Thread by @scott_m_coley

I’m often asked why my tweets tend to focus on criticism—particularly as it concerns theobros. Here’s my typical response.

I don’t have strong views on ‘biblical manhood’ (a phrase that I find ridiculous). But my sense is that most of it comes down to being a good Christ-follower, which has nothing to do with the kind of muscular Christianity promoted by some of the more vocal hyper-complementarians.

Concerning my tendency of late to engage in negative critique on Twitter dot com, without much in the way of positive proposals: there are—as best I can discern my own motives—three reasons for this.

First, I think it’s a reflection of where I am in my process with the book I’m working on right now. I tend to tweet what I’m thinking about, which is mostly what I’m writing about at the moment.

And for a year or so now, most of my creative energy has focused on dismantling the ideology underlying evangelicals’ approach to politics, to clear the way for the alternative paradigm I’m proposing.

Second, I recently had a clarifying personal experience that’s salient.

A couple of months ago, a member of the faculty at an SBC seminary publicly lied about the content of my remarks on a podcast. (The lies were blatant—childish, even—not a matter of misinterpretation.)

He subsequently refused to correct the record, despite repeated attempts by several colleagues—that I know about, at his and other SBC institutions—to persuade him that he was in the wrong.

That’s when it clicked that, at bottom, this really is about power and nothing else—precisely the kind of culture war stupidity that’s fragmenting our political community and, more importantly, the Church.

And third, consistent with all of that, a more general motivation is that the people I’m confronting are totalitarians: all their language is coded to preempt dissent—eg, objections to the subjugation of women = rejecting inerrancy.

No argument against the subjugation of women—derived from the tenets of Christian theology or otherwise—has any hope of success: the moment you signal your objection to the subjugation of women, everything you have to say is immediately dismissible because you’re a liberal.

The only proven rhetorical method for defeating totalitarianism is to ridicule the system for its incoherence, until the whole ideology collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.

I am persuaded that the men I’m arguing against—who occupy positions of influence and power within the church—are false teachers.

(I understand the gravity of that statement and my conscience is totally clear on this point.)

Their message is unavoidably a false gospel, top to bottom—from the nuclear family (subjugation of women) to government at large (meritocracy), to the gospel itself (“just preach the gospel!”). The fruit is all rotten and the trees must be removed, root and branch.

I grew up in the SBC, as did my parents and grandparents. My maternal grandfather was active in the “conservative resurgence“—the present fruits of which I cannot imagine he clearly foresaw.

I also have training in philosophy and theology. But I don’t work for any SBC institution, which means I can say things that most others with my background cannot (due to another totalitarian tactic: dissenters are disappeared).

Every week I get messages from SBC folks—from pastors to professors—expressing gratitude to me for saying what they can’t.

Although the SBC isn’t the horizon of my calling, I believe that God has placed me where I am for a reason. And I intend to be faithful.