9Marks Doesn't Like Me

Or: what finally pushed me over the edge to start this blog.

Jonathan Leeman's Editor's Note is bad. So I am going to go over some of what is wrong with it. This is not meant to be especially charitable. It is meant to expose what he writes. I am skipping over some true things he says, and some correct points. I doubt he meant all the bad things he wrote, but the text he wrote means some really bad things.

Deconstruction Project

Singular? "For instance, the project would say that..." As if it is some sort of homogeneous entity? It is not as bad as "agenda," sure, but it is really more like an event. It is a rupturous event wherein evangelical teaching collides against itself and provokes reformation. For some, it provokes deconversion. For others, it provokes a change of congregation or denominations. For still others, it merely involves a hefty rethink of many doctrines. For all, it is an event where fear of ecclesial authorities is overcome by love of truth, love, grace, hope, and peace. It is occasioned by realizing that there is sin, alive and well and flourishing, in the church, and that we must be killing it or it will be killing us. Get your boxes off my head. We are complex. We contain multitudes.

(Philosopher's rule of thumb: when you see "the" ask if it is really the and not a.)

Postmodern Bogeyman?!

Really?! We're still doing this? Okay, this is where I go, "9Marks doesn't like me." I'm not sure how Leeman wants to define "postmodernism"--he fails to do so in the note, and not for lack of space. He uses the term 24 times (hurrah for ctrl+f). Here is how it looks to me: "postmodernism" is an established bogeyman in evangelical circles. If we associate it with deconstruction, then we get all the bad rap we've built up against postmodernism established against deconstruction for free.

That's lazy. Also, I happen to really appreciate a whole bunch of stuff from postmodernism as I understand it. Maybe I'll write about death of the author some time. At any rate, it is odd to me that, after James K.A. Smith wrote Who's Afraid of Postmodernism and edited a series of books on the topic, we're still acting like it's supposed to be this big threat. Call me postmodern.

Where's My Exegesis?

That's Leeman's complaint, to be clear. I don't know why he's complaining, though. We are basically saying people like him didn't listen to the exegesis the first eighty times, so we're going to take another tack. It is true that deconstruction doesn't start with exegesis, but when do you change your mind because of someone lobbing exegesis at you? Rather, some event has thrust us into a position where we re-evaluate our views and re-investigate our exegesis. The exegesis is there, just waiting for Leeman. Maybe he doesn't know how to google? (Nope, not playing nice.) Here's what I found utterly destroying complementarianism exegetically: Icons of Christ by William Witt.

Beware the Heresy Slide!

Way to shove us all out the window Jon. "Others may, for the time being, embrace inerrancy and a more conservative theology, though I believe these folks may soon discover their sitting on the very branch the project is trying to saw through." Okay, first, again with "the project." Next, go read Witt and tell me I'm about to deny inerrancy. Just because inerrancy is true doesn't mean your interpretation is true, and you drive people away from the faith by arguing that you cannot be a Christian without being a complementarian (Request for the next time you guys rename a position: fewer characters, please!).

If you don't like it when I suggest that complementarianism, etc., leads inevitably to abuse, don't suggest that its denial leads inevitably to heresy or the denial of inerrancy.

They Should Learn to Read.

"The fundamental problem of CRT, DeYoung writes, 'is limiting ‘power’ to the one axis of race, class, and sex.' Listing a few more examples: 'Power can be conferred by education, by money, by skin color, by victim status, by intellect, by beauty, by fame, by having the right opinions, by signaling the right virtue, and by a thousand other things.' DeYoung concludes: 'Reformed theology tells us to be on the lookout for the sinful use of power, and it tells us to find it—even as we look for redemption—far as the curse is found.'

Really, limiting the scope of one’s indictment becomes its own kind of power assertion: 'I may be a little bad, but you’re terrible. Therefore, I should rule, not you.'"

If you don't see the "all lives matter" in that, I'm not sure I can help you. Anyway, when is "race, class, and sex" one dimension? The whole point of intersectionality is that there are innumerable dimensions of systemic oppression which interact in synergistic ways. The dimensions critical race theory is especially interested in are those which are purely luck-based, sure, and they are especially interested in the ones we are most tempted to turn a blind eye to. Go read, or reread, more CRT.

Secondly, I'm not sure if I'm just blind, but why does he see this as a power play? Like, black people just want to matter too, not more. Hey, if they get more, maybe turn about is fair play, but I don't see that happening any time soon. One really has to wonder if he sees it as a power play because, well, it is. But in a good way: it threatens white, male, etc., power in order to promote equality.

This goes again for what he says about race essentialism. I don't know what CRT he's reading that he thinks they go in for essentialism. The whole point is that it is a (real) socially constructed category.

Questioning Biases Can't Help

That seems to be the argument here:

Consider again Gushee’s assertion that everyone’s exegesis is both culturally embedded and self-interested. It’s true. But. Does anyone, on the left or the right, ever disqualify—meaning, actively renounce—his or her own exegesis based on the principle that we’re all self-interested? No, never.

Goodness! I don't disqualify my views because of the general claim. I investigate my biases and seek to thwart them by understanding them and interrogating them. I like to disagree. I have to question almost all my views to triple check whether I am just being reactionary. I despise boxes. I have to check all my arguments against boxes to make sure I am actually arguing against the position at stake, rather than the use of boxes. I do not aim merely at others' interpretations with my suspicion of biases. I aim also at my own. I think heavily about how to tune my own biases.

Don't Trust Anyone but Pastors

That said, I would discourage Christians from giving historians or sociologists the same kind of trust they give to their pastors and their pastors’ teaching of the Bible. This is true for any historian, but perhaps particularly for historians and sociologists who work within the broadly postmodern deconstruction project. Remember, academics will not give an account for how they’ve shepherded a congregation’s souls like pastors will (see Heb. 13:17). And they don’t typically bring pastoral considerations to bear in their work. 

This would seem a whole lot less disingenuous if women could be pastors too, and if he meant all pastors, not just white, male, reformed pastors.

He goes on to criticize history as less objective than biblical studies because you can't read the whole text. That just seems to betray an over-simple view of biblical interpretation (or a naively postmodern view of scholarly history writing). Humanities disciplines don't reach final clear-cut conclusions any more than science, sure, but we work in the material of arguments. If you actually think some work of history is wrong, give an argument (or does this only work for biblical interpretation?).

Conclusion

I know there's more. I'm out of energy. I'll end with this:

Too often I read on social media, “I don’t have time to listen to people who belong to group ‘x.’” Intentionally or not, I fear that such claims make Story authoritative over the Bible. It communicates, “My Story disqualifies whatever you might say from the Bible.” And to me, this sounds like truth-in-service-of-power.

So sorry you don't have time to listen to people who are actually deconstructing. Who are actually arguing for, say, egalitarianism. Sorry your "Story" has warped your interpretation of CRT into some race essentialist thing.