What we can learn from this is that tone does matter but not in the way certain leaders think it does. Tone doesn’t persuade the progressives. You can be as gentle and lowly as Jesus and they’ll still interpret any disagreement as a bigoted attack on them. 2/
This is why it’s tempting to eviscerate these toxic ideas and the people peddling them. They’re going to respond as if you are no matter what so why hold back? 3/
However, this particular article demonstrates the wisdom in being as irenic as possible in our disagreements and critiques. Our tone can be strategically useful to persuade other Christians who think tone is important. 4/
The goal of debate is never to persuade the one you’re debating. It’s to persuade those watching the debate. While it’s fun for those who already agree with you to see you rip the opponent’s ideas to shreds, it does little to win those who place a high value on civility. 5/
Do I wish we had more evangelical leaders with a tougher constitution for strong disagreement and harsh rebukes? Sure. There is a squishiness problem in the church that concerns me. 6/
However, if we’re ever going to vanquish Critical Theory and it’s deconstructionist project we’re going to need to convince the moderates that it’s a problem. That’s why articles like the one above are important. 7/
The single biggest recruiting moment for our side was when people saw @RevKevDeYoung’s gracious and gentle critique of the Reparations book decried as an example of white supremacy. 8/
Our tone won’t persuade Du Mez et al., but their response to our gentle but firm disagreements will persuade those who haven’t yet joined the fight. 9/
Remember that gentleness is strength under control. Don’t give full vent to your contempt or alarm. Gentleness is not weakness. It’s a weapon in your arsenal. Use it to persuade those watching from the sidelines. 10/10
Big Eva (for lack of a better term) tells our pastors how they are supposed to think about their own church members. Instead of encouraging them to humbly listen to the concerns of their congregation, they poison their minds against us. 🧵 1/
The @megbasham article and the response it has generated have really clarified what my grievances against Big Eva are. By "Big Eva", I mean the parachurch organizations like TGC and their leaders that have outsized influence in many of our churches. 2/
I believe many of these organizations started with good intentions. They have produced some wonderful content and still do. I shared a couple of TGC articles this week. 3/
I finished @isickadams' book Talking About Race: Gospel Hope for Hard Conversations. My thoughts to follow in this thread. 1/17
I had high hopes for this book based on some strong recommendations from well-respected pastors who have gone on the record rejecting CRT. 2/17
From the beginning of my involvement in this discussion, I've tried to remind people that it's possible to have conversations on race without relying on CRT at all. It's unfair and wrong to use concepts from CRT or accusations of CRT to shut down conversations. 3/17
Story time, boys and girls. Let’s say you live in a neighborhood where everyone’s lawn is dying and you are convinced it is your neighbor Gary’s fault because he refuses to put a pink flamingo in his yard. 1/
No matter how much anyone tries to persuade him, Gary will not cooperate with the rest of the neighborhood who had all dutifully put pink flamingos in their yards when the HOA asked them to in order to stop the spread of whatever was killing their yards. 2/
Gary drives past all the other pink-flamingoed yards in the neighborhood every day to and from his job. On the weekends he works in his own yard flaunting its lack of a pink flamingo for all the neighbors to see. 3/
It should be noted that @ThabitiAnyabwil considers @RevKevDeYoung's review of @dukekwondc and @_wgthompson's Reparations book an example of white supremacy at work. Furthermore, their response to Kevin was published on Thabiti's site.
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 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