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.
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.
Dr Bradly is pointing to a book that makes the argument of his tweet. It is a full well developed book that Shenvi and many others should read. One that I also have pointed out to Shenvi because so much of what he points to as dangerous about CRT is actually black church theology and practice that has roots way before the rise of CRT.
While you and I have argued briskly on other points, I do not hesitate to say that I am utterly unimpressed by even the most *favorable* reviews of her book. That is to say, I have not read the book, and nothing in the reviews encourages me to spend the money to do so. (I would read it if someone were to present it to me as a gift, however.) I am a two-time Trump-voting egalitarian Pentecostal, and the citations describing her characterizations of Evangelicals do not match any I know in person or online.
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.”
Hierarchical complementarianism is contrary to a faithful interpretation of scripture because it locates hierarchy pre-fall instead of post-fall based not on an explicit reading of Genesis, especially 1:28, or the teachings of Jesus but rather on the the writings of Paul, which "contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3
"Egalitarians" are always smug. It's their defining characteristic. They're unwilling to stand up to the pressure from modern, Western culture, but rather succumb to it, and then they think their surrender to the spirit of the age makes them superior to those who don't surrender.
I'm confident that Neil Shenvi and Kevin DeYoung are more intelligent, more insightful, more faithful, and more courageous than you are.
It's cute your closing paragraph illustrates how your opening sentence applies at least as well to your own side, which confirms my own experience over the past decade+ of discussions and debates.
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.
BTW, I have the same complaint about CBE. In days of yore, they allowed comments and discussion, but a few years ago they abandoned the practice.
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.
Dr Bradly is pointing to a book that makes the argument of his tweet. It is a full well developed book that Shenvi and many others should read. One that I also have pointed out to Shenvi because so much of what he points to as dangerous about CRT is actually black church theology and practice that has roots way before the rise of CRT.
Bird doesn't say that he's referring to the book by Mathews ("Doctrine and Race") but that he's referring to the inflammatory tweet by Bradley.
Bradley's tweet was no inflammatory, I think it was an astute observation.
That's sad. That you think race-baiting, baseless nonsense like that is "astute" is sad for you.
Okay, thanks.
"[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/
While you and I have argued briskly on other points, I do not hesitate to say that I am utterly unimpressed by even the most *favorable* reviews of her book. That is to say, I have not read the book, and nothing in the reviews encourages me to spend the money to do so. (I would read it if someone were to present it to me as a gift, however.) I am a two-time Trump-voting egalitarian Pentecostal, and the citations describing her characterizations of Evangelicals do not match any I know in person or online.
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.”
Bingo!
Hierarchical complementarianism is contrary to a faithful interpretation of scripture because it locates hierarchy pre-fall instead of post-fall based not on an explicit reading of Genesis, especially 1:28, or the teachings of Jesus but rather on the the writings of Paul, which "contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3
What an argument: 1) Gen 1 = CLEAR; 2) Gen 2 = IGNORED; 3) Apostle Paul = IMPOSSIBLE to be understood!
Neil's response: https://shenviapologetics.com/a-friendly-response-to-mike-bird/
Again, not particularly useful, given the author's lack of gonadal fortitude to provide a Comments section.
Not providing a comments section doesn't indicate anything about the quality of the argument.
No, but it's annoying when an author uncorks a big cloud of verbal flatus, but does not allow the opportunity for others to light it with a match.
"Egalitarians" are always smug. It's their defining characteristic. They're unwilling to stand up to the pressure from modern, Western culture, but rather succumb to it, and then they think their surrender to the spirit of the age makes them superior to those who don't surrender.
I'm confident that Neil Shenvi and Kevin DeYoung are more intelligent, more insightful, more faithful, and more courageous than you are.
It's cute your closing paragraph illustrates how your opening sentence applies at least as well to your own side, which confirms my own experience over the past decade+ of discussions and debates.
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...