We need to talk about the messages underlying this kind of reaction coming from a prominent evangelical leader.
Thread: 1/10
"Down with the patriarchy!!"
This Freudian slip while Mohler is trying to be humorous reveals an interesting tidbit: All the militancy against "gender neutrality," whether in Bible translations or toys is about one thing: Protecting the patriarchy
2/10
"Yes, we have become the society that deserves this."
Mohler invokes culture wars language, tying the idea of patriarchy to God's blessing. If it was unclear that Mohler is a patriarchalist, his "humor" exposes his agenda.
3/10
"Mister Potato Head is being un-gendered."
This is actually false. The brand name is changing, not the character. Mohler has not deleted or recanted this false statement.
4/10
Even if Mohler's claim were true, the deep seriousness with which he takes this would be truly laughable - if he didn't intend the rhetoric to keep his base riled up and militant.
5/10
"We are living in an ocean of insanity."
Another variant of culture wars language, but this time it's an exaggerated us vs them, where the "We" are supposed to be the sane people surrounded by asylum inmates.
6/10
Mohler's statement, cloaked in poor humor, is a call to militancy on the part of his base. Swinging between sarcasm and extreme depiction, he intends his readers to get angry about the gender of a toy vegetable.
Why?
7/10
As noted initially, Mohler is most concerned with protecting the patriarchy - white male power.
Although there are most definitely anti-lavender overtones to his statement, the real point is that he & his base fear losing power.
8/10
As @kkdumez notes in J&JW, a group built on militancy (in this case white male patriarchy) must continually gin up fear in the group in order to keep the militancy going.
9/10
Mohler's reaction above isn't just a funny quip - it's a calculated continuation of the strategy that he and his have used repeatedly for decades to secure and hold on to power.
10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whenever a leader's evil behavior is exposed, a lot of people run to protect the institution they built/ran.
While this is usually couched as concern for the reputation of Christ/Christianity, it seems an odd focus. /1
1) If the institution was so connected with the leader, then was it truly a monument to Christ at all? Rather, was it not a monument to the man?
2) Why is it the organization that gets sympathy, while the victims of the leader go without justice or even acknowledgement? /2
3) If the institution was so connected with the leader, might it not have the leader's evil tendencies written on it's DNA? If so, perhaps the best thing would be a deconstruction or at the least deep surgery, rather than attempting a quick-fix rescue? /3