An alarming number of evangelical males think that since Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple, they have license to turn Christianity into some sort of gnostic virility cult.
They’re calling for a return to 1950s-era norms of masculinity—conveniently omitting the fact that we didn’t live through the great depression or kill any Nazis. A lot of them actually drink lattes. Lattes.
I cannot imagine a more comfortable mode of human existence than that of a 21st century, latte-drinking John Wayne with a smartphone and nothing better to do than tweet at Beth Moore while his wife folds his laundry.
Surely Christ has called modern man to something more difficult than that. Anyone can pick a persona that he finds interesting and emulate it. Anyone can shoehorn John Wayne into a series of proof-texts.
Following Christ is about giving up my power so that the power of God can be perfected in my weakness. Following Christ is about forsaking comfortable notions of manliness for a life of fear and trembling.
Note that this is all stuff this guy just made up.
The evangelical marketplace of ideas is resplendent with the uncultivated intuitions of theological entrepreneurs…
1/
promoting “biblical” perspectives on geology, political theory, developmental psychology, economics, critical race theory, psychopharmacology, gender and sexuality, media and entertainment, public health, and on and on.
2/
Under the guise of subjecting human reason to biblical scrutiny, American evangelicals have transformed Christian theology into a nomadic culture war
machine:
3/
Within authoritarian ecosystems, men in power often lie about their opponents in a way that desensitizes their audience to some unpalatable truth about themselves.
Here Joe implies that David French and Russ Moore hold liberal democratic norms on par with scripture—an obvious falsehood.
True to form, Joe doesn’t state the falsehood explicitly—he merely implies it in a way that any competent language user understands.
(French or Moore might claim that modern liberal democracy is rooted in the Christian intellectual tradition, or that liberal norms can be derived from biblical norms. Not sure exactly what their respective views are here, but:
The substantive point is not in dispute: you didn’t read the book prior to commenting on it.
Here you speculate about what arguments are likely to be presented in the book (see screenshot—same screenshot from before, with relevant portion circled).
So why did I highlight the sentence in which you claim the book isn’t meant to be read?
For the same reason I highlighted the sentence before it (which also doesn’t imply that the author hasn’t read the book): namely, that your unearned confidence is hilarious.
If you say that isn’t white Christian nationalism, the disparity in our understanding of what words mean is most likely such that it’s not worth attempting to converse on this or any subject.
If you concede that it is white Christian nationalism, what am I to believe?
Do I believe Stephen Wolfe when he explicitly, obviously, and undeniably advocates *white* Christian nationalism?
Or do I believe him when he denies that he’s advocating white Christian nationalism?
The hermeneutics of legitimization: an approach to biblical interpretation that consistently produces moral justifications for social practices and institutional arrangements that benefit oneself.
The hermeneutics of legitimization has three defining features:
1. Proof-texting; 2. Motivated literalism; 3. Theological paradigm of authority and submission.