So, how do we clean up the toxic swamp that is today’s evangelical reputation?…The moral inconsistency of our positions only leads a watching world to conclude that our religious convictions—the essence of our faith—is up for sale. It’s a venal dogma.
That cuts both ways. The "watching world" isn't monolithic. On the one hand, affluent white Twitterati think voting for Trump brings evangelicalism into disrepute. On the other hand, many young men take refuge in the alt-right because they think evangelicalism is a religion for pansies. Spokesmen like Christopherson, Russell Moore, Ed Stetzer et al. reinforce that damaging stereotype. They see Trump sticking up for their rights while they see folks like Moore in a collective freakout over Trump's tweets. They see normal masculinity demonized as "toxic masculinity". They wonder who's on their side. And not just the guys. The transgender bulldozer is demolishing women's sports. The "watching world" includes many young men and women who'd like to see a return to muscular Christianity, and not the emasculated version propounded by some evangelical elites. There's a mission field which Moore, Stetzer, Christopherson et al. are scorching.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo what's your ecclesiastical affiliation?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteUnknown
Delete"Does that include the Anglican church? A pansy denomination for sure. But, yeah, evangelicalism is falling into the pansy category at warp speed. That's one of the reasons I left, that and all the schism and ridiculous doctrine."
"IDK Steve...if I tell you you'll probably just unload on me. I'll think about it."
I see. You're fine criticizing other Christian denominations (e.g. Anglicans, evangelicals, to say nothing of the Christians in the other post). However, you don't want to open yourself or your own denomination to criticism.
Unknown
DeleteAre you Mike the Eastern Orthodox from "Praying to Mary"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Steve, why should I open myself up to you? You're already showing a propensity to unload on me...because you just unloaded."
Delete1. Actually, all Steve did in this post is ask you a single question - what's your ecclesiastical affiliation? That's it. That's all he said to you here. That's hardly tantamount to "unloading" on you. I guess you're hypersensitive to the slightest criticism if you think a single question is "unloading" on you.
2. I suspect you're confusing Steve with me.
3. You seem fine "unloading" on people or their denominations (e.g. calling the Anglican church a "pansy" denomination, saying evangelicalism is likewise "falling into the pansy category at warp speed"). However, I guess you're not fine with others "unloading" on you. In short, you can give it, but not take it.
4. Well, that's your prerogative, but I think it's silly. Like I said, you come across as hypersensitive to the slightest criticism. Thin-skinned. At the risk of stating the obvious, Triablogue is primarily an apologetics weblog. Things are going to become a bit rough and tumble at times. If you don't want anyone to criticize you or your beliefs, then don't make a (critical) comment on an apologetics weblog where (it should be obvious) such a comment will come under fire. Instead, you should consider commenting on a kindler, gentler Chritsian ministry's weblog.
5. Ironically, you criticize evangelicalism for "falling into the pansy category at warp speed", yet you yourself shy away from opening yourself up to Steve because you don't want (fear?) Steve to "unload" on you. That seems a bit in the direction of what's (shall we say) "pansy". Anyway, it's your call.
"Unknown"
DeleteYou were the one who volunteered that you left behind "all the schism and ridiculous doctrine" of evangelicalism. So that naturally invites the question of what you left it for. You opened the door to the question, not me.
As for "unloading" on you, intellectual criticism is a two-way street. If you critique my arguments, I reserve the right to critique yours.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteUnknown
DeleteYour accusations are still vague:
1. If you've been following Triablogue for some time, then surely you know most are Reformed (Calvinists). Are you suggesting most Reformed (Calvinist) churches or denominations are Erastian? Except for RPNA (GM)?
2. Since you identify as "Unknown", no one knows if your criticisms against Steve are valid or if you're just hypersensitive or something like that. It's just an ambiguous allegation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Hawk, Steve knows I'm referring to the Anglican church, and by now knows who I am. What does it matter whether I'm unknown or Tom. I'm just the guy that got fed up with the evangelical/Reformed churches as they are constituted today. And if I wasnt a historicist I would despair of the church ever being visibly united. The sad fact is that at one time the English speaking churches were united for a brief time, but that quickly fell apart and led to murder at the hands of the erastian king Charles."
DeleteNot only Anglicanism. You also criticized "evangelicalism" in general when you said: "evangelicalism is falling into the pansy category at warp speed. That's one of the reasons I left, that and all the schism and ridiculous doctrine."
I don't care who you are, but stop being so passive-aggressive. Just present a clear and direct argument. That was my main point.
If you don't want to engage a position, then don't leave a comment attacking it. If you want to engage a position, then leave a clear and direct criticism. Stop pussyfooting around. Your behavior is highly ironic in light of the fact that you alleged others are "pansy".
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"And why dont you stop using psycho babble. If you want to accuse me of sin, just do it. Hawk I TOLD you who I am and my church RIGHT? Now the problem with evangelicalism is its propensity to soft petal faggotry and to bend to the will of women. Is that direct enough for you?"
Delete1. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't make it "psychobabble".
2. I didn't accuse you of sin because (for one thing) being passive-aggressive isn't necessarily a sin. Also, I think it's possible you're honestly mistaken or deluded.
3. You didn't tell me who you are, nor do I care who you are.
Tblog is not a sandbox for anti-intellectual commenters to emote. If you refuse to engage the argument, your comments will be deleted.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI am so sick of hearing this crap. I don't really care what a bunch of morally compromised degenerates think about my faith. If it wasn't Trump it would be some other reason for people to reject Christ. Stetzer and his ilk remind me of the weak Provisional Government that caved to the Bolsheviks. Bunch of hand wringing limp wrists. They'll either give up the farm to the left and join themselves or they'll slowly come to their senses but by that time we'll all be in Gulags.
ReplyDeleteI am so sick of hearing this crap.
ReplyDeleteMe too; I curse and yell privately in my home or in my car at Leftist intersectionality, socialism, etc. when I watch the news or read about the latest thing happening against Christian values, western civilization, promotion of LGBT agenda, always calling us whites racists, bigots, white supremicists, etc. - ( I get angry that we are told we cannot comment on any racial issue just because we are white as if we don't have the right or a brain to criticize something objectively wrong. (like when other groups show their racism or bigotry against others)
Personally, I agree more with what you are saying Steve, and Blake's comments (the need for masculine Christianity, etc.); but I think the problem that those Evangelicals (like a David French type) are having is much more and much deeper than Trump's tweets.
I think it started with 2 big areas:
1. Before he won the election and has proven to be pretty good on actual policy - Trump's adulteries and bragging about it in his books and the fact that if you lie and cheat on your wife many times, what guarantee do we have he won't do that when elected? (that has now been modified because he has actually done a lot of good policies and good macro-decisions that preserve basic western Judeo-Christian values - good economics, taking down ISIS in Syria and Iraq, etc. 2 good Supreme court justices, Mike Pence's (and others in the Adm.) good presence to hold onto Christian / western macro-moral values to the areas that Trump himself does not care about.
2. the other area is the perception of bigotry and racism even though I don't think Trump is a racist. From the beginning, after he came down the escalator and announced his running for President in 2016, when he said "the Mexicans; . . . they are rapists . . . " - he never (that I have seen) said "I don't mean ALL, I mean there are SOME" - he in fact doubled down on never admitting being wrong or never backing down or never confessing his sins or mistakes (and that was mixed in with questions about his church background and the Lord's supper and him admitting that he never confesses a mistake.)
He tried to make up for that with his photo and picture that he likes Mexicans by eating a Taco Salad, etc. (that was seen as a goofy thing and pandering thing) (that was boneheaded and dumb !!!)
Now, understand what I am saying - I don't think he is a flaming racist, etc. as the Left and Media are always saying he is . . .
But that impression was locked into the minds and hearts of low information voters, leftists, Democrats, college students, University professors, Media, Journalists, etc. (and the whole Intersectionality movement and confusing using / mixing the racism issue, with gay and transgender and LGBT agendas, etc. - along with repeating the talking lie of "the Muslim ban" (it was only 6 countries that happen to be Muslim countries - but because of the war and chaos in them) - it could not have been a "Muslim ban" since so many other Muslim countries did not come under the ban (and it was not even a "ban" - it was a "temporary travel restriction")- (Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, etc.)
continued
2
ReplyDeleteBut that short quip "Trump's Muslim ban" was impressed upon half the non-thinking population (it seems to me, along with some other goofy statements and his name calling and insulting of people, vs. Megan Kelly, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, "lying Ted" ( !! @#$), John McCain, etc.) and his lack of clarifying or even admitting that he makes awkward statements, etc. - it is still locked into half of the USA people's consciousness even though these things are not true. (that he is not a racist and that it was a Muslim ban) It was not even a "ban" at all !! It was a "temporary travel restriction" from those specific countries, "until we can figure out what the hell is going on!!" (that was a time when I could see the need for that kind of language - it felt like Luther's justification for his course language against the Pope and RCC in his day.)
It was a "travel restriction" on Syria, Iran, Somalia, Libya, Yemen (and at first Iraq, until he changed on that one, since many Iraqis were helping the US efforts, translating, etc. there) and N. Korea and now expanded to Venezuela. (Sudan and Chad were also on the list at first, so the list has changed as more specific study and implementation was carried out and legal court process.)
What I feel from the CT article and Piper's article / interview is that that one side is feeling the tension of not being able to witness / do evangelism effectively with about half of the population of the US (and other cultures also) - because the Left leaning folks and other cultures will always bring up politics and Trump filtered through their own feelings of oppression, intersectionality philosophy, racism stuff, self-pity, victim mentality, etc.
I can see both sides of the argument and I don't have enough smarts to articulate a solution.
Jordan Peterson has a vast following among many young disaffected men whom the evangelical mandarins can't reach. Indeed, the evangelical mandarins are too snobbish to reach out to Peterson's constituency. They'd rather look down on them.
DeleteI don't disagree with you entirely. I wasn't for Trump in the primaries. I was grudgingly pushed to vote for him. The reasoning is called the Flight 93 doctrine, and it is why many people who initially opposed Trump went with him in the end:
Delete2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances."
Read the whole thing:https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/
The Flight 93 doctrine is what liberals and progressives don't understand about many Trump voters - conservatives and moderates. Liberals would rather keep alleging Trump voters are racist, sexist, etc. That's just attempting to shame and scold Trump voters for no good reason. That does nothing to win anyone over to their side, which is what they really need, especially in the swing states. All it does is reinforce to Trump voters that if don't vote for Trump (charge the cockpit), then the Democrats who kept calling them racist, sexist, etc. will win (they'll die). After all, if the Democrats truly think Trump voters are racist, sexist, etc., then they're going to go after and punish these racists, sexists, etc. if they're ever in a position of power over them. In short, Democrats are making it a life or death situation for Trump voters to continue to vote for Trump.
DeleteWhat does "mandarins" mean ?
ReplyDeleteI googled it and the definitions I found don't fit. (Chinese; orange color - from Mandarin oranges, etc.) "watered down" ?
I really like a lot of what Jordan Peterson says and the way he says things; (he has been helpful to one of my sons in articulating things that resonate with him) (stuff he heard from me and his mom all growing up, but needed to hear from another adult to confirm things) but I know he is not an Evangelical Bible believer, but people in my church got their "third degree" and "100th degree" fundy separation backs up when they did not know who he was, and then googled him and found out he was not a Christian; I got kind of grilled and suspicious looks, etc.
"Mandarin" has become a colloquial idiom for overrefined individuals, by analogy with Ming dynasty courtiers.
Delete