It needs to be said:
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.
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.
*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.”
Recall that these men presume to claim the mantle of theological gatekeepers.
*They* claim to be the guardians of orthodoxy.
*They* presume to know who the wolves are.
*They* claim to be the guardians of orthodoxy.
*They* presume to know who the wolves are.
If you think they’ve given any more thought to labeling false teachers or sowing division than they have to postmodernism before opening their mouths, you just haven’t been paying attention.
And this is just this week’s sampling of their punditry. (I don’t mean to say that they’re equal offenders—they’re not. But in both cases, it’s a habit.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
