Within authoritarian ecosystems, men in power often lie about their opponents in a way that desensitizes their audience to some unpalatable truth about themselves. Here Joe implies that David French and Russ Moore hold liberal democratic norms on par with scripture—an obvious falsehood.

True to form, Joe doesn’t state the falsehood explicitly—he merely implies it in a way that any competent language user understands.

It’s obvious that “this book isn’t meant to be read” doesn’t imply “I haven’t read this book.”

So obvious that one has to wonder: “How could any literate person draw such an inference?”

I have no idea, so I’ll let you and your friends wrestle with that question.

That said,

https://twitter.com/mesabo86/status/1753412128759857153

The substantive point is not in dispute: you didn’t read the book prior to commenting on it.

Here you speculate about what arguments are likely to be presented in the book (see screenshot—same screenshot from before, with relevant portion circled).

misogyny, white supremacy, and abuse

🧵

Here’s the head of the CBMW promoting an article published in American Reformer. American Reformer is an organization whose leadership has documented financial ties to a notorious white supremacist and pornographer.

Hello again, Megan.

I understand they deny that they are white Christian nationalists.

But denying something doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

And then there’s the fact that they go and say stuff like this:

https://twitter.com/megbasham/status/1707047054025867547

If you say that isn’t white Christian nationalism, the disparity in our understanding of what words mean is most likely such that it’s not worth attempting to converse on this or any subject.

What do pro-slavery theologians, creation scientists, and white Christian nationalists have in common?

https://twitter.com/scott_m_coley/status/1706750592247271907

The hermeneutics of legitimization: an approach to biblical interpretation that consistently produces moral justifications for social practices and institutional arrangements that benefit oneself.

This is philosophically and theologically illiterate.

Thread: Either Bathsheba was raped or she committed adultery. There is no gray area. If you say that she wasn’t raped, you are saying that she committed adultery.

In light of the latest controversy, here’s a casual reminder that Denny Burk *habitually* misrepresents the views of those with whom he disagrees.

POLL:

TEXT A is a transcript of my comments in an interview.

TEXT B is Denny’s summary of my comments in TEXT A. POLL #1: How would you characterize TEXT B as a summary of TEXT A?

Critics of Christian Nationalism point out that it impoverishes both Christian faith and liberal democracy.

Whether one finds these criticisms compelling depends largely on prior theological and political commitments. But an underappreciated reason for rejecting Christian Nationalism is that its vision of political economy is incoherent on its own terms—i.e., for reasons that operate independently of contested theological or political suppositions.¹

Here’s what I mean.

The reason that so many conservative evangelicals these days appear to be moral relativists is that they *are* moral relativists.

They would deny this, of course. But that doesn’t make it any less true. Here’s why. They’ve bought into the premise that all statements are either fact or opinion: facts are objective and verifiable; and everything else is opinion—subjective and unverifiable.

It’s been suggested that those who promote “wokeness” or “woke theology” should be regarded as false teachers. This claim reflects a kind of theological illiteracy that needs to be exposed.

I’ll start with a brief note about terminology, since it’s a source of much mischief. Critics of “wokeness” often identify concerns about systemic injustice with Critical Race Theory (CRT).

But you needn’t endorse CRT—or care anything about CRT, really—in order to be concerned about systemic justice.

What if America is just like all the other empires in human history?

What if America's power and wealth aren't a mark of divine favor, but merely a byproduct of empire-building? And what if, by mistaking the fruits of empire for God's blessing, Christian Nationalists have gotten themselves confused about the sorts of things that God favors?

If you have any affection for the name of Jesus—and even if you don’t—you should find this disturbing.

It’s not for me to say whether John MacArthur is a wolf, but I’ll say this: when a wolf howls, this is the sound it makes.
2010, folks. This was in the Year of Our Lord 2010. John MacArthur has been at the forefront of the anti-justice movement within white evangelicalism (which has spilled over into right wing politics at large).
And here he is, using the Bible to craft a myth that legitimizes racial hierarchy.

John MacArthur, in the Year of Our Lord 2010: This matters.

Men like JMac deny that systemic injustice has anything to do with racial disparities in wealth, income and opportunity—hence their hysteria over social justice.

And this is a theological legitimizing myth for racial hierarchy (be it de facto or de jure).

This is pure dissimulation.

“Curse of Ham” commonly refers to the curse of Canaan, which JMac most definitely promotes just three paragraphs below the one in the screenshot (screenshots to follow).

https://twitter.com/ekkiet/status/1537137260109344768

Explicit reference to the curse of Canaan (also commonly referred to as the “curse of Ham”).

🧵 The belief that Scripture is inerrant doesn’t arise in a vacuum. We believe that Scripture is inerrant because we believe that Scripture is inspired by God. So when the apostles of @FoundersMin and @BaptistNetwork say that anyone who rejects their interpretation

#sbc22 of Scripture thereby rejects the inerrancy of Scripture, they’re presenting a dilemma: either you agree with their interpretation of Scripture, or you reject God’s authorship of Scripture.

The “sufficiency of scripture” trope has been making the rounds on SBC Twitter again, and think it’s important to note that this slogan, as it functions in current discourse around issues of abuse in the SBC, is pure propaganda. Specifically, it’s a form of ‘undercutting propaganda’: it appeals to a noble ideal in service to an agenda that undercuts that very ideal.

Here’s what I mean.

Tom Ascol tweeting about “Molechites” is a peak symptom of the conservative evangelical urge to think about scripture just long enough to say something that sounds clever to the base, but not long enough to achieve any real understanding. The result is talking points that lack substance at best, and at worst actually serve as an indictment of the conservative evangelical political agenda. Here’s what I mean.

Some folks on this website seem really pleased with themselves for drawing a satirical comparison between critical race theory and “critical grooming theory.”

I have to say that this is one of the most profoundly stupid things I’ve seen in a long while. Firstly, the whole “grooming” conspiracy that's being advanced by the political right (in cooperation with the religious right) is an appropriation of an anti-Semitic trope that Christ followers should have nothing to do with.

It’s not fodder for an insipid metaphor.

There’s been a lot of equivocating from woke-truthers in the last few days, to the effect that: “Well, systemic injustice might be a real thing (at least historically). But CRT though.” Rather than pick apart all their hedging, I’m just going to offer a detailed example of systemic injustice and consider it in light of Scripture.

I don’t talk about this much because it’s not relevant to what I usually talk about on this website, but I used to be a tour guide at a Civil War battlefield.
Technically, I was a ‘Board Certified Master Guide’, which is the top certification level for a tour guide in the US. (This is sort of an important certification. Basically, in order to become a BCMG, you have to take a few years of courses on top of undergrad. Then you have to pass an essay exam where they give you questions and you have to submit four 10 pp. answers within 72 hours.

Equivocating on the term ‘deconstruction’ is the latest gatekeeping tactic.

Months ago the big joke was: “How many of these millennial evangelicals have even heard of Derrida, amirite? lolz. 🙄” Now those *exact same dudes* are wringing their hands about how all these kids embracing Derrida need to understand that the path they’re on leads straight to utter nihilism.