Twitter is a sewer. The Woke rove in gangs trying to cancel anyone who might hold conservative views. So-called Christians who embrace the Social Justice agenda are no different. If they spot a lone conservative, they will attack. Fortunately, for us at least, the Woke scolds who tried to attack one conservative Christian ran into an Agnostic academic expert—an expert in dealing with Neo-Marxist errors like standpoint epistemology. James Lindsay engaged Alan Cross, a noted progressive who has written for the New York Times and was a Southern Baptist pastor in Alabama for 16 years. The Twitter thread illustrated the Neo-Marxist assumptions at work in the Southern Baptist Convention.
You have to check out this Twitter thread. It is long, and as Twitter threads go, confusing, but Lindsay demolishes every lame attempt to justify the claim: “If all you have is males reading the Scripture,you’ve got a very misinterpreted Bible.I need sisters within the body of Christ who can help me read the Scripture in ways which my maleness is preventing me.”
Incorrect, sir. The quote says a need to understand the Bible in a way his maleness is preventing. That's the positional (post-Marxist, postmodern, Foucauldian, reinterpreted through intersectionality) understanding of standpoint epistemology.
— James Lindsay, one-dimensional tubthumper (@ConceptualJames) February 6, 2020
Most revealing was when Alan Cross justified the claim that men and women interpret Scripture differently on complementarian grounds. Yes, complimentarian grounds. He tweeted, “You don’t seem to understand the complimentary nature of the members of the Body of Christ. Perhaps it’s just women seeing things with a female lens b/c God made them female and that is good instead of it being … Marxism?”
Lindsay fired back, “You can call it complementarianism with every one of your breaths, and it’s still standpoint epistemology reinterpreted through scripture. A rose by any other name… Also, if you think standpoint epistemology is Marxist (it isn’t), and you don’t like that, that’s not my problem.”
And Lindsay continued, “Standpoint epistemology is ultimately Hegelian. Marx made use of it, and mostly post-Marxists and Neo-Marxists apply it, but they also changed it, kinda like the faithful folks who rebranded it complementarianism.”
Another person asked Lindsay to elaborate on the post-Marxist, neo-Marxist roots of complementarianism. He did.
“It’s elementary and semantic, ultimately, but once you interpret the belief that men and women have different roles, as made by God or whatever, to mean they also have different understandings of truth, you’re heading in that direction, though not necessarily going there.
“If your take continues by insisting that those views are different and dependent upon an experience of patriarchal oppression that lends women access to different socially relevant truths, then you’re really close to, if not in, Hegel.
“Should that view take the perspective that using that knowledge to overthrow existing power dynamics and the regimes of knowledge or truth that support them, then you’re definitely in the Neo-Marxism category because that’s what Neo-Marxism is.
“If, instead, the analysis is one of positionality with regard to power being determinate of differing truths, then you’re in a Foucauldian (postmodern, post-Marxist) interpretive zone. This one is dominant currently and the most likely to be relevant in a post Res9 SBC.
“It’s really not difficult, though. The idea that men and women have fundamentally different knowledges and ways of knowing is one aspect of feminist standpoint epistemology. The young lady said every interpretation by men is a misinterpretation, so it seems like that’s it here.“
Notice the subtle ways that pious sounding platitudes lead to fundamental errors?
Even humility, something that is a virtue, can be abused by this type of epistemological and theological error. Cross tried to tie humility to complementarianism. He wrote, “Or, it’s a view born in humility and the complimentary mutually supportive relationships between men and women that God orchestrated at Creation as we uniquely bear His image. It doesn’t have to mean what you say it does. There are other possibilities.”
And Lindsay devastatingly replied, “Yeah, yeah, cultural humility is a core concept to shuttling in the intersectional standpoint epistemology. You’re just bringing up more proof that you’re confused or taken by intersectional thinking..Not humility. The specific humility of believing that your identity intrinsically blinds you to certain truths only other identities can see, and not about lived experience but through it.”
And that is only part of this amazing Twitter thread.
Lindsay reveals so much that is wrong with Evangelical Elites–they’ve bought into a secular worldview. If one is careful, one notices the almost gnostic nature of this–that the oppressed have some type of special access to knowledge the rest of us oppressors cannot hope to know.
And this is at work in the SBC and large parts of Evangelicalism.
These are dangerous times.