Okay, here we are again, me, 15, 000 km away from America, entering into intra-American Evangelical debates, defending my friends Kristin du Mez and Beth Allison Barr for their critiques against patriarchy from complementarian apologists. This time, Dr. Neil Shenvi, writes for CBWM.org on “
Methinks Bird has gotten in a ditch he doesn't even recognize so is making no attempt to escape. I used to think he was solid but maybe I just wasn't that familiar with him. It seems philosophy is not his strong suit, at least the kind that allows introspection and fair evaluation of one's opponents.
I'm sure Anthony B. Bradley, PhD., has a perspective that is worth engaging, but presenting a tweet as if it is a developed hypothesis that those with alternative perspectives could "disprove" is some mighty low-effort argumentation. It's rather similar to presenting one Bible verse as a developed theology around which to build a worldview.
When Jonathan Leeman and Neil Shenvi point out that Du Mez's critique, whether right or wrong, was ironically being made on the authority of sociology and history, not scripture, Michael Bird retorted that that was just the point, that it is precisely “the sociology behind American evangelicalism . . . that has driven so much of their biblical interpretations…”. One would think that the way to prove that would be by showing exactly how complementarianism is contrary to a faithful interpretation of scripture, not by a salty anecdote from some recent, random character about how John Wayne is going to save our posteriors. Rather, Bird’s fall back is, he says, to returning “time and again,” not to a Biblical quote, not even a soteriological principle, like Paul Jewett’s use of Galatians 3:28, but to a January 19, 2017 tweet by Anthony Bradley saying, “‘Biblical manhood & womanhood’ is a racially coded paradigm for propping up conservative “white middle-class” gender norms as God’s will.” That’s the canon that Bird apparently retreats to for comfort, “time and again.”
Speaking as a white, male, egalitarian Pentecostal who voted twice for the Bad Orange Man --
I have read Barr's book, and found it useful and informative. I would not hesitate to recommend it.
I have not read du Mez's book, and none of even the most laudatory reviews would move me to spend the money to obtain it. The quotes and paraphrases I've seen do not remotely match any of the Trump-voting Evangelicals I know in person or online, so I have to conclude she's proceeding from a faulty data set.
Veey good report in your own inimitable fashion. Here in UK we are more nuanced with complementarianism,but it exists inside church and outside. Yet the common ethos of society dictates equality without a gender/sex bias 'you dont need to possess external genitalia of a woman' to be one. Does thus affect the church's complementarian stance to react againsy such a statement?
It's a shame CBMW doesn't have the stones to include a Comments section for their articles.
Methinks Bird has gotten in a ditch he doesn't even recognize so is making no attempt to escape. I used to think he was solid but maybe I just wasn't that familiar with him. It seems philosophy is not his strong suit, at least the kind that allows introspection and fair evaluation of one's opponents.
That was very interesting.
I'm sure Anthony B. Bradley, PhD., has a perspective that is worth engaging, but presenting a tweet as if it is a developed hypothesis that those with alternative perspectives could "disprove" is some mighty low-effort argumentation. It's rather similar to presenting one Bible verse as a developed theology around which to build a worldview.
"[DuMez's J&JW] is high on the personal agenda of the author, low on serious historical scholarship."
Her book is not proper historiography. It's just a political screed with random anecdotes used to prop up the pre-conceived conclusions.
https://dontmakeitpancakes.com/kobes-du-mez-jesus-and-john-wayne/
When Jonathan Leeman and Neil Shenvi point out that Du Mez's critique, whether right or wrong, was ironically being made on the authority of sociology and history, not scripture, Michael Bird retorted that that was just the point, that it is precisely “the sociology behind American evangelicalism . . . that has driven so much of their biblical interpretations…”. One would think that the way to prove that would be by showing exactly how complementarianism is contrary to a faithful interpretation of scripture, not by a salty anecdote from some recent, random character about how John Wayne is going to save our posteriors. Rather, Bird’s fall back is, he says, to returning “time and again,” not to a Biblical quote, not even a soteriological principle, like Paul Jewett’s use of Galatians 3:28, but to a January 19, 2017 tweet by Anthony Bradley saying, “‘Biblical manhood & womanhood’ is a racially coded paradigm for propping up conservative “white middle-class” gender norms as God’s will.” That’s the canon that Bird apparently retreats to for comfort, “time and again.”
Neil's response: https://shenviapologetics.com/a-friendly-response-to-mike-bird/
I am a newby. BUT, it is not only me who is baffled. Could someone please share who we are talking about?
CBWM.org cannot be found by Google
CBWM Acronym Definition
CBWM Community-Based Water Monitoring
CBWM Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
CBWM Community-Based Watershed Management (various locations)
CBWM Constant Blood Withdrawal Method (blood collection)
Speaking as a white, male, egalitarian Pentecostal who voted twice for the Bad Orange Man --
I have read Barr's book, and found it useful and informative. I would not hesitate to recommend it.
I have not read du Mez's book, and none of even the most laudatory reviews would move me to spend the money to obtain it. The quotes and paraphrases I've seen do not remotely match any of the Trump-voting Evangelicals I know in person or online, so I have to conclude she's proceeding from a faulty data set.
Yes. Just yes.
Veey good report in your own inimitable fashion. Here in UK we are more nuanced with complementarianism,but it exists inside church and outside. Yet the common ethos of society dictates equality without a gender/sex bias 'you dont need to possess external genitalia of a woman' to be one. Does thus affect the church's complementarian stance to react againsy such a statement?
Spot on
Very civilized/civilised...