Exactly What is The Gospel Coalition Up To? - Neil Shenvi Article

So this morning I was taking out the garbage and I cut myself on a nail and I had to go get a tetanus shot and so Just got back from that And I got a couple of people a few people sending me this article on the gospel coalition

Dot -org it is by two people Neil Shen V and Pat Sawyer and it's called the incompatibility of critical theory and Christianity and The people who sent this to me were very surprised that that they would post something like this and so, you know,

I read through it a little bit and And I was you know, just as I'm reading him.

This is this isn't a good article I agree with most of the things that that Neil and Pat are saying here and I don't really have a whole lot to quibble

With I do have some things to quibble with as you would might imagine, but I highly recommend you read the article it's very good and I've read

Neil's work before Neil Shen V's work before it's it's it's all very good. And so it's it's helpful. I recommend it

And this article does not change that But I did want to talk a little bit about The strategy here the strategy of posting this article because a lot of people were surprised that gospel coalition posted this article and And that includes me to some degree because up until now

Gospel coalition hasn't really and and and and when I say gospel coalition, I mean the actual blog and The Individuals that are members of it, right?

They haven't really felt the need to really respond to anyone pushing back on their social justice

Narrative and all of these things They haven't really felt the need to respond too much.

And so to see this article there It's extremely interesting because to me this is the very first thing that I thought when

I saw this is that this is really good This is really good this means that they are seeing a need to say something in response to this criticism and That's a very very good thing

Now I'm not saying this is the first time that they've done this or individuals in the gospel coalition have done this but it is a significant thing and so I Think you know just kind of spitball in here

I mean from a tactical perspective you know, we should we should take this as a good sign for us to continue the pressure because They they do need to respond to some of the criticisms of what their people are saying because what their people are saying is

Pretty ridiculous. It's pretty extreme and the people that they platform you're gonna see

I'm gonna be releasing more of the of this Documentation that I that I told you about yesterday It is extreme the stuff that that people that they platform are saying and doing and and it's really really

Bad stuff. So anyway so the number one thing I want to say about this article is the fact that they've posted this means it is time to increase the pressure increase the pressure and to be

As at just as vocal as you've been being pushed back on this stuff. That doesn't make sense. That's not biblical

Continue to do so because this is a very good sign for us in the sense of from a strategic perspective

Because these are things that we need to kick around there needs to be a lot more conversation than there's been it's just that simple

It is simply Just that simple now a lot of people are saying well But why would why would gospel coalition post this if if they're you know?

They've kind of embraced some of the ideas of critical theory and things like that and I think it's very strategic because Neil Shen V.

He's he's he's a very Important person in this in this conversation this ongoing conversation, but Neil, you know

Let's just you know, call it what it is If you've got Ezra's and you've got Nehemiah's Neil is more of an

Ezra very careful measured language There's nothing wrong with any of this by the way, and this is not a criticism of Neil.

He's very measured. He's very Careful he's you know, you know very balanced and everything and and and and really just sticks to the facts and that kind of thing

That's that's all great There's nothing wrong with that but the reality is that that that there is a downside to that and and and and and here here's a perfect example, so I'm assuming that this you know gospel coalition does this a lot of blogs do this

They'll call out a sentence that they think is important and I don't think Neil called this out himself

Maybe he did maybe he didn't but this looks like an editorial decision, right? Listen to this sentence okay, and I want you to think about this sentence as I read it and And think about it and and and and ask yourself if you agree with this sentence or not

Here's what he says. This is what's called out The bare fact that someone talks about oppression or social justice

Isn't remotely sufficient to conclude that they've embraced critical theory The bare fact that someone talks about oppression or social justice isn't remotely sufficient to conclude that they've embraced critical theory

Now there's a few things going on with this sentence that I want You know as I read it on the one hand this sounds very similar to things that I've said before Very similar to things

I've said before so, you know Strictly speaking. I do agree with it But what is the impression that it gives here the impression that it gives here?

And I think this is why Gospel Coalition called this out, is that it's not really fair to say to someone, you've embraced critical theory just because they talk about oppression or social justice.

And that again, that's strictly speaking true. But we have to read this in the context of the

Gospel Coalition blog, because here's the reality. It's not like we're hearing someone for the first time talk about social justice and we're like, oh, critical theory.

No, that's not what's happened here. That's not what's happened here. We've heard tons of speeches.

We've heard tons of sermons. We've read many, many articles. We've read books. We've done a lot of homework here.

And the reality is oftentimes when a Gospel Coalition member is talking about oppression or social justice, they either one, do not define it.

And so who knows what they're talking about? Or two, when they do define it, they define it in terms that are exactly the same as the way a critical theorist would define it.

You know what I mean? So they're very rarely, if ever, even bringing any

Bible into it. And when they do, they interpret the Bible the way any kind of liberal does interpret the

Bible. And they're not interpreting it, they're using it. Like it's like the David Platt thing where he said, let justice roll down like waters and then started talking about economic disparities and wealth disparities.

That's not what Amos was talking about, but yet he used that passage to say that this is what it's talking about.

And it's just not. And so that's the first thing that I'll say. So this is a very useful for the

Gospel Coalition's sentence to call out because it makes it seem like, well, all this bluster about social justice and oppression.

See, they're just saying, I believe critical theory. They're not even thinking about it. I don't. See, that's a very useful sentence to pull out.

But while strictly speaking, it's true, just because someone does this doesn't mean they've embraced critical theory.

In the context of a Gospel Coalition article and everything else the Gospel Coalition blog does, it gives a wrong impression as if Gospel Coalition's being wrongly accused.

And that's, you know, strategically, I think that this is a very important thing for Gospel Coalition to do, but this sentence, it's very unfair to pull that out to do the work that they think it's doing.

It's not doing that work. It's not doing that work. We're not, look, the people who are criticizing you aren't foolish enough to fall for that kind of thing.

And again, I don't put this on Neil. This is an editorial decision, right? This is not him, most likely.

So that's the thing. So don't pretend, if you support Gospel Coalition, don't pretend like the critics of the

Gospel Coalition social justice stuff are just saying, well, he used the word oppression, he used the word of social justice, and that means critical theory.

No, that's not what we say at all. And furthermore, we don't say that necessarily these people have embraced critical theory.

That's the other thing. I don't say that anyone necessarily has embraced critical theory without proof of it.

What I am saying though is that clearly their ideas have been influenced by critical theory. You can be influenced by things that you have no idea.

You can be influenced by ideologies and presuppositions that you can't identify yourself.

That is obviously true. That is obviously the case. And so while this sentence is strictly true, it really doesn't have much to do with the criticism that we've made of Gospel Coalition, and we will continue to make.

And again, look, if you care about my opinion at all, I mean, maybe you should get your head examined, but if you care about my opinion at all,

I think that this is a fantastic sign for the future of this conversation.

The fact that they felt the need to post Neal Shenvey, and they're doing a little gatekeeping here. Neal Shenvey is probably the most palatable of the

Gospel Coalition social justice critics, and I value him. I am so grateful for his work.

I love his work. So this is not a criticism of Neal. In fact, I saw some people arguing whether or not

Neal should have posted on Gospel. I'd post on Gospel Coalition. I definitely would. I don't question that decision at all.

I definitely would. Because look, here's the thing. Gospel Coalition thinks they're doing a little gatekeeping.

Well, here's the reality of what they're doing. Neal Shenvey is the gateway drug to Fight, Laugh, Feast Network.

By the way, join the Fight, Laugh, Feast Network. Show code ROBLES, R -O -B -L -E -S.

Become a Fight, Laugh, Feast member, and you will see very helpful stuff, just like Neal's stuff, very helpful stuff in a way that speaks very directly.

And I'm not saying we're not careful, but the thing is, we're more likely to be a little more, shall we say, like Nehemiah, except without the violence.

Anyway, I hope this was helpful. God bless. Just another note on strategy, just while I'm thinking about it.

I was talking to my brother recently, and we were talking about the situation that many

Reformed evangelicals find themselves in, and all of this kind of thing. He likened it to sort of the

Trojan horse situation, right? You've got this Trojan horse, and ideally, you destroy the

Trojan horse before it gets inside the city walls. Ideally, you repel it before it even gets inside, because if it's inside already, it's almost too late when it's inside.

And so God is like, look, there's obviously a place for being very careful and for hearing people out and stuff like that.

There's a place for that, and that's important, and we should always do that. But don't be shamed into taking action because people think that you're moving too quickly, because the reality is people are always gonna think that, even if you wait a long time.

Like this happened with the Revoice Conference, right? A lot of people were telling them, hey, cancel this conference, this is ridiculous.

The Revoice Conference, you remember that, with kind of recasting gay Christianity into reform them and all that kind of thing.

People were saying, no, this is a stupid idea. Don't do this, this is evil, this is wicked. Cancel it right now.

And here's the refrain, do you remember? Well, we don't know what's been said yet, so why don't we wait and see what they're gonna say, and then we can talk about it.

It's like, no, we don't have to wait until the Trojan horse is inside the city walls. No, we know what they're gonna say.

They're putting it out there. We know what these people have said in the past, and there's no indication that they've changed their mind.

No, cancel it now. We know what they're gonna say. We don't have to wait for them to say it again. And that's the thing, man, especially if you're a shepherd, you know?

And part of your job is to protect the sheep. And it's not like protect the sheep only after the threat reveals itself and is starting to slaughter them.

That's not when you protect the sheep. You protect the sheep when the threat is far off, and you scare that wolf away, and you attack that wolf while he's far off so he doesn't have his field day with the sheep.

You don't have to wait all the time and be so careful that you don't do anything until it's too late.

That's not the way we should handle this. Look, Paul is such a good example here, because look, in order to protect the sheep, he was willing to even stand up to his brother, to stand up to his friend before it got too bad.

You know what I mean? Before it got too bad. So let's not, from a strategic perspective, look, be careful, don't say things if you don't know they're not true, but at the same time, don't wait until it's too late.