Is it a moral imperative to get off of Social Media yet?

For the past five months, I've stayed off Facebook completely and I am happy to report that the world did not end. I did not go crazy or suffer at all for this. In fact, I think I am probably more sane than before.

Even setting aside the political aspects that are so simple to dive into when it comes to Facebook and Twitter in particular, Social Media is really better described as Antisocial Media because it makes it easier for people to engage in their depravity. To that end, it serves as a great illustration that Calvinism has something going for it, insomuch as basically good people left to their own devices would end up shaping a social media platform that is basically good too. But what you actually find when people are left to their own devices is that they group together to bully those they disagree with, create cancel mobs to attack individuals who “step out of line”, will willfully pass on things they know are lies if it serves their own goals, and the more anonymous they are, the more corrupted they become.

The greatest irony of living in a culture where the average person has the most access to every single bit of information that they ever had in history, is that the average person will ignore all of it. It used to take a research team months of combing through dusty books in the reference section of libraries to find out information about what, say, a 19^th century historical figure once said. Today, we can find that information in a thirty second long internet search, and that's “too much work”. So rather than check to see if Ronald Reagan really said, “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”, we pass it on in our timeline because the meme looked cool. (For the record, the quote, which I actually did see on a picture of Ronald Reagan on Facebook, does indeed have an attribution, but it wasn't said by Reagan. The attribution is: Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich. “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League.” London, England. March 1850.)

But while I can make my argument about the objectively evil nature of Social Media without touching on the political aspects of Social Media, the reality is that the political aspects cannot be ignored either. And it's those political aspects which drive the question I asked in the title. Silicon Valley very clearly has an iron grip on Social Media platforms, and Silicon Valley very definitely has a specific political bent. They are also not shy about using their power to enact that political change. The problem is the political change they implement is almost universally contrary to Biblical principles. And lest there be confusion, I don't mean in the sense of setting up a theocracy. I'm talking about the basic, bare-bones aspect of civic governing which the Bible condemns as being evil even in countries which were never in a covenantal relationship with Him are being promoted by the policies being pushed forward by Silicon Valley.

Naturally, one can still use those platforms to push for the Gospel. In that regard, one could make the claim that Social Media is like the printing press. It makes it possible to spread either good or evil messages, but the person who writes the message is the one responsible for whether or not it is used for good or evil.

Except that there are certain truthful statements that you can write on Facebook—statements which are merely affirmations of the Gospel—which will get your account banned. In that way, it's not like the printing press, for the printing press doesn't have editorial control over what people use it for. Mark Zuckerberg does have that control over what you say on Facebook. Jack Dorsey does have that control over what you say on Twitter. Susan Wojcicki does have that control over what you say on YouTube.

Also, we must be cognizant of the fact that these “free” platforms constitute the richest companies in the world right now, and you must ask yourself how is it possible for a company that does not charge users to access it to not only make money, but THAT MUCH of it? It's scarcely hidden that everything you do or say on those platforms is feeding social algorithms designed to modify your behavior, primarily into purchasing more things. That is, the platform is not the product—it is the bait. You are the product being sold to the advertisers.

But it's not just advertisers who are willing to buy your attention. If Microsoft, Toyota, or Dasani can purchase manipulation efforts to get you to buy their product, what makes you think a foreign government couldn't pretend to be a corporation seeking advertising when they are really pushing subversion? And what's to stop Silicon Valley from doing it themselves when they want more power under our own governmental structure?

Manipulation occurs on that level as well. Specific viewpoints are promoted while others are suppressed. This isn't an accident. This is the whole point of the Social Media ecosystem. This is designed to make you feel isolated and alone simply for holding to positions that they do not want you to hold, and it's designed to amplify positions they want you to hold far beyond their actual power. Look no further than the astonishing power that LGBT advocates have when the May 2018 Gallup poll showed that only 4.5% of Americans identify as LGBT. Now, if you “misgender” someone, you can actually lose your job, and the fact that everyone knows this despite the fact that those who live outside of cities (that is, the majority* of people in the US), rarely have even met a transgendered person.

This manipulation does have an effect, as evidenced by the way that people's views on social issues such as homosexual marriage have so rapidly shifted in recent years. True, one could argue the LGBT movement has always had a disproportionate amount of political power, but it is undeniable that things have changed much faster since the inception of Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005, bought by Google in 2006), and Twitter (2006).  It is not primarily through the influence of Hollywood, which has been blamed in the past. The numbers for the entertainment industry are in free fall, and they've burned off most of the cache of support they used to have. But regardless, pressure from Hollywood remained the same from the 90s through the early 2000s.  Yet Obama ran in 2008 on a platform opposed to gay marriage. By 2012, those who agreed with Obama's position a mere four years previously, were getting banned on the social media platforms. And by 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was now affirmed.

Today, social ideas, especially those relating to the so-called “Woke” movement, are still gaining traction at a rapid pace even through historically conservative Christian institutions. This is almost certainly traceable to the fact that those who are presenting woke content on social media are being promoted on the platform, while the voices of those who object to it are being banned. The disproportionate banning of voices from the right—voices who are nowhere near as extreme as the voices on the left which are being promoted—certainly is shifting the Overton Window ever more quickly to the left.

So, is it a moral imperative to avoid social media? I'll let you come to your own decision. But if you want to use it, for your own mental health, remember that the audiences there are not real. That is, they are not representative of how people really think. They are the cultivated result of social manipulation, and they are specifically designed to influence you on your own feed. The fact that you see some of what your friends have written on Facebook, for example, may make you think that you're getting a genuine sample of what your friends really think. You are not. Facebook commonly does not share every post that your friends have written, and often when they do display it to you it's hours or days later—anyone who uses the platform has run into the experience where they see a post from someone five days after they wrote it, while the entire time they saw the same four posts at the top of their feed. This is intentional, not accidental. Facebook is using their algorithms to decide when to parcel out data they have problems with so they can claim neutrality by delivering it while still manipulating you so you don't respond quickly or see it when the post is most relevant. And only a fool would think they are smart enough to avoid being manipulated when that manipulation is the basis by which Facebook is a multi-billion dollar company.

The only way to actually avoid the manipulation is to avoid social media altogether.

* And if you're wondering why I say that the majority of the US doesn't live in cities, according to https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/05/america-a-nation-of-small-towns.html, 39% of the US population lives in cities with more than 50,000 people (which comprise only 4% of all “incorporated places” in the US). Contrast that with the 37% of Americans who don't live in “an incorporated place” at all. The rest live in small towns, of which 76% have fewer than 5,000 people, and 42% of those had fewer than 500 people.

Humanists Being Humanists....

American Humanist Association Board Statement Withdrawing Honor from Richard Dawkins

[Richard Dawkins's] latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. ...Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.

I'm sure he's devastated by the removal of something he probably forgot he received since it is worth exactly zero cups of coffee down at Starbucks. Frankly, it's somewhat ironic that you have the AHA "withdrawing honor", something which in the atheistic universe is just made up and has no basis in objective reality according to their own criteria.

Actually, I guess it makes perfect sense as to why criticizing something that was just made up and has no basis in objective reality would result in the removal of an award which is just made up and has no basis in objective reality after all...

Still, we live in a world where something can be memory-holed and treated like it never happened due to something you say 25 years after the fact. Isn't progress grand?

Social justice matters more than social distance

"Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Distance"

Don't catch you slippin' now

Coram Deo asked a good question about why people riot. In general, I presume there are many different reasons. I offered a brief response in the post, but I'm sure it could be expanded and improved.

However, in the case of George Floyd, much of it is due to perceived racism. The kind of thing epitomized in Childish Gambino's "This Is America". George Floyd is coming on the heels of Ahmaud Audrey and Breanna Taylor too.

Yet, perception isn't necessarily reality. Is it only black folks and other minorities targeted by the police? Consider the tragic case of Daniel Shaver only a few years ago. The officer who killed Shaver was found not guilty.

Anyway, there's a lot of pent-up frustration against authorities in general, especially the police, police brutality, the blue wall of silence. A lot of it justified, in my view. There are a lot of corrupt cops. Cops who don't serve and protect. Of course, I'm not suggesting riots are the answer. Not at all. I don't defend the riots.

That said, I want to come to my main point: I think the left is fomenting a lot of the riots. Leftist agitators. Take arguments like this which attempt to justify violent protests. Likewise take how some argue "black rage" is a "spiritual virtue". Take the house that Obama built (e.g. Obama arguably inciting blacks against authorities). Take the fact that "Biden's staff is donating to a group that funds the release of rioters" (source).

It's as if leftists are using Floyd's death as a pretext to push their agenda. It's as if leftists want a second civil war. A revolution.

If so, I suppose that'd be in line with what socialists and communists have always wanted. To build a new world atop the ash heaps of the old world, the world of their fathers. They don't honor their parents, but wish to commit patricide and matricide. They're not their grandfathers' sons, but their grandfathers' slayers. Destroy Amerikkka, arise Utopia.

I don't think the US today can be defeated by external forces (e.g. China), but I think we could defeat ourselves by tearing ourselves apart. Many on the left are like a fifth column in the US.

Update. Andy Ngo, who himself was a victim of Antifa, makes good observations which overlap with mine.

The violence tonight is not about George Floyd.Growing numbers of young Americans have been taught to think of US as an evil empire—a white-supremacist, patriarchal hellscape.The part about the US being the best hope for humankind—a deeply flawed but noble democracy—not taught.

— Christina Sommers (@CHSommers) June 1, 2020

By what standard?

A trailer by the Founders ministry is getting a lot of buzz:

https://founders.org/cinedoc/

I'll make a few comments on the trailer, then make some comments on the backlash:

A. I wonder if the title was inspired by the title of an old book by Greg Bahnsen.

B. Some of the critics of the SBC infiltration are currently employed at SBC seminaries, so they are to be saluted for their courage. They are taking a risk by implicitly criticizing the boss. 

C. I agree with everything Ascol says in the trailer. 

D. Rod Martin misframes the issue by casting it in terms of guilt, regret, and forgiveness. On the one hand the white slave masters, Klansmen and other suchlike died impenitent. On the  other hand, the younger generation isn't complicit in that to begin with, so there's nothing to forgive.  

E. There's a clip of James Merritt. I believe he's the father of homosexual activist Jonathan Merritt. 

F. SBTS prez Al Mohler tweeted that he's "alarmed at how some respected SBC leaders are represented".

https://twitter.com/albertmohler/status/1153759362990714881

Ironically, that reinforces the image of self-important leaders who maintain a system of cronyism. 

G. SWBTS prez Adam Greenway's tweet conveys the same blue wall of silence: "I will not…be part of any agenda seeking to divide Southern Baptists unnecessarily".

https://twitter.com/AdamGreenway/status/1153771415214145537

H. For his part, MBTS prez Jason Allen tweeted: "This trailer is either a click-bait promo piece or it foreshadows a movie that's uncharitable & unhelpful". 

https://twitter.com/jasonkeithallen/status/1153773326470406144

The problem is that SBC leaders have been accused of positively facilitating the infiltration of identity politics into the SBC generally and SBC seminaries in particular. They can't be trusted to solve the problem if they actively support it. 

There's nothing wrong with a grassroots movement in the SBC  to oppose identity politics. The SBC isn't supposed to be the Church of Rome, where the hierarchy makes all the key decisions. It's not insubordinate for SBC laymen or pastors to challenge policies promoted by the SBC Mandarins. 

I. SEBTS prez Danny Akin had the most substantive response to date. Among other things, he said: 

I sat down with an interview for what I understood to be a discussion about the authority of Scripture for an upcoming documentary…Today I was disappointed to see the trailer for that documentary. What I saw was edited footage that I believe to be misleading, which misrepresents important issues and what leaders in the SBC actually affirm…I have requested that my association with and contribution to this film be removed.   

https://twitter.com/DannyAkin/status/1153760946814251008

That raises some ethical issues:

1. Was he interviewed under false pretenses? Since Ascol does think it's about the authority of Scripture, it wasn't conducted under false pretenses from his perspective.

2. Perhaps, though, the objection is that he was interviewed under false pretenses in the sense that Akin wasn't apprised of the use to which his statements would be put. In principle that could happen in one of two ways:

i) He was not informed about the use to which his statements would be put.

ii He was misinformed about the use to which his statements would be put.

3. (ii) is ethically more serious than (i). Mind you, there are exceptional situations in which I subterfuge justifiable. Take the sting operation on Planned Parenthood. Undercover investigators interviewed PP employs under false pretenses because that was the only way to make them own up to their activities behind-the-scenes. 

4. Regarding (i), an interviewer might not be forthcoming about his agenda because, if he told the prospective interviewee what the purpose of the interview was, the interviewee back out or refuse to give straight answers. Is the interviewer to blame? Or is it blameworthy that the interviewee won't give honest answers about what's going on if the interviewer tips his hand, forcing the interviewer to be vague about his intentions to make the interviewee drop his guard and level with the interviewer? I'd say it reflects poorly on the interviewee if the interviewer must be stealthy to get information which the interviewee shouldn't be hiding from public scrutiny. Is it the interview or the interviewee who ought to be more forthright? 

5. Even assuming (ex hypothesi) that the interview was conducted under false pretenses, that doesn't mean the quotes misrepresent the position of the interviewee. I'd add that Russell Moore and Matt Chandler are target rich spokesmen. They could be quoted more fully, and that would be just as damning or more so. 

6. Of course the trailer uses edited footage. It's a trailer. By definition, that consists of teasers and excerpts. That by itself doesn't mean the quotes were taken out of context. 

7. Is it wrong to put someone's statements to a use they didn't intend or approve of? Not necessarily. Once you said something you lose control of what you said. Now it's out there. You can't turn the clock back. You can't obligate people to act like you never said it. The moment you say it, it's out of your hands. People can now do with it whatever they wish, whether or not their intentions mesh with yours. The fact that the four SBC seminary presidents are so preemptively defensive is revealing. 

Praying for Trump–what's all the fuss about?

I've read several articles about the controversy surrounding Platt praying for Trump, but I'm still unclear on the specific objections. Platt provided a backgrounder: 

https://www.mcleanbible.org/prayer-president

1. Do critics object that Platt prayed for Trump at all? Do they think he should have refused to pray for Trump?

2. Do critics object that he prayed for Trump in public? Do they think it's okay for him to pray with Trump offstage, but not onstage, in front of the congregation and cameras? If so, that raises several issues:

i) It was a snap decision. 

ii) This is in the middle of the service, so Platt had to return to the stage to resume his participation in the service. So the question is whether he should have left Trump backstage. 

In effect, that would be snubbing him. There are situations in which snubbing someone is justifiable. Is this one of those situations?

iii) I assume they initially met backstage because the Secret Service brought Trump into church through a rear entrance for security reasons (rather than the main entrance). So Platt had to decide, on the spur of the moment, where to take it from there.

iv) Is the concern that praying for Trump onstage constitutes an endorsement? But that turns far more on the content of the prayer (which was neutral) rather than the venue. This was at Trump's initiative, not Platt's. 

v) Since the initial meeting took place during the service, it would be natural for Platt to invite Trump into the sanctuary to join the service, if he so desired. Trump declined, but Platt didn't know in advance what Trump would do after the prayer. At that point it was a communion service. What if Trump wanted to take communion? So I think it's perfectly reasonable for Platt to bring Trump into the sanctuary. If anyone might be queasy about that move, it would be the Secret Service. 

vi) Do critics think it was okay for Platt to bring Trump onstage, but instead of offering a neutral prayer, he should have used the occasion to denounce the policies of the Trump administration? 

Of course, Platt may not share the views of SJWs regarding the Trump administration. But suppose he did. If he denounced Trump to his face, what would that accomplish?

It wouldn't cause Trump to change his mind. If anything, it would harden Trump against evangelical pastors.

Moreover, given Trump's penchant to fight back, that might provoke a heated exchange between Trump and Platt. That would completely derail the worship service.

3. It is important for churches to maintain a level of independence in relation to political figures. If (a future) Pres. Pete Buttboy showed up at Platt's church, perhaps that should be handled differently. 

4. I think it's obvious that the critics are ideologically opposed to Trump, they think Platt should share their ideological priorities and do what they'd do in that situation.. 

I expect critics of Platt get their information about the Trump administration from outlets like CNN, NPR, MSNBC, NYT. If that's your source of information, then that presents the Trump administration as an unmitigated evil.

If, by contrast, you get your information from Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, Andrew McCarthy, Victor Davis Hanson et al., then that presents the Trump administration in generally postive terms. 

It's important for people to ask themselves if they are reacting to the actual Trump administration, or to an image of the Trump administration that's a construct and projection of their news outlets.  

Of course, if SJWs got their information from conservative outlets, they'd still despise the Trump administration because they despise conservative ideology, Christian theology, and any administration that's center-right. 

Mutiny at SBTS?

An OT prof. at SBTS has signed the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel:

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2019/04/20/despite-rumored-threats-of-career-risk-sbts-professor-signs-social-justice-statement/

That's significant because it's been reported that Al Mohler privately threatened to fire faculty who signed the statement (a report Mohler denies). So this will be a test. 

The Statement on Social Justice is a poorly-formulated manifesto, although it says mostly good things. Is there a duty to sign it?

Insofar as the evangelical ruling class has drawn a line in the sand over this document, there's something to be said for signing it, even though it's a flawed document, as a statement of protest and defiance. The hostile reaction to the document lends it a significance above and beyond the document itself. It has become a symbol. 

An analogy would be saying and doing things that Muslims find provocative or offensive just to prove that you still have the freedom to do so (e.g. satirical cartoons of Muhammad). Occasionally, if someone dares you not to do something, that's a reason to do it. Sometimes you need to put it to the test. If you're afraid to exercise your rights, for fear of reprisal, then you already lost your rights. Likewise, the only way to keep your rights or reclaim your rights is to stand up to bullies.

I've been told that Mohler can fire faculty without due cause because SBTS uses at-will employment. At-will employment should be abolished at SBC seminaries. It subverts doctrinal standards. Termination of employment should be based on violating the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message and/or ethical misconduct. In effect, at-will employment replaces the statement of faith with the seminary prez. The seminary prez. becomes the operating creed. It reminds me of something Roger Olson said about ORU. ORU had no formal creed because Oral Roberts was the creed. Whatever he taught from one day to the next was the de facto statement of faith.

Tinted lenses

No, no, a thousand times, NO.

The faithful interpreter of Scripture is the one with a deep commitment to the Lordship of Christ, a love for the Word, and an obedient heart.

SOCIAL STATUS, ETHNICITY, OR “OPPRESSED STATUS” IS UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. pic.twitter.com/DqPWZQmZUZ

— James White (@DrOakley1689) March 15, 2019

That's an overreaction. Although there's a sense in which biblical exegesis ought to be disinterested, the fact is that readers can bring vested interests to the sacred text which blind them to the message of Scripture when it cuts against the grain of their vested interests. For instance, under slavery and Jim Crow, black Americans were able to recognize some biblical themes about justice, oppression, and liberation which the ruling class turned a blind eye to. In general, Southern Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians had a filter that screened out those biblical themes, in their application to the contemporary situation. I expect Victorian Christians suffered from the same blinders in relation to British imperialism in India. 

And within the Bible itself, the Apocalypse reflects the outlook of persecuted Christians in relation to oppressive elites. The Book of Daniel is an analogous example. For that matter, the social status of the Jewish establishment had a prejudicial effect on how most elite Jews in Jerusalem viewed Jesus. Having a personal stake in the message if the message poses a threat to your dominance can distort the interpretive process.

So there's a grain of truth to what Mika says. The problem isn't with the general principle. Rather, the problem is due in part to self-anointed victim groups who've deluded themselves into believing that they are oppressed. Moreover, casting whites as the villains in their self-flattering psychodrama. Not only is this harmful to innocent white Americans, but harmful to some minority groups by conditioning them to believe they can't succeed. Ironically, Mika is oblivious to his own tinted lenses. He's the mirror image of what he decries. 

Battle for the future

There's currently a debate going on inside and outside evangelicalism. One group includes SJWs like Thabiti, Kyle Howard, Anthony Bradley, and Jemar Tisby.

On the opposing side, there's a group consisting of church leaders like John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, James White, and Tom Ascol. 

Straddling these two groups are some major players in the SBC and PCA, viz. Russell Moore, Albert Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Daniel Akin, JD Greear, David Platt, Matt Chandler, Wade Burleson. Darrell Bock is another fence-straddler. 

That's complemented by some figures in TGC, viz. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/conference/mlk50/

However, that's offset by culture warriors Joe Carter as well. 

There are folks like Beth Moore who have their own coterie. And there's some overlap among the fence-straddlers. 

On the outside, there are ordinary Americans who generally support the Trump administration as a bulwark against the secular progressives.   

There are pundits at NRO. 

There are Jewish culture warriors like Michael Brown, Ben Shapiro, Ben Stein, Jay Sekulow, John Feinberg, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, David Horowitz, and even Alan Dershowitz on a good day.  

There are freelance culture warriors like Robert Gagnon. 

Somewhere in the motley crew is Jordan Peterson and Steven Crowder, not to mention the old-guard (Rush Limbaugh). 

There's a Catholic contingent, viz. Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Ross Douthat on a good day. 

It even includes homosexuals like Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannopoulos.

There are public intellectuals like Roger Scruton and Thomas Sowell. 

Less well-known are rising stars like Neil Shenvi, Tim Dukeman, Berny Belvedere, and Tim Hsiao.

These diverse groups form rotating coalitions. I should hasten to add that some of these I watch or read, but others I've read about. I know some of them by reputation, so I don't claim that my classifications are equally well-informed in every instance. 

The concern of many laymen is the spectacle of conservative denominations becoming infiltrated by the progressive body-snatchers. For instance, Russell Moore is an excellent candidate for a pod person. Would a genetic test turn up alien DNA? 

There are unbridgeable chasms between some of these groups. There is, however, a potential albeit partial alliance between two disparate groups. One the one hand, many blacks are deeply suspicious of the law enforcement culture. On the other hand, it's my impression that many young white guys share that suspicion. Now, there are different grounds for that suspicion. In the case of some blacks, it's based on a Black Lives Matter narrative. In the case of some whites, it's based on libertarian ideology. Both groups feel the system is against them. And this includes Tech giants a well as government.

In addition, the emerging scandal of Ivy League colleges that systematically discriminate against Asian applicants may galvanize some politically apathetic Asian-Americans or turn them against the liberal establishment. 

Is the status quo frozen in place?

Let me put this simply.

Intersectionality is utterly incompatible with a belief in the sovereign kingship of God and His divine decree.

It is God who makes men to differ, God who makes the lame and the blind and the rich and the poor.

— James White (@DrOakley1689) March 6, 2019

There are some really good arguments against intersectionality. This isn't one of them. As stated, that's classic que sera sera fatalism. Don't try to change anything because everything is foreordained. Attempting to change the status quo is spiritually mutinous. 

Yes, God makes men to differ. God determines who will be blind and lame, rich and poor. But God predestines changes to the status quo. Presently, Roe v. Wade is the status quo. That doesn't mean the prolife movement is utterly incompatible with a belief in the sovereign kingship of God and His divine decree. Predestination doesn't mean the status quo is frozen in place. God predestines change. In some cases, God predestines social reform. Calvinism isn't Hinduism, with an ironclad caste-system. 

We just do what we can, and what we can do mirrors predestination. If we succeed, that was predestined, and if we fail, that was predestined. We don't know in advance what was predestined. We just go about doing whatever we were going to do. Although predestination is prospective, we discover what was predestined in retrospect.

It's very strange to see White peddle a harmful caricature of Calvinism. Surely he knows better. He should simply critique intersectionality on the merits rather than resorting to defective theological formulations. This illustrates the danger of using Twitter to debate complex issues, which encourages intellectual shortcuts. Here's a good example of a superior lineup:

https://www.gospelsocialjustice.com/

https://www.gospelsocialjustice.com/speaker-bios

Distrust the media

Lots of stories about the Covington schoolboys. Here's one good breakdown: 

https://stream.org/throwing-covingtons-prolife-boys-to-the-crocodiles/

A few quick observations:

i) Minimally, whenever the liberal media does a sensational story on the Trump administration or hate crimes, &c., we should suspend judgment and wait for more information to come in. Actually, that's too generous. My standing presumption is that the liberal media is totally untrustworthy. Automatically discount what the liberal media says unless and until that receives confirmation. 

Ironically, this story was right on the heels of the bogus Buzzfeed story about Trump suborning perjury.

ii) The kids were also denounced by Catholic spokesmen. For instance:

Catholic school students at the #MarchforLife attempt to shame and disrespect a man at the #IndigenousPeoplesMarch. These actions are not Catholic, not Christian and not acceptable. Would that these students fully understood the dignity of all human life--including this man's. https://t.co/bzqauPjPts

— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) January 19, 2019

I'm so deeply appalled and disgusted by the racist, shameful, disrespectful behavior of the Catholic high school students wearing MAGA hats and harassing a Native American elder and Vietnam Vet. I'm so angry and yet not at all surprised at pervasive white supremacy exhibited 1/2

— Daniel P. Horan, OFM (@DanHoranOFM) January 19, 2019

Just one of many reasons I find the so-called "march for life" often repulsive and futile: It's basically a gathering for many right-wing anti-abortion hardliners (not consistent ethic of life, i.e. true pro-lifers) and teens to get a free trip to goof off (at best) in DC. 2/2

— Daniel P. Horan, OFM (@DanHoranOFM) January 19, 2019

iii) Some conservative pundits also joined the social media lynch mob:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-school-protestors-apologies/

Why would some conservatives suffer from the same hair-trigger reaction? I think the explanation is that some conservatives are too defensive about the pop cultural reputation of conservatives, and so they're just itching for a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of the pop culture. But that's a fool's errand.

iv) This story parallels Rathergate, where it was the grassroots rather than "professional journalists" who debunked the false narrative. 

The mission of the church

Some Christians respond to the social justice movement by framing the issue in terms of the church's mission, or gospel/non-gospel categories. Now, there's certainly an important debate to be had regarding the mission of the church. And it's true that when the church suffers from mission creep, it loses focus, which contributes to doctrinal drift. 

That said, evaluating the social justice movement in terms of the church's mission or gospel/non-gospel categories is too abstract and roundabout. For the more direct issue is that Christian conservatives sharply disagree with secular progressives and progressive Christians on what the social issues should be. We don't see eye-to-eye with what's wrong. Off the top of my head, this is the agenda of the social justice movement:

Affirmative consent

Black Lives Matter

Climate justice (e.g. climate change, sustainability)

Economic justice (e.g. minium wage)

Feminism

Gay rights

Gun ban/confiscation

Immigrant justice

Income redistribution

Intersectionality

Reproductive rights (abortion, "free" contraception) 

Student debt
Toxic masculinity

Transgender rights

Universal basic income

Universal healthcare

White privilege 

Conversely, these are some social issues that concern many evangelicals, libertarians, and/or conservatives: 

Abortion (oppose)

Administrative state (oppose)
Affirmative action (oppose)

Capital punishment

Complementarianism

Due process

Euthanasia (oppose)

Freedom of religion

Freedom of speech

Freedom of association

Illegal immigration (oppose)

Muslim immigration (oppose)
Police state (oppose)

Privacy rights

Property rights

School choice

Self-defense

Parental rights

Surveillance state (oppose)

Tech giant censorship (oppose)

Where the debate comes to a head is over specific issues and political philosophy. "Social justice" is a euphemism as well as an umbrella term. 

The primary reason that conservatives and Christians like me resist the social justice movement is not because I agree with their agenda but think that falls outside the mandate of the church. It's not as though I believe we need to work on those issues, but from a different platform than the church. No, the fundamental objection is that I don't agree with their menu. Indeed, I oppose their agenda. I oppose their priorities. I have a different menu. That's where the argument must be met. 

Jarrod McKenna v. James White on social justice

https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Debating-the-Statement-on-Social-Justice-Jarrod-McKenna-James-White

Nazis and SJWs

In the past I've noted the ironic fact that Jewishness was more important to Nazis that it was to many Jews. For many European Jews were nominal Jews, assimilated Jews, secular Jews–interchangeable with their Aryan neighbors. But for Nazis, Jewish identity was all-important. It was the target.

The same irony holds true in identity politics. Whiteness is far more important to SJWs than it is to many whites. For many whites, what's central to their personal identity is their biological sex, heterosexual orientation, religion, family, and nationality. Their biological race is peripheral compared to those other indicia. But for SJWs, white identity is all-important, because that's the target. 

too broke to be woke

https://quillette.com/2018/09/14/social-justice-in-the-shadows/

The old duffer code

Denny Burke has conveniently posted a time-stamped edition of Mohler's position regarding The Statement on Justice and the Gospel:

http://www.dennyburk.com/albert-mohler-answers-questions-about-social-justice/

I draw attention to this because Mohler is one of the grand muftis in the SBC. His position is influential, and representative of other power brokers in the SBC. 

Unlike Russell Moore, who's a weasel, I think Mohler is a good guy. I disagree with his reasons for not signing the statement.

You might call it the old duffer code: "When I was a boy…" Folks like Mohler have the provincial notion that when and where they grew up should be the frame of reference for the younger generation. Mohler and I are just about the same age (he's two months younger than me), but I don't chain the younger generation to the experiences of my generation. They have their own duties and challenges. 

"The idolatry of whiteness"

From the founding of this nation until the present hour, the idolatry of whiteness has been a pro-death spirit within our republic. 

To this end, we call upon white leaders and members of the Evangelical church to condemn in the strongest terms the white supremacist ideology that has long existed in the church and our society.

If you would like to add your name as a signer of the Charlottesville Declaration, please email: admin@thewitnessbcc.com with your name and title as you would like them to appear.

https://thewitnessbcc.com/charlottesville-declaration-appeal-church-america/

Notice the schizophrenic attitude. How can they abhor the (alleged) idolatry of whiteness while they simultaneously solicit white evangelical signatories–as well as white leaders and members of the Evangelical church to condemn white supremacist ideology? Doesn't their craving for white backing and white signatories idolize whiteness? If the (alleged) idolatry of whiteness is the source of the problem, then why should they seek the patronage of white folks? Shouldn't they demonstrate their independence of white approval? By seeking white sponsors, don't they perpetuate the (alleged) idolatry of whiteness.

Doesn't felt need for whites to bless their outlook betray a racial inferiority complex on their part? Why do they pine for whites to affirm them? Doesn't that idolize white opinion? Doesn't that evince a sense of inadequacy of their part? They act like they suffer from white envy. They act like they wish they were born white. They act like they're ashamed to be black, which they camouflage by donning SJW fatigues. 

Social justice

https://shenviapologetics.wordpress.com/recognizing-critical-theory-and-why-it-matters/

https://shenviapologetics.wordpress.com/christianity-and-social-justice/

https://shenviapologetics.wordpress.com/a-long-review-of-race-class-and-gender-part-1/

"Our national dialogue on race"

There's a poisonous quality to "our national dialogue on race". On the one hand, whites are vilified. White guilt, white privilege, check your privilege, systemic/institutional racism. Implicit racism.

Predictably, that puts whites on the defense. So they respond by pointing to black-on-black crime, high rates of black criminality among young black men. That puts blacks on the defensive. 

Each side resents how the other side frames the issue. It's a vicious cycle. The way to break the cycle is to avoid stereotyping people by race, which ends up putting everybody on the defensive, causing endless, gratuitous acrimony. 

The last thing SJWs want is racial harmony. They need to constantly stoke the fires of division to get political capital out of the resultant polarization. 

Stats or individuals?

One of the paradoxes of identity politics is that it backfires. Identity politics treats people as statistics rather than individuals. It consigns you to a larger class. You have the aggregate characteristics of the class to which you're assigned. 

But consider what that means if applied consistently. The crime stats for young black men are hugely out of proportion to their percentage in relation to other ethnic groups. By the logic of identity politics, the first association I should make when I seen a teen or twenty-something black male is violent criminality. Yet that would be the definition of prejudice. That would be grossly unfair and harmful to hard-working, law-abiding black males. 

According to identity politics, we should treat young black men as statistics rather than individuals. Yet that means the frame of reference will be the crime stats. But why should responsible young black men be saddled with that invidious and adventitious association? 

I've lived in different parts of the country. I often see young black men working at supermarkets and fast-food joints. It takes a sense of duty and dedication to work a job with low pay, low prestige, lousy hours. That's very admirable. 

I judge blacks as individuals, on a case-by-case basis, the same way I judge whites, Asians, Latinos, &c. I have no opinion about blacks in general, any more than I have an opinion about whites in general. When we meet a stranger, it's best not to make assumptions one way or the other, but to make a preliminary judgement based on the evidence right before our eyes, rather than a narrative.