If Dr. Bradley thinks the Nicene Creed or the westminster confession or any other historic Christian creed of any kind survives postmodern analysis he's out to lunch.
He may "like" what the postmodern analysis is doing to certain groups who ignored some valid criticism about...
Racism within American evangelicalism (particularly among the historically white denominations), but when the postmodern methods he accepts get turned on HIS theology, and HIS church, my guess is he will not accept it's judgement.
Especially when he finds out that his entire....
Focus on men is, on a postmodern analysis, nothing more unfettered patriarchy.
And all his views on men are merely attempts to restore male domination and patriarchy under the banner of concern for men.
When that hits, and it will, my guess is he will not like the postmodernism
The postmodernism will eat everything, and when Dr. Bradley sees that even his "men should fight evil" will be called militarism and male domination (claiming to "fight" evil, or declare "war" in the "battle" against evil will be problematized as using a militaristic paradigm)
His focus on men will be problematized for marginalizing the voices and stories of women and Non-binary/trans folx because his focus on men "centers" straight, cisgendered, male voices "whose story has told."
There's no end to the ways his work will be problematized...
His claim that boys need Dads will be problematized as sexist (it implies a man can do something a woman can't), homophobic (it imples two women can't do the same job as a straight couple), and transphobic (it excludes trans men who were assigned female at birth)
Shall I go on?
There is no stopping point, and anyone who lets the postmodernism in will soon find themselves on the wrong end of it's bite.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The cynicism of the postmodernism sees through everything, and thinks all values are the arbitrary privileging of one value set over another to benefit the dominant group in society.
Nothing is inherently valuable, and nothing really matters, things are only "privileged"
Nothing ever gets to be lifted of as being objectively, universally, absolutely, "true, good and beautiful."
Nothing can ever become valuable enough to get escape velocity and get outside and above the cultural milieu. Nothing ever gets to "transcend" the culture. Everything...
that might be seen as objectively valuable gets deconstructed and torn down because anything that gets valuable enough to transcend the culture will become a powerful symbol and end up being "privileged" in a way that inscribes, or re-inscribes, unequal power relations...
1/ If a pastor says "Christ rose from the dead," and the majority of ancient near east Historians say "the belief in the literal, historical ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead is not justified," will the Christian Philosophers "stay in their lane?"
2/ Because the most thorough defense of the literal, historical, ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead is "The Ressurection of the Son of God," By NT wright. Wright has a Doctor of Divinity, not history. His Doctoral Thesis was about Theology.
3/ In fact, I'd bet the majority of near east historians don't think we can justify a belief in the ressurection of Jesus from the dead based on historical sources.
If we are all going to "stay in our lane" the ressurection of Jesus as a historical event is unjustifiable...
Any Christian who thinks they can use deconstruction and keep the Nicene Creed is badly mistaken.
Once you accept the logic of deconstruction and decolonization there is no confession of faith that will be left standing
Let's view a couple of examples to illustrate the point...
I'm re-doing this thread so I can be more clear about what I mean, @sure_mercies thinks he can defend the Nicene Creed by accusing the (white) man who attacked it of White Christianity.
However a Latinx non-binary trans theologian like Robyn Henderson-Espinoza (@irobyn) said...
her (their?) book "Activist theology."
In that book Henderson-Espinoza says all Christianity post-constantine can be seen as "empire religion." One cannot simply dismiss that view as "white Chirstianity. Someone could take @irobyn's observstion and make the following argument...
2/ To understand this we need to unpack a point about language and especially "categories." This is the hardest part of this thread, but once we have this point nailed down the rest is easy.
Wokeness thinks that all categories are "socially constructed." What that means is...
3/ We use categories to carve up the world and organize our understanding of reality. We use names, labes, descriptions, and other linguistic tools to break apart to world, to divide it and draw lines so we can understand it
This is hard, so here's an example:
Think of a forrest
2. If you don't want to discuss something, refuse to discuss it and let people think they want.
3. If you're at fault for something and it comes out, own it. Make no effort to save face. Take the hit.
4. Don't apologize for things you didn't do...
5. If someone is twisting your words or deeds to make them look like something they aren't there are only two options. The first is to say nothing. Any response you give is just another chance for them to twist your words and prolong the drama. Streisand effect.
The second is...
wait until the attack is finished and see if it worked. If it didn't then ignore it... people saw through it. If the attack works wait for the fallout to end, then provide irrefuteable proof that they twisted your words. Leave no doubt. If you can't do that, say nothing...