Kristin Du Mez explicitly mentions blurbing each others books in disscussing the ways various people legitimize each others work, it's perfectly legitimate to say to Kristin "who are you legitimizing, and who legitimizes you."
But there is a larger point...
The game being played by Du Mez, Barr, etc, is to see positive reviews of their own work as rigorous engagement with scholarship, but to regard positive reviews of scholarship they don't like as a social process of legitimization meant to platform and elevate.
That's the move...
"When *YOUR* work is reviewed by people who are politically close to *YOU* it is because you want to legitimize each other and increase your power. But when *OUR* work is reviewed by people who are politically close to *US* it is because we are just doing rigorus scholarship...
"Your conservative blurbs, endorements, and reviews are meant to legitimize each other so you can mutually increase your influence and clout. Our progressive blurbs, endorements, and reviews are just expressions of how rigorous our scholarship is"
That's the game being played...
Stop falling for it.
Stop it.
You are not required to put up woth this. I'm pentacostal (Jewish mom fwiw) and I think John Piper is wrong about a LOT. But I'd never play the cynical games Du Mez and Barr do. And I'd never use double standards to attack him.
Stop falling for it
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.