10 Tactics Anyone Can Use to Divide and Conquer a People
1. Use leaders and influencers to create a narrative that only involves two extremes
2. Tell everyone that they must pick one of the extreme sides
3. Use fear mongering to get them to pick your side
4. Completely ignore or misrepresent the people or views that don’t fit into either camp
5. Slander opponents or only highlight them at their worse
6. Spotlight (or exaggerate) the virtues of allies but ignore their vices (or disassociate if unable to conceal/ignore)
7. Accuse opponents of the very things (e.g. dividing the church) your camp is guilty of doing (whether true or not)
8. Brand your view as “patriotic” or “biblical” and claim everyone who is not for your camp is a threat or against your camp...
...while ignoring or misrepresenting key documents like the constitution or Scripture when making my case
9. Discourage the sincere from talking to the other OR engineer in such a way that charitable communication is nearly impossible
And we can’t forget the most important one:
10. Create a boogie man or villain that is so unclear that the only way you can avoid being labeled an ally of the villain is by denouncing it in the most extreme terms
Thanks for attending my master class. #HometoRoost
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. v. 9-11: The tactic used against Stephen is still common within the religious community today. Stephen’s opponents “secretly instigated men” to slander him by leading with a accusation (“heard him speak blasphemous words...”).
Why?
2. v. 12: The passage seems to imply that the effect “stirred up” the leaders and the people. The purpose of slander is cause others to view that person in a negative light.
So before the people had any proof of guilt, they were engineered with slander to hate Stephen.
3. v. 13 Finally, they use false witness testimony. But notice they repeat the same tactic used earlier by framing the narrative in such a way where guilt precedes proof (“never ceases to speak words against this holy place...) and is followed by a distorted version of the truth.
Christians who are opposed to critical theory as an ideology should make every effort to understand it. Yelling ‘Marxism’ whenever we hear the word ‘oppression’ or ‘privilege’ is neither irenic nor charitable.
Do not shut down conversations on race or gender. Be committed to confronting and uprooting injustice, and show love and compassion to those who experience it. Be willing to listen, willing to learn, and willing to accept correction.
Read primary sources by critical scholars; don’t rely on secondary sources (like this one!) as the only source of your information.
Second, Christians who are sympathetic to critical theory need to make sure they have thought through its theological implications carefully.
Praying for our Asian neighbors and those in the family of Christ. Similar to the black experience, yours is more complex and multi-layered than any headline or tweet can grasp.
So when black and brown bodies aren’t at the center stories of injustice and hatred, I try to ask myself, “What would I want to hear in these moments? What would encourage me? What would give me hope?”
I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m rarely moved by the sincere...
...hashtags, laments, and outrage on our behalf.
Well-meaning DMs offering comfort as if I lost a loved one produce shame, especially when the families of victims are experiencing loss that is very real and near, knowing they’ll continue to mourn for months and years to come.
The logic that says, "vote = culpability" is the lie that evangelicals have been telling Black Christians for decades, and last week the chickens came home to roost.
Simply voting for Trump doesn't make a Christian anymore culpable for last week's events than voting democrat makes a Christian culpable for abortions in America.
Culpability requires more than just voting — it requires inappropriate allegiance, blind loyalty and denial, and the justification of or participation in wicked acts to retain power and comfort. Culpability requires direct or indirect compromise.
I'm skeptical of any Black leader whose message seems to completely alleviate White people OR Black people of responsibility or self-reflection regarding racism, American history, or human agency.
A Black leader who takes pride in being viewed as "exceptional" by White conservatives or pitied as a "helpless victim" by White progressives is the enemy of a truly united America.
A Black Christian leader who makes much of CRT but little of Christian nationalism is either naive or self-serving.