This discussion of evangelical elites by noted evangelical elites @RevKevDeYoung, @between2worlds, and @collinhansen is quite good. KDY even uses the positive, neutral, negative framework that @aaron_renn has written about. Starts about 29:00. One thing occurred to me… 1/7
The guys start by describing what they think people mean when they use the “evangelical elites” term and then go on to have a good discussion about the very real temptations and pitfalls of evangelical elites. 2/7
What occurred to me is that they acknowledge EE temptations that aren’t substantially different than the concerns I hear in discussions with non-elite evangelicals. It makes me wonder how much of this divide with solidly conservative EE is just a communication problem. 3/7
Evangelical elites spend their time with highly educated and urbane colleagues and friends. They’re not accustomed to a less refined manner of speaking. Many non-elites have good discernment but can’t properly articulate their concerns in a persuasive way. 4/7
Instead, they often emote out of frustration. In their minds, the problems are clear and they think that if you don’t see it then you must be sold out. I would encourage them to communicate more clearly. Help people understand your concerns instead of throwing labels at them. 5/7
At the same time, I’d encourage EEs to be more sympathetic to the concerns behind the labels. Ask questions. Seek to understand what’s fueling the frustration. Recognize the temptation of the inner circle that Lewis talks about and do some self evaluation. 6/7
There are faithful Christians on both sides of this divide and there are snakes on both sides. Let’s assume faithfulness where we can and try to help each other understand each other’s perspective. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Read this today. Beware any evangelical leader that a) denies that there’s any such thing as an inner circle of evangelical leaders (evangelical elite) or b) denies having any temptation to temper what they say in order to stay in or gain entrance. 1/ lewissociety.org/innerring/
As Lewis says, there’s nothing inherently wrong with an inner circle. It’s the desire to be within it that can become disordered and lead to compromise. That’s a major theme of Hamilton most vividly expressed through Aaron Burr’s desire to be in the 🎶Room Where It Happens🎶. 2/
Those of us who have been critical of evangelical elites err when we assume anyone in these inner circles (and there are many levels) is there because they compromised. Many faithful Christians do excellent work and(or?) through the providence of God find themselves inside. 3/
This essay by @aaron_renn is key to understanding the growing divide within conservative evangelicalism. Many of the so-called evangelical elite are still operating from within the Neutral World paradigm that was valid when they built their platforms. 1/5 americanreformer.org/welcome-to-the…
They can't comprehend that anti-Christian sentiment has reached critical mass and that no amount of contrite cultural engagement will win over a culture that despises us not for what we've done wrong but for what we believe. 2/5
Paradigm shifts are hard for anyone, but particularly for those with a vested interest in the old paradigm. This is why many evangelical leaders have been slow to acknowledge our most pressing problems. Those problems don't make sense in the old Neutral World paradigm. 3/5
"In other words, the story of oppression cannot be told with reference to one race, one sex, one class, one nation, or one civilization. The problem of injustice goes deeper, past the identity obsessions of our age, all the way to our identity as fallen human beings."
"The fundamental problem with CRT is not its assumption that worldly systems often favor the powerful. The fundamental problem is limiting “power” to the one axis of race, class, and sex, when power does not always work according to an intersectional spreadsheet." 1/2
At the pool this morning, some neighbors were speaking favorably about increasing covid restrictions. I kept silent because I disagreed. I guess I worried it would hurt my witness to disagree over non-essential things. 1/
Later, at the ball field, I was talking with one of my son’s coaches and he launched into a rant about covid restrictions. I shared his frustrations and we had a good conversation. 2/
It later hit me that in each situation the other person just shared his or her opinion without a care about what I thought. I didn’t. This led me to a bit of an epiphany about relational evangelism. 3/
This is an excellent article by @brettmccracken, but I'm afraid he missed a step toward deconstruction that's all too common in many of these stories - becoming woke.
A thread on the connection between wokeness and deconstructing one's faith. 1/
Wokeness, at its most basic definition, simply means to be aware of and concerned about injustice. The problem is not with the concern about injustice, but with how injustice is identified and understood. 2/
In practice, that understanding of injustice is often (but not always) derived from Critical Theory. CT was introduced by German philosopher, Max Horkheimer in the 1930s. He explained CT by comparing it to what he called Traditional Theory. 3/
Critical Theory is the reason you’re seeing so much division in the SBC. It’s parasitic in nature. It attaches to real concerns by offering explanations that implicate systems of power. It shifts the concerns from instances of abuse/racism to the systems that produce them. 1/
Critical Theory turns any disagreement about the nature of those systems/institutions into evidence of the oppression embedded within them. Not every abuse case is open and shut. When disagreement over a particular case arises this is further evidence. 2/
Critical Theory doesn’t allow for any legitimate disagreement between faithful brothers and sisters in Christ. For instance, someone could agree that a particular incident is abhorrent without agreeing that that incident was produced by an oppressive system. 3/