I keep seeing the following line of reasoning from evangelical gatekeepers (et al.):
"All that matters is truth. Bias may be bad, but it's a secondary concern. Figure out the truth. Then ask how bias may affect those who are wrong (i.e. those disagree with you)."
(Aside: *of course* the truth is what matters. That's why we're all here, having this conversation. The moment I realize that my interlocutor has made a conscious decision not to care about truth, the conversation is over: it would be pointless to continue.)
The problem with the gatekeepers' way of thinking, obviously, is this:
How do *you* know, dear gatekeeper, that *you* don't suffer from some bias that prevents *you* from clearly perceiving truth in the first place?
Their answer is, "Because Bible--just read it and see what it says. It's right there, clear as day."
To which the appropriate reply is:
Right. Just like the segregationists and the defenders of slavery before them. They, too, had their proof-texts that were clear as day.
True believers have committed all sorts of atrocities based on their own sincere beliefs about the plain, clear-as-day meaning of the Bible (or some other sacred text).
The foundational problem is a refusal to admit that one's understanding of the Bible is merely that--one's understanding of the Bible.
As long as you insist that you alone know the truth, the truth will continue to escape you.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You don't need to tell me that you think there's a genetic fallacy here.
I'm the guy who told you that you think that--four days ago: it's right there in the picture you posted, in the text that you colored in with your blue highlighter.
It took about 72 hours and several hundred tweets for you to come to this realization.
This confirms that you're not really reflecting on any of my responses.
It appears as though you just tweet out replies, rapid-fire, based on whatever occurs to you in the moment.
You then circle back and screenshot isolated responses to your own disjointed stream of consciousness, place them side-by-side, and allege some sort of tension.
There are SBC seminary faculty who sincerely believe that the recent review of J&JW offered “important” or “perceptive” commentary about postmodernism.
These men are currently training future pastors, and no one should be okay with that.
*This* is the SBC brain trust.
*This* is the quality of scholarship on the SBC’s horizon.
Before you say, “Scott, that’s mean,” I remind you: no one asked them.
They could’ve said nothing—like academics are trained to do when they don’t know enough to offer official comment.
Instead, they read that book report and thought, “This is great. I’m competent to judge quality work in this field, and this is good—so good, in fact, that I’ll disseminate it with my stamp of approval.”
I've noticed a lot of excitement (from the usual suspects) about Michael Young's critical review of @kkdumez 's J&JW.
I happen to think that Young's review is particularly unimpressive, due to basic confusions about epistemic justification and human cognition.
The thrust of Young's critique is as follows.
Even if Du Mez demonstrates that various evangelical commitments are self-serving, she doesn't even consider the *truth* of those commitments.
Young contends that this is a problem for Du Mez's account because, "...whether or not our sociological situation inclines us toward one belief or another is not relevant to whether or not those beliefs are actually *true*."
I think it's finally dawning on some well-meaning folks in the SBC that they are increasingly at odds with members of their denomination who have no use for an expression of Christian faith that cannot be manipulated to serve their own ends.
Here's the difficulty: they're all painted into a corner. For the most part, in order to exercise any influence within that subculture, one must participate in a system that ostensibly bases all knowledge of morality and theology on common sense.
What does the Bible mean? "It's common sense. Just read it. It means what it says. The Bible is clear. Scripture is sufficient." We all know the stock phrases.
There’s an important difference. The question that Southern Baptists need to confront—especially Southern Baptists born before 1970 or so—is whether the SBC is going to go along with the latest wave of fundamentalist inquisitors in their effort to conflate theological
and cultural Conservatism.
Don’t misunderstand. We should keep whatever elements of cultural Conservatism are strictly implied by theological Conservatism—e.g., the defense of life in all of its forms.