I just realized that my evangelical Twitter Map can help distinguish actual in-group criticism from out-group criticism masquerading as in-group criticism.
that might be valid criticism, but it would not be in-group criticism. Why? Because my Twitter in-group is not "POC" but "anti-woke people."
In the same way, when Robert Jones says "White evangelicals like myself need to recognize our racism" that might be valid criticism 2/
but it is not in-group criticism because his Twitter in-group is not "white evangelicals" but progressives and antiracists.
In both cases, we wouldn't be running the risk of alienating our base. Rather, we'd be guaranteed dozens of likes and retweets. 3/
The bottom line is that what qualifies as "in-group criticism" is more complicated than "I identify as X; therefore, I'm brave to criticize people who are also X."
LONG-AWAITED EVANGELICAL TWITTER MAP #3. Accounts are grouped by the algorithm into various clusters/subclusters by the number of shared followers alone.
Needless to say THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF SHARED IDEOLOGYENNEAGRAM SCORE/FAVORITE DISNEY PRINCESS 1/
This version can be read as a kind of "relief map." The "peaks" are regions with darker background that indicate a higher percentage of shared followers. As you move "down" the contours, larger and larger clusters generally have smaller shared follower overlap. 2/
While clusters and subclusters indicate a larger % of shared followers than we'd expect from chance alone, note that all of these accounts would be in the SAME cluster ***relative to a random Twitter user*** because all of them are (broadly) evangelical accounts! 3/
HERE WE GO. Evangelical Twitter Map #2. Green lines indicate more mutual followers than expected. Red lines indicate fewer mutual followers than expected.
Some surprises, but overall it looks right. Key below if you don't recognize the pic. What accounts do you want added?
Cluster 1: Thomas Kidd, Brett McCracken, Derek Rishmawy, James KA Smith, Alistair Roberts, Jake Meador
Cluster 2: Melissa Kruger, Trevin Wax, Brian Tabb, Michael Kruger, Denny Burk, Jordan Copper, Joe Rigney, Andy Naselli, G. Ortlund, D. Ortlund, Jonathan Leeman, NightLightOasis
Cluster 3: Kristin Du Mez, Andrew Whitehead, Rich Villodas, Samuel Perry, Beth Allison Barr, Sarah Bessey
Cluster 4: K.S. Prior, Leah B Sassy, Bradly Mason, Aimee Byrd, Michael Bird, Ben Marsh, Hunter Crowder, Dwight McKissic
David Gushee was the first to frame the work of Du Mez, Barr, Tisby, Butler, Jones, Whitehead, and Perry as an evangelical "deconstruction project."
Here's a thread of my detailed reviews of their individual books. 1/
Jesus and John Wayne: Du Mez offers "A Needed Critique" but "no exegesis of key biblical passages about gender, power, or authority. Indeed, the book offers little if any theological reflection at all on these issues." 2/ shenviapologetics.com/cowboy-christi…
Barr's Making of Biblical Womanhood: we should "ask whether our vision of female participation in the mission of the church has been shaped more by culture than by Scripture" but her "reasoning amounts to a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument." 3/ shenviapologetics.com/unmaking-the-p…
Thread on the evangelical "deconstruction project":
David Gushee was the first person to use this phrase to frame the work of Du Mez, Barr, Tisby, Whitehead, Perry, Jones, and Butler.
At the time, these scholars praised and retweeted his article. 1/
In his article, Gushee describes how these authors' works expose the fact that patriarchy, toxic masculinity, authoritarianism, Christianity, nationalism, anti-gay sentiment, Islamophobia are embedded in white evangelicalism. 2/ baptistnews.com/article/the-de…
A month later, Jonathan Leeman wrote an article critiquing Gushee along with the books he mentioned for following postmodern methodologies "to expose the will-to-power hiding inside various truth claims." 3/
A few days ago, @DennyBurk posted this picture of an @MSNBC legal analyst with the book #CriticalRaceTheory: The Key Writings in the background.
Given the pushback, I thought I'd show how CRT can help us understand progressive commentary on the #Rittenhouse verdict. A thread: 1/
CRT asserts that racism is "ordinary, not aberrational." It is the "usual way society does business" (Delgado and Stefancic, CRT: An Introduction, p. 8).
This is especially true in our legal system, where ideas like "liberalism, neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy… camouflage [how] racial advantage propels the self-interests, power, and privileges of the dominant group" (Harper et al., JHE, 2009)