Great overview. You're very generous in your critique. Her Attack of Gavin Ortlund and her endorsements from Alisa Childers lead me to conclude right of the bat she's not going to be level headed in her engagment with views that differ from hers. She's got all the red flags of fundamentalism to me.
I do watch Ortlund but he's already way too fundie for my taste. Also, a little ill-informed about what he thinks he's an expert in. And Childers is just an absolute nut case who doesn't know what she's talking about (like 90 percent of the fundies).
@@c.m.granger6870this whole idea that somehow the Christian right "believes the Bible" and the people you disagree with don't is so obviously nonsens that you shouldn't even bring it up. Here's a few points of the Christian right that have zero backing in scripture: - women shouldn't preach. Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Romans:16:7 - unborn children are innocent therefore even in cases of řåpě and íňcešt women should be forced to carry the child to term. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. Deuteronomy:23:2 - we need to follow old testament law. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Acts:15:10 - family values are the most important thing. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Matthew:19:29 - we need to control what people do in their bedroom with other consenting adults. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Romans:14:14 - we need the Bible in school and public prayer. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. Matthew:6:6 - we need another strongman as president. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. Matthew:20:25 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; Matthew:20:26 - we need to be anti immigration. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus:19:34 I could continue this list for quite a while longer. So the problem is not that one side follows the Bible and the other doesn't - the problem is that one side puts their own interpretation of the Bible as absolute.
Joel, I know you are a liberal leaning Christian. That's just how I see you after watching almost all of your reviews. I, on the other hand, am a very conservative Christian. I have read many books you have recommended even though I knew some of them were not coming from my point of view. And guess what...... I'm still a conservative ....But..... I have learned a ton! I have definitely benefitted from these books, and honestly, listening to your take on them. Thanks for the honesty, Joel! On another note, I really wish you would do 2 separate videos explaining in detail Paul and the Resurrection of Israel and Lamb of the Free. I have read both and my head is spinning! Would love for someone to explain what I just read. 🤣
@@thecoopfamily2475 I am in the middle of it now. Gonna have to read it a few times to get it. Same thing with Paul and the Resurrection of Israel. Very academics books, both of them.
@@BillyBoy66 If you're in the middle of itknow that there is a nice conclusion/summary in the last chapter to help process it all. The first 4 chapters are the hardest to get through as they lay the foundation but the following chappters are a lot more engaging as it works through the different sacrifice passages in the NT in light of what is laid out in the first 4 chapters of the book.
When using the term "liberal" and "conservative" in reference to Christianity, especially in the context of this particular review, it may not be a bad idea to define exactly what is meant by the use of those terms. Does it mean politically liberal or conservative? One of the main critiques of this book and its author is that she is allowing her view of American politics (liberal/conservative and left/right) to define her Christianity (something a lot of politically engaged American Christians do) rather than letting the message and way of Jesus outlined in scripture define her view of American politics. Does it mean theologically liberal or conservative as defined by American, Evangelical Protestantism? Just for the record, there was 1500 years of Church history prior to Luther and Calvin, etc...not to mention thousands of years of Jewish history recorded in scripture prior to the first century. The point being, many views (theological and doctrinal in nature) that diverge from the "conservative", American, Evangelical Church were held by many Early Church Fathers and plenty of the earliest Jesus followers (including views on atonement, hell, etc.). This doesn't make them "liberal" Christians, but it may mean that people who are genuinely following Jesus and acting in good faith sometimes come to different conclusions after examining the same sets of information...and may yet still change their mind as they gain more insight and wisdom. Or, does being a conservative Christian actually mean attempting to follow the way of Jesus, His message and the Scriptures on their own terms (understanding them in accordance with what they are trying to actually communicate)? This would include understanding the original language that was spoken and written (Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek). This would include understanding the ancient near-east (and Greco-Roman) cultural context in which the events and writings occurred. This would additionally include understanding the historical, social, religious, economic, political, etc. context of all the times and places in which these events and writings occurred...because that is how the original participants, authors and readers understood things. We have to understand things the way they understood things if we want to understand what they were really attempting to communicate. This is no simple task. It takes a great deal of study and wisdom. Of course there is more that could be said, but the Biblical story culminating in Jesus seems to be a story about God creating the cosmos, bringing order out of chaos so flourishing can take place, and making images (i.e. humanity ['Adam' means human and 'Eve' means life]) to partner with and represent Him in His good and ordered creation. Humanity, operating in accordance with their own immature wisdom rather than God's wisdom, fell prey to the powers of Evil and Sin (and become slaves to said powers), which culminated in Death (this actually brings anti-flourishing, chaos where there was once order and the de-creation event that is Death). Long story short, God initiates a rescue plan, entering into humanity as a human (i.e. Son of Man) Himself, that comes to fruition in the Truly Human One and Complete Image of God - Jesus. He does this to reveal how the Kingdom of God (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control...throw in generosity, grace, humility and forgiveness for good measure) operates in a completely different manner than the kingdoms of this world (self-preservation at all cost - leads to humans being held captive by greed, lust, hate, anger, violence, pain, suffering, etc. and ultimately death). Only one of these Kingdoms offers a true abundance of Life, and so Jesus comes to provide a way for humans to be able to receive this abundance of Life. He comes to redeem humanity (set them free from slavery to the powers of evil, sin and death). He comes to bring salvation (heal humanity from the disordered and ruinous mindsets and the influences & consequences of sin that have ravaged bodies, minds and souls). He comes to provide transformation of mind (open our eyes and mind to genuinely see 'Reality' and thereby repent from old ways of thinking). He comes to make a way for us to become fully alive and completely human again (i.e. a being who will always act as God's representative partner and image...filled with God's Life, Love and Wisdom). So what does it mean to be a Christian (conservative, liberal or otherwise)? It means someone who believes Jesus Christ is the actual Way, the actual Truth and the actual Life...and accepts His invitation to follow Him into the Life, Love and Wisdom of God. We are all in process of growing in wisdom and becoming conformed into His Image - so we too can be restored into a truly human one and a complete image of God.
Thanks for sharing and your efforts to sift out positives. Haven't read the book and likely never will (just being honest), so I appreciate your input. I hope that we will fight against the ease of oversimplifying "the other." Fundamentalism is rampant and almost unavoidable, from secular fundamentalism to progressive fundamentalism to evangelical fundamentalism. May we strive for equal weights and measures in our pursuit of the Truth. May God bless.
I appreciate your taking extra time on this review, given the controversy swirling around it. Since I don't plan on reading it, It's helpful to hear from someone with a track record of good faith critiques.
Joel! I found you through Goodreads. Really cool channel. Have you read anything by John Barclay and his Gift Perspective on Paul? Would love to hear your thoughts on his work. Think you might enjoy it based on your collection, that is if you haven’t already read it.
This was really great and felt really similar to the video you did on Sprinkle/Childers. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts/takeaways on pastoring people that maybe have more fundamentalist tendencies. Regardless, a big fan of your stuff!
I really appreciate the pastoral heart behind this question, and it's something I think about a lot! No easy or simplistic answers, unfortunately, but it's a topic worth diving into.....
I'm only going to speak to the climate change portion, because that area I have some formal education in. I don't understand why climate change is lumped in with "left" issues. To say that there is any controversy of opinion among scientists is very much overstated. Among climatologists, soil scientists, and ecologists (the ones actually familiar with the evidence), there is 99.999% consensus that climate change is real and is largely human-caused. The only disagreement is exactly what percentage is anthropogenic, how do we measure it, and what the implications are. Are there dissenting voices? Sure, but only a literal handful among tens of thousands. And all of that handful have an axe to grind.
There isn't consensus that it's caused by humans, and God is quite aware of man and industry and how it would affect the world (and science) He created.
@c.m.granger6870 I, for one, would like this place to last until He gets here. Did you hear that there's no consensus on Fox News? No one there has enough education to begin to understand. Maybe start with Gruber et al, "an Earth-system perspective of the global nitrogen cycle" in Nature 2008. Or Sarmiento et al, "Sinks for anthropogenic carbon" in Physics Today, 2002. Notice that these are over a decade old. That's because there hasn't even been a debate for that long.
@debras3806 What pro-change are you talking about? Efforts to save the environment? Yes, their axe is that they like this planet and would like to keep living on it.
Excellent review, Joel! I appreciated your effort to bring out both the positive and the negative. And I see that the Francis Schaeffer grooming look is coming right along!
I agree that there are problems with her presentation, however it's definitely happening. Two churches that I used to attend changed rapidly causing a church split both times and was a funded move. Now past my personal experience I can only assume. I also agree that CRT isn't inherently Marxists, but Marxists do love the power to change that it brings. CRT is inherently racist however.
CRT is an adaptation of CT (another name for Marxism). CT is designed to distract a populace by causing division along the lines of economics (the haves vs the have-nots or the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie). CRT adapts this to attempt to divide by “race” using the exact same strategies. Both game plans are an attempt to distract from the implementation of Socialist restrictions on a society ending in a full communist takeover of a people. The nouns have changed but the goals are the same, the total destruction of western ideals (as flawed as they may be.)
Pointing out the historical trends of racisim and how they affect our society is racist? Marxists are somehow evil? Change is bad? Wanting to reduce the power of wealthy people is bad? It's crazy how someone can make these statements with so much baggage and presuppositions that are only understandable to someone within a narrow silo.
Hey joel, at the end of the video you mentioned seeking God's truth in the world.... So let me ask you.... If somehow, as a result of our seeking, we DID find God's truth and honestly believed it was, wouldn't that create an antithetical or dichotomous worldview, which is what you are against? I mean if we really did find God's truth then it would automatically pit itself against anything to the contrary, wouldn't it?
I'd say it's not all that hard to find "the truth" in the Bible. Jesus is the truth. Truth in the Bible is personal as in - an actual person. Apart from that Jesus told us that we should love God, our neighbor and treat others as we want to be treated because that's "the law and the prophets". Another truth is that we will be judged by the standards we set. I don't see many so-called "evangelicals" seem too concerned about this. So, to me, they're not Christians. Most of them follow some parts of the OT with a little Jesus sprinkled on top. But not too much Jesus because that would make it too difficult for them to judge others they don't like. When it comes to the talking points and buzz words - conservatives are wrong on all of them. It's kind of a pattern. That's probably because Jesus wasn't conservative but actually fighting against them. The so-called fundies follow the saducees and pharisees - obviously when they read the Bible, they thought those were the good guys in the story. (not that all pharisees are painted in a bad light in the new testament - there are good reasons to think Jesus came out of that movement Himself and Paul was a pharisee, too) And it's all so painfully obvious to anyone who has more than a very superficial understanding of the Bible. Just one example - the "pro life" stuff (which is rather forced birthing and control over women as well as endangering their health) - I see "pro lifers" make claims online that are directly contradicting the Bible but they simply don't care. Even if one points it out to them, they twist scripture or misunderstand it. Fun thing is - I mostly agree with them - abortion should never be retroactive birth control when we're talking about consenting adults. And late abortions are particularly problematic. But making claims like, "even in case of r@pe and 1nc€st, abortion should be illegal because babies are innocent." Well, it's a nice idea in principal and I'd even agree. But claiming that this is the biblical opinion is where it gets problematic. The Bible says, "a bastard and its offspring cannot be a part of God's people for 10 generations". That's because the Bible has a collective morality. God's people cannot be made impure. That's why those levitical laws were so strict. Simply claiming that these laws apply to us, is nonsense as we're mostly gentile Christians (see Acts 15 and the letter to the Romans). If they really believed that, they'd have to become Jewish and follow all the 613 commands of the Bible. Fun fact - jews have a way different opinion about abortion in the first place, even though they use the same scriptures. So something is fundamentally rotten with so-called "conservative" or evangelical morality/theology and how they arrive at what they believe. I could go on with every single one of their "hot button issues" and debunk each and every one of them. But what bugs me the most is their brainwashed support of late stage capitalism and Drumpf, probably one of the most immoral persons to ever hold the American presidency. And their unchecked hatred against anyone who is not like them. Immigrants, black people, gay people and especially the tiny minority of trans people (less than 2 % of the population). They demonize these people the same way H1tler demonized the jews and we all know how that ended. And here's Jesus telling us, "whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, you have done to me", while they actively demonize and marginalize others. Horrific, just plain horrific and completely anti-christian. And then they wonder why people deconstruct from this nightmare they call "Christianity". Sorry for the rant. You seem to be a good person and open to discussion so I'm addressing the wrong person here, actually. But at this point I think "conservative Christianity" in the US is beyond saving and it's not the fault of "liberals" or "leftists" but their own as they turned the message of love and salvation into a message of hate. And I'm not saying that love is all there is - yes, there is judgment too but that happens according to how we treat others. That's the truth of the Bible. If the majority of Christians in the US doesn't wake up to this truth soon, it's gonna be too late.
@@BillyBoy66 honesty, Id love to know what a conservative christian would say to that. Because, I just don't know what one would say to what Mr Seed said here.
@@DrewpyPlats A well informed conservative would eat Mr. Seed for lunch. To say conservatives "are wrong on all talking points" is an arrogant statement. Someone who says this is as prideful as they come and there is no arguing with a person like that.
I appreciate your desire and attempt to bring awareness and nuance to your approach. Like you, I really dislike when I see guilt by association and I appreciate you bringing that issue to the fore, but as someone who studied argument throughout my life, I'm curious if the question of evaluating character and theology is something one has to do at the micro and macro level. Our ideas our interconnected. Our worldviews are interconnected. Beliefs aren't grids (rationalistic/Enlightenment) as much as they are more like spiderwebs or DNA strands. In fact, you could say that about our identities as well. I would even say ways of viewing the world are themselves bundled and interconnected. Is is the case that guilt by bundling if you will doesn't give us sufficient reason to dismiss someone, but it speaks to the way they have tended to handle scripture. It speaks to the schemas they use when they handle scripture. This is a form of epistemological ethics. The question of credibility is not a yes/no question (although there are certainly examples of that), as much as it's probably a question on a continuum (a dimmer switch versus an on/off switch if you will). However, someone who doesn't believe in miracles, the Trinity, or baptism would definitely be non-credible for roughly 99% of questions of Christianity. But most authors we are discussing seem to be of the former (save Brian McClaren). You perhaps should be suspicious of how this person engages scripture seems like an incredibly relevant question. Perhaps there is a better way to do this. This is why something that might even be label as name calling (improperly) by some might actually be relevant to the question of credibility and character. To be fair, I don't have access to the conclusions she drew from what you are terming "bundling" so I'm not able to see the full argument or it's development. I think the challenge for us as distinguishing readers is most authors don't always rhetorically cue what they believe to be solid evidence or just clues for larger intuitions. I don't like how this bundling phenomena does attempt to oversimplify (and in some cases even risks a potential stereotype phenomena)--but perhaps as a part of a larger argument it would help provide us some basis to filter what they think and so evaluate their interpretive lens and worldview. There stance on these issues may be our only window into these issues, especially in cases where they haven't gone on their record in providing their full hermeneutic. Remember, character matters. This goes back to Aristotle. It certainly also goes back to the Bible. That's why Titus and the other passages about leadership speak to character. Reason, wisdom, and reality is more complex than a hyper-rational, hyper-linear approach driven by a rather reductive approach from the Enlightenment will let us be. Logic sometimes transcends the ability of logical fallacies to contain it. I'm not saying throw the baby out with the bathwater, but rather we have to acknowledge their limits. Perhaps she and other others could do a better job of framing their arguments. Perhaps this is not unlike slippery slope arguments, because unfortunately some human behaviors (due to habits, precedent, and human psychology or how the law works) are in fact slippery slopes. Life is messy like that. I hope I've not done your argument a disservice in any way. I think we need to keep in mind a bigger picture. Again, I don't have the full development of the argument. I appreciate what you do here and your investment in time, attention, reflection, and prayer. I'm posting in attempt to perhaps widen your aperture. I don't think the questions of Biblical interpretive lens, philosophy, ideology, worldview are escapable ones. Not to mention, Aristotle's Logos, Ethos, and Pathos framework reminds us that these issues intersect and interface with our arguments in meaningful ways.
@arbitrarysequence nonsense. Where do you think universities, hospitals, observatories, etc. came from? The vast majority were started by the church. The church is also responsible for saving much of the written record that we have of the ancient and medieval worlds.
I'm really struck by the unbelief and rejection of Scripture running rampant in the church right now, as well as how easily "Christians" cave to cultural pressure.
I'm really struck by the unbelief and rejection of Scripture running rampant in the church right now, as well as how easily "Christians" cave to cultural pressure.
@@c.m.granger6870I'm horrified by the complete disregard for scripture on "the right" honestly. Almost nothing of what they claim is backed by any biblical texts. They cherry pick their way through the Bible, take a bit here from the OT, a couple of verses here from Paul and that's that. And then they go around claiming, "we believe what the Bible says, the Bible is clear", while their knowledge of the Bible is so shallow that most of the time it seems they haven't even read it.
Exactly - it's a review on TH-cam. What's your point 😂? He was talking about writing a book and only referencing online sources - you do realize the difference between a book and a TH-cam video, right? Or the problem with online sources as footnotes (they're here one day and gone the next).
@@MrSeedi76 What's your point My point is that if Megan writes another book and wants to cite this guy, she has to use an online source. "only referencing online sources " He didn't say only, you did. Her book is on current events. Hers is the first book on topic. Red Herring These days, everyone does the majority of their research online, including students, banks, police, politicians, etc. So, the majority of their citations will be online. Red herring "you do realize the difference between a book and a TH-cam video" Yes, I do. I'm absolutely sure you have seen a TH-cam video. " the problem with online sources as footnotes (they're here one day and gone the next)." The problem of not citing an online source is that it becomes plagiarism. If they disappear, you have not broken the law. Besides, you can always contact the NSA for a copy.
@@freddavis976the point the TH-camr is making is that she is mainly going off online soundbites, rather than these authors extensive works, or for instance in depth articles/pieces
@@benjaminmoelker8915 He didn't say soundbites. That's your word. One of the main themes in Megan's book is that this is what they write, but this is what they say. She is a reporter, reporting on current events in the form of a book. If she does a story on Steve Lawson, does she have to research the history of adultery? Ironically, he cites "Mere Orthodoxy," an online website.
@@freddavis976 Steve Lawson is talking about a sinful action, not a position. Megan basham attacks the position of people. Why is it an issue to use soundbites? Because in their writing they say the exact opposite of what she wants them to say. She purposefully uses online soundbites because they do not entail the whole picture of what these theologians say. That's not journalism, that's purposeful misleading by partial quoting of sources.
57:50 "sin in one's own heart and in one's own mind, which is where I try to live." If you live in your own head, you will not see your sin. For instance, you are upset when Basham lists an organization people are a part of (guilt by association fallacy). Then you say you are a part of those organizations, and they are good guys (guilt-free by (your) association fallacy) In another instance, you strawman by saying it is not an Evangelical book. I have never heard anyone say that it is an Evangelical book. It is a book about Evangelicals. You put it in the Fundamentalist category. Then you critique Fundamentalism as a last attempt at guilt by association. As far as style, Basham is a reporter. Reporters write like reporters even when they are writing books. Every book by a reporter that I have ever read is like a series of newspaper articles.
The book was excellent and the criticisms are generally from those who haven't read it but are circling the wagons to defend their favorite Big Eva figures.
Great overview. You're very generous in your critique. Her Attack of Gavin Ortlund and her endorsements from Alisa Childers lead me to conclude right of the bat she's not going to be level headed in her engagment with views that differ from hers. She's got all the red flags of fundamentalism to me.
I do watch Ortlund but he's already way too fundie for my taste. Also, a little ill-informed about what he thinks he's an expert in. And Childers is just an absolute nut case who doesn't know what she's talking about (like 90 percent of the fundies).
@@MrSeedi76 Oh I completely agree. So when someone attacks Ortlund for being too liberal or whatever that's saying a lot! 🤦
You mean she believes the Bible? Right, very fundy.
@@c.m.granger6870😂 it's hilarious how people who go against almost everything Jesus ever said supposedly "believe the Bible".
@@c.m.granger6870this whole idea that somehow the Christian right "believes the Bible" and the people you disagree with don't is so obviously nonsens that you shouldn't even bring it up. Here's a few points of the Christian right that have zero backing in scripture:
- women shouldn't preach.
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Romans:16:7
- unborn children are innocent therefore even in cases of řåpě and íňcešt women should be forced to carry the child to term.
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Deuteronomy:23:2
- we need to follow old testament law.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Acts:15:10
- family values are the most important thing.
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Matthew:19:29
- we need to control what people do in their bedroom with other consenting adults.
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Romans:14:14
- we need the Bible in school and public prayer.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew:6:6
- we need another strongman as president.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Matthew:20:25
But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Matthew:20:26
- we need to be anti immigration.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus:19:34
I could continue this list for quite a while longer.
So the problem is not that one side follows the Bible and the other doesn't - the problem is that one side puts their own interpretation of the Bible as absolute.
Joel, I know you are a liberal leaning Christian. That's just how I see you after watching almost all of your reviews. I, on the other hand, am a very conservative Christian. I have read many books you have recommended even though I knew some of them were not coming from my point of view. And guess what...... I'm still a conservative ....But..... I have learned a ton! I have definitely benefitted from these books, and honestly, listening to your take on them. Thanks for the honesty, Joel!
On another note, I really wish you would do 2 separate videos explaining in detail Paul and the Resurrection of Israel and Lamb of the Free. I have read both and my head is spinning! Would love for someone to explain what I just read. 🤣
@@BillyBoy66 Lamb of the Free was so good! I loved it. It's a LOT though lol
@@thecoopfamily2475 I am in the middle of it now. Gonna have to read it a few times to get it. Same thing with Paul and the Resurrection of Israel. Very academics books, both of them.
@@BillyBoy66 If you're in the middle of itknow that there is a nice conclusion/summary in the last chapter to help process it all. The first 4 chapters are the hardest to get through as they lay the foundation but the following chappters are a lot more engaging as it works through the different sacrifice passages in the NT in light of what is laid out in the first 4 chapters of the book.
When using the term "liberal" and "conservative" in reference to Christianity, especially in the context of this particular review, it may not be a bad idea to define exactly what is meant by the use of those terms.
Does it mean politically liberal or conservative? One of the main critiques of this book and its author is that she is allowing her view of American politics (liberal/conservative and left/right) to define her Christianity (something a lot of politically engaged American Christians do) rather than letting the message and way of Jesus outlined in scripture define her view of American politics.
Does it mean theologically liberal or conservative as defined by American, Evangelical Protestantism? Just for the record, there was 1500 years of Church history prior to Luther and Calvin, etc...not to mention thousands of years of Jewish history recorded in scripture prior to the first century. The point being, many views (theological and doctrinal in nature) that diverge from the "conservative", American, Evangelical Church were held by many Early Church Fathers and plenty of the earliest Jesus followers (including views on atonement, hell, etc.). This doesn't make them "liberal" Christians, but it may mean that people who are genuinely following Jesus and acting in good faith sometimes come to different conclusions after examining the same sets of information...and may yet still change their mind as they gain more insight and wisdom.
Or, does being a conservative Christian actually mean attempting to follow the way of Jesus, His message and the Scriptures on their own terms (understanding them in accordance with what they are trying to actually communicate)? This would include understanding the original language that was spoken and written (Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek). This would include understanding the ancient near-east (and Greco-Roman) cultural context in which the events and writings occurred. This would additionally include understanding the historical, social, religious, economic, political, etc. context of all the times and places in which these events and writings occurred...because that is how the original participants, authors and readers understood things. We have to understand things the way they understood things if we want to understand what they were really attempting to communicate. This is no simple task. It takes a great deal of study and wisdom.
Of course there is more that could be said, but the Biblical story culminating in Jesus seems to be a story about God creating the cosmos, bringing order out of chaos so flourishing can take place, and making images (i.e. humanity ['Adam' means human and 'Eve' means life]) to partner with and represent Him in His good and ordered creation. Humanity, operating in accordance with their own immature wisdom rather than God's wisdom, fell prey to the powers of Evil and Sin (and become slaves to said powers), which culminated in Death (this actually brings anti-flourishing, chaos where there was once order and the de-creation event that is Death). Long story short, God initiates a rescue plan, entering into humanity as a human (i.e. Son of Man) Himself, that comes to fruition in the Truly Human One and Complete Image of God - Jesus. He does this to reveal how the Kingdom of God (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control...throw in generosity, grace, humility and forgiveness for good measure) operates in a completely different manner than the kingdoms of this world (self-preservation at all cost - leads to humans being held captive by greed, lust, hate, anger, violence, pain, suffering, etc. and ultimately death). Only one of these Kingdoms offers a true abundance of Life, and so Jesus comes to provide a way for humans to be able to receive this abundance of Life. He comes to redeem humanity (set them free from slavery to the powers of evil, sin and death). He comes to bring salvation (heal humanity from the disordered and ruinous mindsets and the influences & consequences of sin that have ravaged bodies, minds and souls). He comes to provide transformation of mind (open our eyes and mind to genuinely see 'Reality' and thereby repent from old ways of thinking). He comes to make a way for us to become fully alive and completely human again (i.e. a being who will always act as God's representative partner and image...filled with God's Life, Love and Wisdom).
So what does it mean to be a Christian (conservative, liberal or otherwise)? It means someone who believes Jesus Christ is the actual Way, the actual Truth and the actual Life...and accepts His invitation to follow Him into the Life, Love and Wisdom of God.
We are all in process of growing in wisdom and becoming conformed into His Image - so we too can be restored into a truly human one and a complete image of God.
@@Pr1-7 Couldn't agree more. Well said
Thanks for sharing and your efforts to sift out positives. Haven't read the book and likely never will (just being honest), so I appreciate your input. I hope that we will fight against the ease of oversimplifying "the other." Fundamentalism is rampant and almost unavoidable, from secular fundamentalism to progressive fundamentalism to evangelical fundamentalism. May we strive for equal weights and measures in our pursuit of the Truth. May God bless.
Well put
Always appreciate these breakdowns. I'll certainly come back and watch the whole thing later.
Thanks Dru! Hope you're well
I appreciate your taking extra time on this review, given the controversy swirling around it. Since I don't plan on reading it, It's helpful to hear from someone with a track record of good faith critiques.
Joel! I found you through Goodreads. Really cool channel. Have you read anything by John Barclay and his Gift Perspective on Paul? Would love to hear your thoughts on his work. Think you might enjoy it based on your collection, that is if you haven’t already read it.
Glad you're here! I've heard Barclay referenced a TON but haven't dug into his stuff yet. Definitely want to soon.
This was really great and felt really similar to the video you did on Sprinkle/Childers. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts/takeaways on pastoring people that maybe have more fundamentalist tendencies. Regardless, a big fan of your stuff!
I really appreciate the pastoral heart behind this question, and it's something I think about a lot! No easy or simplistic answers, unfortunately, but it's a topic worth diving into.....
I'm only going to speak to the climate change portion, because that area I have some formal education in. I don't understand why climate change is lumped in with "left" issues. To say that there is any controversy of opinion among scientists is very much overstated. Among climatologists, soil scientists, and ecologists (the ones actually familiar with the evidence), there is 99.999% consensus that climate change is real and is largely human-caused. The only disagreement is exactly what percentage is anthropogenic, how do we measure it, and what the implications are.
Are there dissenting voices? Sure, but only a literal handful among tens of thousands. And all of that handful have an axe to grind.
Because for whatever reason the right now wants to make every issue a conspiracy
There isn't consensus that it's caused by humans, and God is quite aware of man and industry and how it would affect the world (and science) He created.
“…And all of that handful have an ax to grind.”
And none of the pro-change people do?
@c.m.granger6870 I, for one, would like this place to last until He gets here.
Did you hear that there's no consensus on Fox News?
No one there has enough education to begin to understand.
Maybe start with Gruber et al, "an Earth-system perspective of the global nitrogen cycle" in Nature 2008. Or Sarmiento et al, "Sinks for anthropogenic carbon" in Physics Today, 2002. Notice that these are over a decade old. That's because there hasn't even been a debate for that long.
@debras3806 What pro-change are you talking about? Efforts to save the environment? Yes, their axe is that they like this planet and would like to keep living on it.
Excellent review, Joel! I appreciated your effort to bring out both the positive and the negative. And I see that the Francis Schaeffer grooming look is coming right along!
Joel, first time seeing one of you video. Very well done.
25 min mark: Does anyone have the link to the Miles Smith article on deconstruction?
22 mark, not 25.
Yes! I meant to include it in the video description. I'll add it there too, but here it is: mereorthodoxy.com/reading-the-exvangelicals
Once again, wonderful review! Thank you so much Joel.
I agree that there are problems with her presentation, however it's definitely happening. Two churches that I used to attend changed rapidly causing a church split both times and was a funded move. Now past my personal experience I can only assume. I also agree that CRT isn't inherently Marxists, but Marxists do love the power to change that it brings. CRT is inherently racist however.
CRT is an adaptation of CT (another name for Marxism). CT is designed to distract a populace by causing division along the lines of economics (the haves vs the have-nots or the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie). CRT adapts this to attempt to divide by “race” using the exact same strategies.
Both game plans are an attempt to distract from the implementation of Socialist restrictions on a society ending in a full communist takeover of a people.
The nouns have changed but the goals are the same, the total destruction of western ideals (as flawed as they may be.)
Pointing out the historical trends of racisim and how they affect our society is racist?
Marxists are somehow evil?
Change is bad? Wanting to reduce the power of wealthy people is bad?
It's crazy how someone can make these statements with so much baggage and presuppositions that are only understandable to someone within a narrow silo.
Fantastic.
Wonderful critique of her book but also the shallow dualistic world view of a religion and politics. Also, scary .
Hey joel, at the end of the video you mentioned seeking God's truth in the world.... So let me ask you.... If somehow, as a result of our seeking, we DID find God's truth and honestly believed it was, wouldn't that create an antithetical or dichotomous worldview, which is what you are against? I mean if we really did find God's truth then it would automatically pit itself against anything to the contrary, wouldn't it?
I'd say it's not all that hard to find "the truth" in the Bible.
Jesus is the truth. Truth in the Bible is personal as in - an actual person.
Apart from that Jesus told us that we should love God, our neighbor and treat others as we want to be treated because that's "the law and the prophets".
Another truth is that we will be judged by the standards we set. I don't see many so-called "evangelicals" seem too concerned about this. So, to me, they're not Christians. Most of them follow some parts of the OT with a little Jesus sprinkled on top. But not too much Jesus because that would make it too difficult for them to judge others they don't like.
When it comes to the talking points and buzz words - conservatives are wrong on all of them. It's kind of a pattern.
That's probably because Jesus wasn't conservative but actually fighting against them. The so-called fundies follow the saducees and pharisees - obviously when they read the Bible, they thought those were the good guys in the story. (not that all pharisees are painted in a bad light in the new testament - there are good reasons to think Jesus came out of that movement Himself and Paul was a pharisee, too)
And it's all so painfully obvious to anyone who has more than a very superficial understanding of the Bible.
Just one example - the "pro life" stuff (which is rather forced birthing and control over women as well as endangering their health) - I see "pro lifers" make claims online that are directly contradicting the Bible but they simply don't care. Even if one points it out to them, they twist scripture or misunderstand it.
Fun thing is - I mostly agree with them - abortion should never be retroactive birth control when we're talking about consenting adults. And late abortions are particularly problematic. But making claims like, "even in case of r@pe and 1nc€st, abortion should be illegal because babies are innocent." Well, it's a nice idea in principal and I'd even agree. But claiming that this is the biblical opinion is where it gets problematic. The Bible says, "a bastard and its offspring cannot be a part of God's people for 10 generations". That's because the Bible has a collective morality. God's people cannot be made impure. That's why those levitical laws were so strict. Simply claiming that these laws apply to us, is nonsense as we're mostly gentile Christians (see Acts 15 and the letter to the Romans). If they really believed that, they'd have to become Jewish and follow all the 613 commands of the Bible. Fun fact - jews have a way different opinion about abortion in the first place, even though they use the same scriptures. So something is fundamentally rotten with so-called "conservative" or evangelical morality/theology and how they arrive at what they believe. I could go on with every single one of their "hot button issues" and debunk each and every one of them.
But what bugs me the most is their brainwashed support of late stage capitalism and Drumpf, probably one of the most immoral persons to ever hold the American presidency. And their unchecked hatred against anyone who is not like them. Immigrants, black people, gay people and especially the tiny minority of trans people (less than 2 % of the population). They demonize these people the same way H1tler demonized the jews and we all know how that ended.
And here's Jesus telling us, "whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, you have done to me", while they actively demonize and marginalize others. Horrific, just plain horrific and completely anti-christian. And then they wonder why people deconstruct from this nightmare they call "Christianity". Sorry for the rant. You seem to be a good person and open to discussion so I'm addressing the wrong person here, actually. But at this point I think "conservative Christianity" in the US is beyond saving and it's not the fault of "liberals" or "leftists" but their own as they turned the message of love and salvation into a message of hate. And I'm not saying that love is all there is - yes, there is judgment too but that happens according to how we treat others. That's the truth of the Bible. If the majority of Christians in the US doesn't wake up to this truth soon, it's gonna be too late.
@@MrSeedi76 Interesting. I'll chew on this a bit. Thanks for sharing.
@@BillyBoy66 honesty, Id love to know what a conservative christian would say to that. Because, I just don't know what one would say to what Mr Seed said here.
@@DrewpyPlats A well informed conservative would eat Mr. Seed for lunch. To say conservatives "are wrong on all talking points" is an arrogant statement. Someone who says this is as prideful as they come and there is no arguing with a person like that.
Such a valuable review!
10 minutes into the review I’m guessing this is trying to be the “other side” to the Tim Alberta books?
I appreciate your desire and attempt to bring awareness and nuance to your approach.
Like you, I really dislike when I see guilt by association and I appreciate you bringing that issue to the fore, but as someone who studied argument throughout my life, I'm curious if the question of evaluating character and theology is something one has to do at the micro and macro level. Our ideas our interconnected. Our worldviews are interconnected. Beliefs aren't grids (rationalistic/Enlightenment) as much as they are more like spiderwebs or DNA strands. In fact, you could say that about our identities as well. I would even say ways of viewing the world are themselves bundled and interconnected.
Is is the case that guilt by bundling if you will doesn't give us sufficient reason to dismiss someone, but it speaks to the way they have tended to handle scripture. It speaks to the schemas they use when they handle scripture. This is a form of epistemological ethics.
The question of credibility is not a yes/no question (although there are certainly examples of that), as much as it's probably a question on a continuum (a dimmer switch versus an on/off switch if you will). However, someone who doesn't believe in miracles, the Trinity, or baptism would definitely be non-credible for roughly 99% of questions of Christianity. But most authors we are discussing seem to be of the former (save Brian McClaren).
You perhaps should be suspicious of how this person engages scripture seems like an incredibly relevant question. Perhaps there is a better way to do this. This is why something that might even be label as name calling (improperly) by some might actually be relevant to the question of credibility and character.
To be fair, I don't have access to the conclusions she drew from what you are terming "bundling" so I'm not able to see the full argument or it's development.
I think the challenge for us as distinguishing readers is most authors don't always rhetorically cue what they believe to be solid evidence or just clues for larger intuitions.
I don't like how this bundling phenomena does attempt to oversimplify (and in some cases even risks a potential stereotype phenomena)--but perhaps as a part of a larger argument it would help provide us some basis to filter what they think and so evaluate their interpretive lens and worldview. There stance on these issues may be our only window into these issues, especially in cases where they haven't gone on their record in providing their full hermeneutic.
Remember, character matters. This goes back to Aristotle. It certainly also goes back to the Bible. That's why Titus and the other passages about leadership speak to character.
Reason, wisdom, and reality is more complex than a hyper-rational, hyper-linear approach driven by a rather reductive approach from the Enlightenment will let us be. Logic sometimes transcends the ability of logical fallacies to contain it. I'm not saying throw the baby out with the bathwater, but rather we have to acknowledge their limits.
Perhaps she and other others could do a better job of framing their arguments.
Perhaps this is not unlike slippery slope arguments, because unfortunately some human behaviors (due to habits, precedent, and human psychology or how the law works) are in fact slippery slopes. Life is messy like that.
I hope I've not done your argument a disservice in any way. I think we need to keep in mind a bigger picture. Again, I don't have the full development of the argument.
I appreciate what you do here and your investment in time, attention, reflection, and prayer. I'm posting in attempt to perhaps widen your aperture. I don't think the questions of Biblical interpretive lens, philosophy, ideology, worldview are escapable ones. Not to mention, Aristotle's Logos, Ethos, and Pathos framework reminds us that these issues intersect and interface with our arguments in meaningful ways.
I'm really struck by the anti-intellectualism running rampant through the church right now.
now? 2000 years of anti-intellectualism, but now it's a problem...
@arbitrarysequence nonsense. Where do you think universities, hospitals, observatories, etc. came from? The vast majority were started by the church. The church is also responsible for saving much of the written record that we have of the ancient and medieval worlds.
I'm really struck by the unbelief and rejection of Scripture running rampant in the church right now, as well as how easily "Christians" cave to cultural pressure.
I'm really struck by the unbelief and rejection of Scripture running rampant in the church right now, as well as how easily "Christians" cave to cultural pressure.
@@c.m.granger6870I'm horrified by the complete disregard for scripture on "the right" honestly. Almost nothing of what they claim is backed by any biblical texts. They cherry pick their way through the Bible, take a bit here from the OT, a couple of verses here from Paul and that's that. And then they go around claiming, "we believe what the Bible says, the Bible is clear", while their knowledge of the Bible is so shallow that most of the time it seems they haven't even read it.
Too much reading is not good.
You were concerned about the number of online citations while you were doing a review on TH-cam.
Exactly - it's a review on TH-cam. What's your point 😂? He was talking about writing a book and only referencing online sources - you do realize the difference between a book and a TH-cam video, right? Or the problem with online sources as footnotes (they're here one day and gone the next).
@@MrSeedi76 What's your point
My point is that if Megan writes another book and wants to cite this guy, she has to use an online source.
"only referencing online sources "
He didn't say only, you did. Her book is on current events. Hers is the first book on topic. Red Herring
These days, everyone does the majority of their research online, including students, banks, police, politicians, etc. So, the majority of their citations will be online. Red herring
"you do realize the difference between a book and a TH-cam video"
Yes, I do. I'm absolutely sure you have seen a TH-cam video.
" the problem with online sources as footnotes (they're here one day and gone the next)."
The problem of not citing an online source is that it becomes plagiarism.
If they disappear, you have not broken the law. Besides, you can always contact the NSA for a copy.
@@freddavis976the point the TH-camr is making is that she is mainly going off online soundbites, rather than these authors extensive works, or for instance in depth articles/pieces
@@benjaminmoelker8915 He didn't say soundbites. That's your word.
One of the main themes in Megan's book is that this is what they write, but this is what they say. She is a reporter, reporting on current events in the form of a book. If she does a story on Steve Lawson, does she have to research the history of adultery?
Ironically, he cites "Mere Orthodoxy," an online website.
@@freddavis976 Steve Lawson is talking about a sinful action, not a position.
Megan basham attacks the position of people. Why is it an issue to use soundbites? Because in their writing they say the exact opposite of what she wants them to say. She purposefully uses online soundbites because they do not entail the whole picture of what these theologians say. That's not journalism, that's purposeful misleading by partial quoting of sources.
"incidentally all people who have endorsed this book." bundling for me, but not for thee
There will come a time when those call evil good and good evil.
Sure... it was around the time slavery was considered ok.
57:50 "sin in one's own heart and in one's own mind, which is where I try to live." If you live in your own head, you will not see your sin.
For instance, you are upset when Basham lists an organization people are a part of (guilt by association fallacy). Then you say you are a part of those organizations, and they are good guys (guilt-free by (your) association fallacy)
In another instance, you strawman by saying it is not an Evangelical book. I have never heard anyone say that it is an Evangelical book. It is a book about Evangelicals. You put it in the Fundamentalist category. Then you critique Fundamentalism as a last attempt at guilt by association.
As far as style, Basham is a reporter. Reporters write like reporters even when they are writing books. Every book by a reporter that I have ever read is like a series of newspaper articles.
The book was excellent and the criticisms are generally from those who haven't read it but are circling the wagons to defend their favorite Big Eva figures.
Not sure how you know that…
@debras3806 By reading their criticisms. Not difficult.
Interesting- a comment that in zero way applies to this excellent and thoughtful review (and makes it obvious you didn’t watch the video).
😂 She attacked Gavin Ortlund. Have you watched any of his videos?
@@MrSeedi76 She criticized him, you baby 👶. And he deserved the criticism.