Introduction
This is a scatter shot response to a few different friends or comments I’ve seen in various places following up on the Great CrossPolitic Baptist Tranny Bruhaha of 2022. Our friend Jeff Wright wrote a good faith, reasonable response. And our very own CrossPolitic writer and editor, Rhett Burns, wrote another very reasonable thread on Twitter. The bottom line is that I simply think they are wrong. And I want to say it that simply and directly because I also want to acknowledge the legitimacy and reasonableness of their questions/concerns. Jeff, in particular, raises the very reasonable concern that he’s seen this sort of thing before. He’s seen how Big Eva has circled the wagons to protect the brand, shield wall up, damage control modes, and no admissions of wrongdoing. I know exactly what he’s talking about, and I don’t know how to say more emphatically that I agree with that concern, care about that danger, and at the same time, simply don’t see it here.
If you’re brand new to this conversation, and looking for a road map to the various sites on this tour, let me recommend that you read this, this, and this (and follow some of the links) before proceeding.
Proof of Our Reasonableness
While I don’t think Jeff’s claim that Gabe’s post and my post “disagree” holds any weight (what we both said is true and valid), it should also alleviate some of Jeff’s concerns that we’re turning into Big Eva, since clearly we didn’t do a bunch of coordinating for “damage control” with our PR department. Of course we don’t have a PR department. We *are* the PR department. And all we care about is the truth; damn the torpedoes, damn the brand.
The one point that I’m happy to grant to Jeff and anyone else who caught it was Knox’s transition from the end of the regular show to the beginning of the backstage. Jeff pointed out that Knox did say he wanted to ask Farley about a hypothetical family who is trying to be covenantal. Fair enough. I do see that if you were hanging on to those specific words and then glided right into the backstage, you might think Farley and the crew were punching that guy in the nose. But I would also say that if you hung on to those words, and only those words, ignoring the rest of the 99% of the show, you have a very odd way of listening and interpreting. The central theme of the show was radical individualism vs. thinking covenantally from beginning to end. And the simple fact is that while Knox *did* want to ask about the covenantal baptists, the guys never got to that part of the conversation.
But here’s what I think should suffice. A simple, straight up question: do you guys mean that all credobaptists are the direct cause of transgenderism? And the answer is no, no, no, no, no. How about no? And you might say, well, why didn’t anyone say that on the show? Well, actually, Jared Longshore did say that on the show. And if you’re going to hang on every word of Knox, please don’t leave Jared out, especially since he’s so new to these paedobaptist waters (pun intended). Jared specifically said that if one of his baptist friends was tempted to be offended, he wanted to put his arm around him and assure him that that is not what they were saying. They were not saying that baptists were the direct cause of transgenderism. It really is as simple as that. Some wanted the hosts on CP to flatly contradict Farley, but if Farley actually literally meant every credobaptist is actively committing transgender sin, by the same token, he should have contradicted Jared. But he didn’t because he agrees with Jared.
A Hermeneutical Challenge or Two
Now, having said all of that, I do think there is something of a hermeneutical challenge we are facing here. And I actually mentioned it on the follow up show with Knox, and I’m a little hurt that there hasn’t been more recognition of its brilliance (heh). I made a shameless plug for our Fight Laugh Feast conference: Lies, Propaganda, Storytelling, and the Serrated Edge. And for the record, I’m assuming that God gave us this whole, what shall we say, conversation, because he wants a whole bunch of you to go to flfnetwork dot com right now and sign up for the conference in Knoxville, TN Oct. 6-8. See what I did there?
But seriously, I pointed out on the show that we need to learn to read the Bible rightly so that we can read the world rightly, and related to that, we need to learn to emulate the Bible rightly so that we can wield that sword rightly. Now, please don’t read this as me saying that Christians may be jerks online and go around saying pointlessly offensive things. (Yeah, I hear you guys in the back mumbling about “baptists causing transgenderism…”)
But the fact of the matter is that it is not only the truth of Scripture that is sharp but also the rhetoric of Scripture that is sharp. The blade of Scripture is not merely sharp in what it says, but in how it is said. I said on the show that Jesus roundly condemns the Pharisees over and over and over, while there were still good Pharisees in Israel. And the reason why no one seems to care at all about that point is because Jesus completely trashed the Pharisees. I say “Pharisee” and everyone thinks “bad guy” and so no one cares. But honestly, and just to try to make everything worse, Jesus could have just as easily said “baptists.” And now I’m braced for all the “baptists are pharisees” memes. But that’s not what I said.
But seriously. The Pharisees were the respected religious leaders of the day. Ezra (of Old Testament fame) was arguably the founder of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were the more conservative party in many respects, emphasizing careful obedience to the law and a belief in the resurrection of the dead. And the Pharisees could point to their faithfulness to the covenant through the intertestamental period, holding fast to circumcision in the face of persecution and massive cultural and political pressures to give up God’s law and covenant and just assimilate with Greek and Roman culture. And many Jews did assimilate, many apostatized, and many simply compromised with the world. I’m not sure we really appreciate how much the Pharisees had preserved, how much they had sacrificed, and how hard they had worked to keep doctrine and practice pure. I’m not sure how much people appreciate that the Pharisees were the good guys. They were the conservative resurgence. You went to their seminaries and conferences because you were committed to the authority of Scripture. And the Pharisees really had done a lot of good.
And then Jesus came along. And Jesus didn’t care about their rules, their traditions, and he didn’t seem to care about how faithful they had been. And let me underline the fact that many of them had in fact been faithful. Many of them loved God. Many of them were regenerate. Many of them went to Heaven. And many of them were still good guys, but by the time of Christ, the movement was going to seed. By the time of Christ, there was a deep, cancerous rot in the Pharisees.
Even if you aren’t sure about the connection between radical individualism in American baptist culture and the current transgender crisis, isn’t American baptist culture something similar in general? So many good things have come from American baptist culture, and it really is a compliment to acknowledge the massive influence (for good) baptists have had on preserving and contributing so many healthy things to American culture over the course of its history (again, Knox and I noted that in our follow up show). Or consider the modern lobbying power of the SBC. I’m told that the Vice President himself has spoken at the SBC, and the SBC president has been known to receive invitations to the White House. But all that influence comes with responsibility. And you can’t have it both ways. If American baptists are now known for the JD Greears, Russel Moores, Beth Moores, Ed Littons, and Rick Warrens, are these leaders influencing American culture? I would think we’d all have to say, yes, even if we differ on exactly how. Do these people represent every baptist? Of course not. Are many faithful baptists pushing back? Yes, and thank God. But c’mon, people. These are some of the most prominent baptist leaders in America, and that’s just the SBC.
On Reading the Bible Well
But the main point I want to make is that a bunch of our baptist brothers are doing exegesis on our CrossPolitic shows in a way that they would never allow to be done to the Scriptural text. Some commentators are zeroing in one or two lines, ripping those sentences out of their context and then assuming the most flammable or absurd meanings. But stop for a moment and consider whether you would do the same with various texts in the Bible. Jesus said that unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you cannot have life within you (Jn. 6:53). That’s what He said, and now you either believe in transubstantiation or cannibalism, right? Of course not. So what did Jesus mean? How do you interpret that hard saying of Jesus? Well, most Protestant interpreters would say that you must take the whole biblical context into account, and that what Jesus was saying He really meant in one way but He said it in that way to make a particular kind of point. I supposed you might accuse Jesus of exaggerating or “stupid hyperbole,” but I’m not sure you want to do that. Of course what Jesus said was understandably “offensive” to many of His followers, and from that time many unfollowed Him (Jn. 6:66).
Or here’s another example: Peter says that “baptism now saves us” (1 Pet. 3:21). You don’t have as far to go to find your context and explanation for what Peter means in that verse, but you could still rip that line out of the text as an easy clickbait soundbite and accuse Peter of teaching baptismal regeneration. You might also accuse Peter of saying something easy to misunderstand and confusing to many people. I mean, if Peter hadn’t written those words, maybe there wouldn’t be such sharp divisions between Protestants and Roman Catholics. So much for biblical catholicity, Peter. And piles of us, if we are honest, still really aren’t that comfortable with saying what Peter says. But it’s God’s Word, and it’s good and true and edifying. But it could very easily be misunderstood, confusing, or offensive, especially to those who might be repenting of their Roman Catholicism.
Ok, one more example: James said clearly that we are “justified by works, and not by faith alone” (Js. 2:24). In fact, as many Roman Catholic apologists have pointed out, the only time in all of Scripture that the phrase “justification by faith alone” occurs is to deny it. James says we are “not justified by faith alone.” Was James being stupid? Martin Luther thought so, calling it an epistle of straw. But most of the church has accepted that the Holy Spirit saw fit to inspire those words because we need them just as much as we need Paul’s clear insistence that we are “justified apart from works” (Gal. 2:16). Talk about confusing! Talk about potential for misunderstanding. And again, so much for biblical unity. Over 500 years at odds with the Roman Catholic church over the issue.
All of this to say, I’m not denying that someone could be offended at what Jason Farley said. And by the same token, I’m not denying that someone could be offended by what Jesus, Peter, or James said. The question is whether you have a right to be offended. And the answer is “no” because of what the actual message (in context) is/was. The answer to those who were offended at Jesus (or Peter or James) is found in the context of what was actually being said, not merely the sharp pointy end of the message. Of course no one is saying that what Jason or Jared or the CrossPolitic hosts say is anything remotely close to the authority or perfection of Scripture, and we are always happy to correct misstatements, errors, or mistakes (and we have). But in this case, the accusation is simply wrong. And the context makes it abundantly clear, plus all the follow up insisting on what we actually meant.
Conclusion
One final thought: Jeff Wright’s concern about Big Eva isn’t crazy. And so he should know that we are painfully aware of that track record, and we are praying and working like crazy to put things into place to keep all of those temptations and slippery slopes at bay. But if I may, I would like to point out that the leaven of Big Eva is fully capable of leavening in many different directions. And it seems to me highly likely that a bunch of the folks who got into a bit of a tizzy over this CrossPolitic episode did so precisely because they have been discipled by Big Eva more than they realize. Jeff Wright wonders if we are above apologizing or admitting that we simply whiffed, and we take the brotherly admonition seriously and we have and we will keep it in mind. But I’d like to ask Jeff and other brothers like him to consider whether they misread, misheard, jumped to conclusions, or were unjustly offended, and whether they need to retract and admit that they were wrong. The Big Eva temptation can run in both directions.
And while we certainly have had thoughtful, good natured pushback from some (like Jeff and Rhett), the Twitter mob that attacked me over the last weekend had more than a little whiff of Big Eva cancel culture. And at the same time, we’ve had many, many baptists and Reformed baptists who have written to say that they understood exactly what we were saying, they took it to heart, were not offended in the slightest, and thanked us for being willing to tell the truth boldly. Maybe they got it right.
But regardless, I’m looking forward to that good pizza joint with Jeff (and Rhett) and all my Fight Laugh Feast baptist brothers and anyone else who wants to keep having this conversation in Knoxville in October.
Photo by Talal elmountassir on Unsplash
Leave a Reply