@rcsprouljr@JoshDaws Second, a common refrain I've heard from many of the most vocal current critics of "#BigEva" is that they were truly, sincerely, genuinely huge fans who are still grateful for the people/ideas they are currently criticizing. This is a very important point. 3/
It's easy to characterize critics as "theobros" and "discernment bloggers" who are always screaming, always nitpicking, always heresy-hunting, always anathematizing. That caricature just doesn't seem to fit. But even if it, it doesn't effect whether criticisms are valid. 4/
Third, a major theme in these critiques is *frustration.* Again, many of these people have been raising the same concerns gently, kindly, charitably, and irenically *for years*. At some point, they get fed up. That's *understandable*, even if you think it's unjustified. 5/
Fourth, people see a tremendous asymmetry in how politically-liberal and politically-conservative evangelicals are treated by "#BigEva." The characterization is: "punch right, thoughtfully engage left." TBH, this seems accurate. Just compare evangelical reviews of 6/
Baucham's Fault Lines versus a book like Du Mez's Jesus and John Wayne. The latter were often prefaced by hundreds of words of qualifications and gratitude while the former freely tossed around works like "garbage" and "embarrassment." Even if you think both assessments 7/
were entirely deserved, you have to wonder why "tone" seems only to work in one direction.
Lastly, I see a lot of frustration (which I share) over a lack of *genuine* dialogue. Genuine dialogue is not fostered by a panel of 5 woke (or 5 anti-woke) evangelicals. 8/
Genuine dialogue doesn't mean that your podcast on immigration policy has a "spectrum of views" ranging from center-left to left (or center-right to right). It means you get actual representatives from the left and right and let them ask each other hard questions. 9/
A growing number of people feel like their voices are not being heard and their actual views are not being represented. If you lament how people are retreating to "alternative news sites" and "gossip blogs," you can't refuse to address or actively demean their concerns. 10/
If you truly believe your views are correct and theirs are wrong, then invite them onto your platform (or onto a neutral platform) and listen to them. Ask questions. Defend your view. Critique theirs. Submit it all to Scripture.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I just realized that my evangelical Twitter Map can help distinguish actual in-group criticism from out-group criticism masquerading as in-group criticism.
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/