. in my own life, but when I read that list it puts me with 'my own' so to speak. These are admittedly my predominent shaping influences. But I need hear from the poor about the poor. From women about women etc. It's a newish adventure for me and one I am really enjoying. The brand of 'American Israelism' that infects the evangelical world at present is disturbing to say the least...thanks for this. Good food for thought.
First time caller. Never had you as a prof in Deerfield, but all my guy friends liked & respected you so much. #Fave I hope someday to see that same, deserved respect here in your comments sections.
Thanks for speaking truth to the church and doing so in love!
Agreed. The marriage of conservative evangelicalism to right-wing politics (I am a centrist) has moved a contingent of E's to an anti-immigrant mindset. It is unfortunate that the very people who declare their love of the Scriptures tend to ignore those lessons of kindness and inclusion to the foreigner which has both Old and New Testament foundations. The book of Ruth goes a long way in showing how the immigrant enriches God's people, and how this woman from Moab is a vital link in the line of Christ. A point I have made in teaching on this book is that the Church must be seen as an international, diverse body of believers; people who neither look like us, or speak our language. This must be remembered; tribalism is not Christian.
Scot, I think I need to create a new bookmarks folder for, "Things that make me go, hmmm..." ;-) Seriously though, I'd always thought of myself as Evangelical, but recently dropped that moniker as it has become more of a Right-wing political affiliation than a doctrine or even a true historical narrative. However, as I read here, maybe there could be a way to pick up that tag again, but in a way that reflects the wonderfully diverse, sometimes beautiful and sometimes horrific, world wide, passionate (driven?), human and divine story which is Evangelicalism. Thank you for your constant reminders...
Hi Scot,
I simply want to commend something that you and many true scholars say. As you mention below, this is not your area of expertise. That said, your wide reading demonstrates you know more about this area than the vast majority. Too many are confident that their view is correct, even though there is a superficial understanding of the issue. I wish Christians (and all Americans) had more self-awareness to know what it takes to be literate on an important issue.
"I’m jumping lanes outside of my discipline so I may need to be corrected about some of this. But this is what I think. I welcome your comments. There are huge gaps in my reading. Forgive them."
Thank you, Scot for this balanced and fair treatment of the issue at hand. I love your heart for the church as a whole. May God bring healing to his church and humility in us all to see where we need to change…
Blessings!!
ON. FIRE.
Standpoint epistemology is a helluva drug.
Modern critiques from social constructivism, without any basis in truth, don’t lead to good or correction. They are a toolbox for obtaining power.
Some who are against critical social theories, such as myself, have been deeply entrenched within its lenses, and have come out the other side saying “the slippery slope is real”. We’ve seen too many friends and family members turn on those that love them most with cries of patriarchy! White supremacy! Nazi! Transphobe! And the like. We’ve seen how gender ideology is destroying young people across the country, many in our own churches. Weve seen a lot of Christina Cleveland’s and David Darks and others who have joined a new fundamentalist religion that looks a lot more like Derrida and Marcuse than anything resembling Christianity, mainline, evangelical or anabaptist.
I don’t need critical social theories to see the progressive revelation of scripture towards women. I don’t need critical social theories to see how the biblical narrative relates to empire. I don’t need disingenuous social constructivists spinning the worst possible narratives to have eyes to see when the church is or has been wrong. I do need our academic thought leaders/celebrities to take a healthy pause and see what they are doing; aligning with the coastal elite against the people they are supposed to be serving. Critical social theories have all ready entered the leadership void of mainline Protestantism, colonizing those institutions (oh the irony). Now we’re “deconstructing evangelicalism” by broad brushing millions of people, labeling and in many cases dehumanizing them, and dismissing any critque with racist, mysogynist, etc.
I’ll say - as a Christian pacifist - I first realized something was wrong when my cohort started openly supporting antifa, talking about punching nazis. That gave me enough pause to be able to step back and look from a birds eye view and see the cultural revolution that was occurring.
They will come for the church once it’s no longer useful. What they cannot colonize they will problematize and attempt to destroy.
I have always operated with the principle that I respond to actual names that can be verified. I have done this now for nearly 20 years.
Some of us have livelihoods to protect from those who wish to slander dissidents while others make money and gain clout selling historiographies attacking working class people and rednecks for not blindly accepting their luxury beliefs.
It doesn’t seem to matter that I lived for a decade in one of the poorest neighborhoods in a large southern city, experienced literal violence as well as threats of violence, tried my best to practice radical hospitality with folks on the margins, and yet if I criticize an ideology that I for half a decade subscribed to, get called all sorts of names…. Names that prevent getting jobs or can destroy one’s business or family, and by alleged progressive Christian’s and exvangelicals to boot… why might I be behind a pseudonym?
Which ideology is the ideology of the powerful; the media l, academia, the mega corps, the laptop class yelling about white supremacy and deplorables from their bourgeois digs in gentrified urban areas and Tony inner ring suburbs? And which ideology is a group of people whose jobs have been shipped away, whose towns have struggled for 3 decades, whose kids are hooked on fent?
But the latter are all white supremacists, or patriarchs getting their just deserts so the suicide rate for young men is just a consequence of equity.
Luxury beliefs? Lol, ok.
Yes - luxury beliefs. Rob Henderson writes eloquently about the phenomenon from the perspective of a kid who grew up in poverty and dysfunction and ended up at Harvard.
It's funny that you sneer at two words from the comment, while completely neglecting to engage it's substance.
Here’s the problem: when a person has been in a position of authority (privilege) for the majority or entirety of life, it’s difficult to ever see the legitimate responses of the disinherited. And, then, to cry foul when people call out supremacy, deplorable theology, misogyny, etc. is completely disingenuous. I’d prefer to meet the challenges head on rather than stick my head in the sand hoping the problem will go away.
That still doesn't engage the substance of the comment. It essentially dismisses it by resorting to an ideological assertion, which assumes that "meeting the challenges head on" means resorting to the very perspective the commenter is questioning.
Scot can you elaborate on this policy? What do you mean you respond to names? I’ve often had conversations with my favorite twenty somethings about sweeping statements and vague, shifting accusations that are difficult to respond to. I’d love to hear more about your approach.
What I mean is that the author of the comment is using a pseudonym.
I used one, too, because when I joined my name had already been taken by someone else.
Ah okay!
I agree we don’t need critical social theories to reveal the biblical truth of systemic sin that degrades image bearers, such as orphans, widows, strangers, the poor, women, indigenous groups, people of African descent, various groups in the minority — image bearers marginalized and oppressed by empires and empires’ privileged. But why have I not heard these matters addressed from white-evangelical pulpits by the preachers who purport to teach the whole counsel of God? Why is there so much more concern about resonance between certain critical social theories and the thought of many sisters and brothers currently drawing attention to the aforementioned negligence than there is about the negligence itself? Why do we ignore the board of this negligence and angrily dig at the splinter of “secular” (“all truth is God’s”) theories?
Everywhere I’ve gone to church has addressed specifically that thing. My current congregation is currently moving to a more egalitarian position.
I’ll grant that there are some straw men on critical theories, but it’s not just conservative evangelicals sounding the alarm bells. Plenty of atheists, Jews, Catholics, etc. John McWhorter has done great work, as has Abigail Shrier, are they racist bigots because they share the same concerns?
I find it very troubling how evangelical academic elites are so quick to broad brush a large, diverse group of people with very serious accusations. It almost seems like there’s a class lens that we need to observe this through. Du Mez just the other day, in her quickness to demonize working class evangelicals, accidentally did so to working class black folks (the hallmark card incident).
One can look to Whiteheads research on “Christian nationalism” actually rates black folks highest on the “christian nationalism” scale.
We need more of what NT Wright terms critical realism. I think it is helpful to look at the Bible through that lense. What we don’t need is friere, gramsci, Derrida, god forbid Judith Butler to tell us how we should read the Bible and how we should engage the leaders of our institutions. That type of critical lens exists to destroy, not to build. And it certainly doesn’t have a place of forgiveness for anyone who falls on the oppressor side of the matrix.
I agree. I'm completely disappointed and disgusted by the direction of much of evangelical academia, who seem much more interested in the praise and approval of an anti-Christian intellectual and social order than they do in a genuine search for truth.
My observation, from being around them for roughly the last two decades, is that much like secular academics, they often seen to be sequestered in the academic bubble and don't have a lot of interaction with people unlike themselves. There views frequently strike me as a function of their class and social location rather than as the result of genuine thinking.
Thank you