We need better champions against Wokeism (the Founders Trailer disaster)

Status
Not open for further replies.
There will a couple of missteps with the trailer but the hysteria over it is designed to distract us from the substance of what the film is about. It's also telling that certain people are more animated over this than they are over the heresy which is being addressed in the film and which is causing serious harm to the church.

Yes, some of the guys mad at the video have FAILED to be mad at Wokeism for the last several years. But of course, this doesn't make the trailer any better.
 
And to be clear: I agree with @Pergamum that some of the editing of the trailer was counter productive. Some pieces of evidence work against you more than for you. But that shouldn't mean we discard the whole work. Also from the trailer I think it looks like a promising film and look forward to it.

With an early critique (and maybe getting a new editor), maybe the finished product will turn out to be something good.
 
The video was sent out to as many as 100 persons to get their input before being put forward and everyone approved it. So I was told that Ascol was taken by surprise at many who have backtracked since the tweets started, though he acknowledges mistakes were made that have contributed to causing this.

Alas this is par for the course nowadays.
 
A pastor in the US has informed me that he has called Tom Ascol and that Pastor Ascol was very humble and apologetic.

Ascol has called the Denhollender's and their pastor and apologized to them.

This doesn't surprise me. I've contacted him at least twice in the past. Both times it had to do with things he had posted that I disagreed with or things he/Founders weren't doing (such as denouncing Driscoll, who was causing problems for Calvinists in the SBC and leading young men astray) that I thought they should be doing. In the end we still disagreed but I found him to be a gracious man. Then as now, I was a "nobody" although I guess my reach as a blogger at that time made it seem to a few folks that I was a somebody. I've written to other "name" men in the past and have rarely gotten a response.

That being said, if he hasn't already done so, he needs to issue some kind of public statement and explanation for the Denhollander image. And there still apparently has been no acknowledgement of the Chantry issue. I don't think that Tom is part of ARBCA. But some ARBCA men are part of Founders and have been from the beginning. The perception as well as reality is that there is sin in the camp and many will not be interested in what they have to say because of this. Some have denounced all #churchtoo stuff as being motivated by the SJWs and the Denhollander image in the video only reinforces the idea that SJW critics are on the wrong side of abuse cases in the church.
 
This doesn't surprise me. I've contacted him at least twice in the past. Both times it had to do with things he had posted that I disagreed with or things he/Founders weren't doing (such as denouncing Driscoll, who was causing problems for Calvinists in the SBC and leading young men astray) that I thought they should be doing. In the end we still disagreed but I found him to be a gracious man. Then as now, I was a "nobody" although I guess my reach as a blogger at that time made it seem to a few folks that I was a somebody. I've written to other "name" men in the past and have rarely gotten a response.

That being said, if he hasn't already done so, he needs to issue some kind of public statement and explanation for the Denhollander image. And there still apparently has been no acknowledgement of the Chantry issue. I don't think that Tom is part of ARBCA. But some ARBCA men are part of Founders and have been from the beginning. The perception as well as reality is that there is sin in the camp and many will not be interested in what they have to say because of this. Some have denounced all #churchtoo stuff as being motivated by the SJWs and the Denhollander image in the video only reinforces the idea that SJW critics are on the wrong side of abuse cases in the church.

If James White and other full-time polemicists would stop tweeting that the "Outrage Machine" is attacking the trailer because they are all pseudo-SJWs, I think the Founders may step back and re-evaluate and perhaps this might cause the film to be finished in a more circumspect manner than how it began. It seems apologies have been made. I trust these men are true gospel preachers and I am on their side.... so I hope they see the criticism as legit and not merely liberal outrage.

I do agree that Founders needs to distance themselves from ARBCA.
 

I'm sorry, but James and those who are accusing every single critic of the video of being SJWs and SBC company men are breaking the 9th Commandment. Trevor is not even in the SBC and has implored men and churches to leave the SBC over Wokeism. The idea that he and those of us who are too "purist" to even join a SBC church are objecting because we adhere to the "11th Commandment" (which does exist) is ludicrous. (AOMIN seems to be down right now. I'm going on some tweets that James has posted over the past day or two.)
 
Some thoughts on this inspired by R. Scott Clark's recent thread on Twitter.
And Dr. Clark is indeed no friend of "Social Justice".

My big problem with this whole thing is that on the one hand, Founders wants us to distance ourselves from "wokeness" and trying to appropriate Critical Race Theory, or even to learn from "Social Justice Warriors", which is pretty much right, but then they take to a level such that anyone who seems to be saying anything even vaugely similar or criticising their approach, or simply not being quite as outraged as they are get thrown under the bus.

On the other hand, they are fine with quasi-alliances with Doug Wilson and his crew, despite their heretical teachings and various other failings, simply because they agree with them on these issues.

Founders' whole problem with the "woke" crowd or people who show them sympathy is that they put social concerns before the gospel. Except that's exactly what they are doing too. They overlook certain people's errors on the gospel but only if they are on "our side".

And doesn't this idea of needing to be a certain level of "outraged" at the correct things seem to be very much a "woke" or liberal argument? For example, "I'll take pro-life Christians seriously when they start having the same amount of outrage over poverty/single mothers/refugees/racism as they do about abortion". It's just whataboutism at its finest.

And finally, in response to James White and others who say that they'll take criticism of the film trailer seriously when the critics make as big a deal about the other problems in the SBC etc. I'll take that argument seriously around about the time when he and Founders actually distance themselves from Wilson and his heretical gang instead of uniting forces with him to slander actual faithful Christians like the Denhollanders.
 
On the other hand, they are fine with quasi-alliances with Doug Wilson and his crew, despite their heretical teachings and various other failings, simply because they agree with them on these issues.

Founders' whole problem with the "woke" crowd or people who show them sympathy is that they put social concerns before the gospel. Except that's exactly what they are doing too. They overlook certain people's errors on the gospel but only if they are on "our side".

I have noticed this problem as well. On the one hand, Wokeism is undermining the gospel. On the other hand, we will argue against Wokeism by uniting with Doug Wilson to oppose it - even though he also undermines the gospel and does so much more overtly than those caught up in Wokeism.
 
Some thoughts on this inspired by R. Scott Clark's recent thread on Twitter.
And Dr. Clark is indeed no friend of "Social Justice".

My big problem with this whole thing is that on the one hand, Founders wants us to distance ourselves from "wokeness" and trying to appropriate Critical Race Theory, or even to learn from "Social Justice Warriors", which is pretty much right, but then they take to a level such that anyone who seems to be saying anything even vaugely similar or criticising their approach, or simply not being quite as outraged as they are get thrown under the bus.

On the other hand, they are fine with quasi-alliances with Doug Wilson and his crew, despite their heretical teachings and various other failings, simply because they agree with them on these issues.

Founders' whole problem with the "woke" crowd or people who show them sympathy is that they put social concerns before the gospel. Except that's exactly what they are doing too. They overlook certain people's errors on the gospel but only if they are on "our side".

And doesn't this idea of needing to be a certain level of "outraged" at the correct things seem to be very much a "woke" or liberal argument? For example, "I'll take pro-life Christians seriously when they start having the same amount of outrage over poverty/single mothers/refugees/racism as they do about abortion". It's just whataboutism at its finest.

And finally, in response to James White and others who say that they'll take criticism of the film trailer seriously when the critics make as big a deal about the other problems in the SBC etc. I'll take that argument seriously around about the time when he and Founders actually distance themselves from Wilson and his heretical gang instead of uniting forces with him to slander actual faithful Christians like the Denhollanders.

Clark misses the point and, with all due respect, so do you. The issue is not that the liberals are putting social issues before the Gospel but that they are substituting them for the Gospel. That is what CRT and intersectionality are in the church context: a false gospel. This is not a battle over priorities but the very Gospel itself. The stakes cannot be higher.

I haven't seen the iatest Dividing Line but on Twitter at least White has gone a bit overboard but at the end of the day the problem with the trailer was a couple of dodgy edits not the substance.
 
Clark misses the point and, with all due respect, so do you. The issue is not that the liberals are putting social issues before the Gospel but that they are substituting them for the Gospel. That is what CRT and intersectionality are in the church context: a false gospel. This is not a battle over priorities but the very Gospel itself. The stakes cannot be higher.
I agree that many replace the gospel with social justice, but I think one of the other main problems is apparent here: it assumed everyone who disagrees to any extent is in the complete opposite camp.

This isn't just about "the liberals", it's clear that Founders are trying to point out where conservatives have accidentally mixed some CRT or whatever in. Again, this isn't wrong in itself, but they have been painting with far too broad a brush.

Doug Wilson also preaches a false gospel. That's also a battle over a false gospel is it not?

Or are you seriously claiming that anyone Founders or anyone else calls out as SJW must be teaching a false gospel? Do the Denhollanders? Do all the people who took issue with the trailer who are ridiculed as woke social justice warriors?

Does Al Molher believe a false gospel? Or has he just messed up his priorities? There are people out there who will criticize Mohler and TGC all the day long, but won't say a thing about Ol' Doug.

It's not just an editing mistake. It's very very clear in that trailer who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are even just based on visuals alone.

What if I made a trailer for a film about the Federal Vision and after a scary video of Doug Wilson in bright colours I added a blurred image of James White in the same style while talking about this false gospel? Is that not nothing less than slander?

Jacob Denhollander has made it extremely clear that he shares the exact same concerns as the filmmakers, but he is incredibly disappointed with the way they portrayed his wife. So many people chosen by Founders themselves for interviews are withdrawing their support from it. Are they all teaching a false gospel? Or are their priorities just wrong?

If you remove the categories of "messed up priorities" and just go "yup it's all a false gospel" then you remove any chance of discussion and will almost certainly start unjustly condemning brothers and sisters.

I think excusing people of slander by calling it "a few dodgy edits" just because they are on "our team" won't win us any favours. From what I've seen this is the main response to this. People agree with the central motives, like you do, but they just find the way it has been done is so terrible. Frankly it could have the opposite effect. It's likely to push people in the middle ground, if there is such a thing, further into the "wokeness". Criticizing this isn't capitulation to the liberals, it's what should be done.
 
Last edited:
'm sorry, but James and those who are accusing every single critic of the video of being SJWs and SBC company men are breaking the 9th Commandment.

Isn't James White a major cog in this "Outrage Machine"?
Friends, I simply posted the link for peoples interest. I did not say I agreed with Dr White.

But I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on Dr White's comments.
 
Friends, I simply posted the link for peoples interest. I did not say I agreed with Dr White.

But I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on Dr White's comments.

Some thoughts:

-Yes. SBC elites tolerate Wokeism for years and don't bat an eye over talks of racial reparations... but they lose their minds over the trailer. Mohler protects Russ Moore for years as Moore lies about Trump supporters, but is quick to express disappoint over the trailer.

-BUT, that doesn't mean that the trailer DOESN'T stink. It stinks aplenty and needs to be fixed.

-It is a dishonest and stupid argument tactic to say that those who dislike the trailer are SJWs.

Maybe if you debate for a living you become like a sophist and learn debate tactics that are really not ethical and learn never to admit a nuance or give any ground to their enemies. Professional debaters never say, "You've got a good point" or "That is partially true." Because of this I do not trust them to give a non-partisan judgment.

-White was good when attacking atheists and other faiths, but now he seems to jump into every quarrel with other Christians. A lot of it is friendly fire.
 
BUT, that doesn't mean that the trailer DOESN'T stink. It stinks aplenty and needs to be fixed. It is a dishonest and stupid argument tactic to say that those who dislike the trailer are SJWs.
I think this is a valid point. I believe White was saying see the whole film before you judge. There is truth in that. But as you say a bad trailer is a bad trailer.
Maybe if you debate for a living you become like a sophist and learn debate tactics that are really not ethical and learn never to admit a nuance
Agreed. Often when White attacks others he cannot see the nuance in their argument.
White was good when attacking atheists and other faiths, but now he seems to jump into every quarrel with other Christians. A lot of it is friendly fire.
Agreed. I have listened to White's radio show for about 20 years. I appreciate many of his shows. I have learned a lot. But there is a negative attitude to some parts of the Christian community that do trouble me.
 
White was good when attacking atheists and other faiths, but now he seems to jump into every quarrel with other Christians. A lot of it is friendly fire.
I think what could cause a lot of this is that we know what atheists think, they're atheists. Same story with muslims.

When it comes to Christians however, it could be that disagreements come across more as a stab in the back, or are potentially more likely to sneak errors in.

So I think we all tend to be a bit harsher on the brethren, or at least those who claim that title.

While we can fairly criticise Dr White on this point, don't we all slip into this so easily? This could be where a lot of the anger around the trailer comes from. "Those Founders guys were on our side, why would they do that?" "Why are they criticizing the trailer? This a film about the centrality of the gospel!"


I think many of the reasons for outrage are genuine, but like you say we need to careful who we are directing our criticisms at, and perhaps even more importantly, we need to be clear and precise on what exactly is being criticized rather than just bringing down the sledgehammer.
 
I agree that many replace the gospel with social justice, but I think one of the other main problems is apparent here: it assumed everyone who disagrees to any extent is in the complete opposite camp.

This isn't just about "the liberals", it's clear that Founders are trying to point out where conservatives have accidentally mixed some CRT or whatever in. Again, this isn't wrong in itself, but they have been painting with far too broad a brush.

Doug Wilson also preaches a false gospel. That's also a battle over a false gospel is it not?

Or are you seriously claiming that anyone Founders or anyone else calls out as SJW must be teaching a false gospel? Do the Denhollanders? Do all the people who took issue with the trailer who are ridiculed as woke social justice warriors?

Does Al Molher believe a false gospel? Or has he just messed up his priorities? There are people out there who will criticize Mohler and TGC all the day long, but won't say a thing about Ol' Doug.

It's not just an editing mistake. It's very very clear in that trailer who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are even just based on visuals alone.

What if I made a trailer for a film about the Federal Vision and after a scary video of Doug Wilson in bright colours I added a blurred image of James White in the same style while talking about this false gospel? Is that not nothing less than slander?

Jacob Denhollander has made it extremely clear that he shares the exact same concerns as the filmmakers, but he is incredibly disappointed with the way they portrayed his wife. So many people chosen by Founders themselves for interviews are withdrawing their support from it. Are they all teaching a false gospel? Or are their priorities just wrong?

If you remove the categories of "messed up priorities" and just go "yup it's all a false gospel" then you remove any chance of discussion and will almost certainly start unjustly condemning brothers and sisters.

I think excusing people of slander by calling it "a few dodgy edits" just because they are on "our team" won't win us any favours. From what I've seen this is the main response to this. People agree with the central motives, like you do, but they just find the way it has been done is so terrible. Frankly it could have the opposite effect. It's likely to push people in the middle ground, if there is such a thing, further into the "wokeness". Criticizing this isn't capitulation to the liberals, it's what should be done.

Well I didn't recognise everyone in the trailer but of those I did recognise who appeared to be the targets there was Beth Moore, Russell Moore, Matt Chandler: all legitimate targets, all undermining the Truth in their so-called ministries. Was Al Mohler not one of the guys being interviewed by Founders?

As to the Denhollanders I have no idea what their theology is or where they lie in the landscape. But I've already said they shouldn't have used her image. But, again, I would say that they should be wary that they are not co-opted by those who might seek to use what happened to Rachel to further their own agenda.

You would need to identify to me those shown in the video who are targeted as promoting heresy of whom you think that is an unfair characterisation because I don't know them (genuinely don't know who they are). The ones I did recognise seem fair game to me.

As to Mohler specifically I'm not suggesting he's promoting a false gospel but he is one of the most prominent Southern Baptists with a very influential position (I'm assuming he's still President of the seminary?) and if he has been slow to condemn heresy but quick to come out against those who are condemning it- however clunkily- then he certainly has his priorities askew and should be called out for it.
 
Well I didn't recognise everyone in the trailer but of those I did recognise who appeared to be the targets there was Beth Moore, Russell Moore, Matt Chandler: all legitimate targets, all undermining the Truth in their so-called ministries. Was Al Mohler not one of the guys being interviewed by Founders?

As to the Denhollanders I have no idea what their theology is or where they lie in the landscape. But I've already said they shouldn't have used her image. But, again, I would say that they should be wary that they are not co-opted by those who might seek to use what happened to Rachel to further their own agenda.

You would need to identify to me those shown in the video who are targeted as promoting heresy of whom you think that is an unfair characterisation because I don't know them (genuinely don't know who they are). The ones I did recognise seem fair game to me.

As to Mohler specifically I'm not suggesting he's promoting a false gospel but he is one of the most prominent Southern Baptists with a very influential position (I'm assuming he's still President of the seminary?) and if he has been slow to condemn heresy but quick to come out against those who are condemning it- however clunkily- then he certainly has his priorities askew and should be called out for it.
My problem with most of the people in the video is that they are definitely not all as bad as each other, and it can be unclear what the exact nature of the problem is.

For instance in the case of Matt Chandler, who is speaking about looking for outside help in the context of sexual abuse, I think the Founders take issue on that because they think either he is undermining the role of pastors and elders or that he is using unbiblical methods or something. The clip used though can be very easily misunderstood as them rejecting the need to get external witnesses or civil authorities involved. I don't think they meant that, but given the whole sexual abuse thing in SBC at the moment, it could cause problems.

Nadia Bolz-Weber the extremely liberal Lutheran pastrix is also shown for some reason, in strange off coloured lighting like something from a student horror film, presumably as a warning of where things could end up, but frankly not even Beth Moore is anywhere near that level of heresy, so it really just comes off as unhelpful.

Right after said liberal Lutheran, a blurred image of Mrs Denhollander appears on screen in the same sort of colouring. The association is clear. The Denhollanders themselves are confessional Reformed Baptists, 1689 the whole shebang. Very solid all around as far as I can tell.

I think your caution is right though, naturally people want to use stories of abuse as ammunition in their latest volley against orthodox Christianity, but believe me, it's a good thing that it's Rachel Denhollander fighting against abuse. Can you imagine the potential damage if there was someone of a far more liberal persuasion in that position? Someone who wants to help abuse victims within the church should be seen as our ally. That of course does not remove them from criticism.

I just mentioned Al Molher because he's someone who is respected but has seen criticism on this sort of topic. I see no problem with challenging him on these things if it is indeed necessary, but of course criticising him is a very different thing from someone far more liberal.

I don't mean to suggest you do think he or anyone is denying the gospel, but just that we don't want to lump people with various levels of problems haphazardly into one giant pile and deal with them all the same way.

Again, I'm basically on board with your concerns, I just think the trailer hastily divided people into two groups rather than deal with each on their own terms. A lot of this comes down to the fact that it is just a trailer, but I think including less provacative and unwise clips would have helped things a lot. Hopefully the full film is more precise about the exact dangers of specific peoples' positions or their weaknesses. I am concerned because it is not clear to me how much Founders is deciding to apologise and how much they are doubling down. Ideally some kind of resolution will be reached.
 
I think what could cause a lot of this is that we know what atheists think, they're atheists. Same story with muslims.

When it comes to Christians however, it could be that disagreements come across more as a stab in the back, or are potentially more likely to sneak errors in.

So I think we all tend to be a bit harsher on the brethren, or at least those who claim that title.

While we can fairly criticise Dr White on this point, don't we all slip into this so easily? This could be where a lot of the anger around the trailer comes from. "Those Founders guys were on our side, why would they do that?" "Why are they criticizing the trailer? This a film about the centrality of the gospel!"


I think many of the reasons for outrage are genuine, but like you say we need to careful who we are directing our criticisms at, and perhaps even more importantly, we need to be clear and precise on what exactly is being criticized rather than just bringing down the sledgehammer.

Ah, good point.
 
Well I didn't recognise everyone in the trailer but of those I did recognise who appeared to be the targets there was Beth Moore, Russell Moore, Matt Chandler: all legitimate targets, all undermining the Truth in their so-called ministries. Was Al Mohler not one of the guys being interviewed by Founders?

As to the Denhollanders I have no idea what their theology is or where they lie in the landscape. But I've already said they shouldn't have used her image. But, again, I would say that they should be wary that they are not co-opted by those who might seek to use what happened to Rachel to further their own agenda.

You would need to identify to me those shown in the video who are targeted as promoting heresy of whom you think that is an unfair characterisation because I don't know them (genuinely don't know who they are). The ones I did recognise seem fair game to me.

As to Mohler specifically I'm not suggesting he's promoting a false gospel but he is one of the most prominent Southern Baptists with a very influential position (I'm assuming he's still President of the seminary?) and if he has been slow to condemn heresy but quick to come out against those who are condemning it- however clunkily- then he certainly has his priorities askew and should be called out for it.

The Denhollenders are members of a Reformed Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky pastored by Jim Savastio. Pastor Savastio is talking to the Founders and messaged me this morning.

So I assume her theology is sound and her speaking at churches has not been preaching but talking on a very specific topic of abuse in churches as a subject-matter expert. I believe God is greatly using her in this area and that she is a blessing to the church.

As far as Chandler goes, I agree he is a legit target.....BUT not that clip. That clip is one of the better things he has said and he was advocating getting outside help in cases of abuse in churches, instead of covering up or doing an internal investigation, which invariably puts the name of the church as a priority and not the best interests of the victim. Even this use of Chandler in the trailer was a bad move.

It is a terrible idea to tie in abuse advocacy with Wokeism. Some folks, of course, might blame "patriarchy" for abuse...and some forms of patriarchy may, indeed, lead to domestic abuse. But strengthening child safety policies in church and being better at reporting cases of abuse is not SJWism. It is not social justice, but TRUE and biblical justice. We have seen ample evidence that many churches - even churches with sound theology such as ARBCA - fail to report and even cover up child abuse.

Also, we should talk about the ethics of how to interview somebody: Several of the other pastors interviewed by the Founders reported later they were blindsided by the interviews. They thought they were being interviewed about one thing and them BAM, the trailer uses their interview for another topic.

Plus, we should talk about the effects and editing. off-light and weird colors and even a sort of shaky camera effect and even strange music like from a horror movie appears whenever these other guys are shown, whereas Ascol's image is clear and bright as if he were the hero. Like old Westerns where the bad guys wears a black cowboy hat and the hero wears a white hat.

The Founders don't want to stoop to the level of "Gotcha" Journalists or propaganda films, do they?

Truthfully, I don't think ANY of the people shown are promoting "heresy" - for heresy is soul-destroying. Women preachers are bad and in error, but does not condemn one to hell. I am not ready to say Beth Moore ain't going to heaven because she thinks she can preach. Even Russ Moore seems to know and love the Gospel. Even if I get angered hearing talk of racial reparations, I believe some of these black race-baiters are saved as well, even Ron Burns. But it seems the approach of the trailer is heavy on the polemics and not very irenic. Or even fair.
 
Everybody's talking about the trailer and the movie.
"Free pub." "No such thing as bad publicity."
More people have watched a "terrible trailer" than were going to before.
More people know about the movie--and some will watch it--than without the trailer.

Some of this chatter may bother Ascol and a few others.
None of this bothers the makers of the movie or the trailer.
 
Friends, I simply posted the link for peoples interest. I did not say I agreed with Dr White.

But I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on Dr White's comments.
James White himself has said several times something to the effect of, "You can't do everything well," largely as reasoning for avoiding discussion on Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. I respect that and wholeheartedly agree.

I think he and Founders should take the same tack on social issues. I haven't enjoyed his program very much since it has become a constant lament about "how awful things are." I actually agree that they're pretty bad, but others are much more insightful on these issues than White--often Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and even atheists.

He, of course, can do as he likes on his show, but I truly wish he would get back to a more sustained focus on topics such as Islam and Textual Criticism, where I felt like I was actually learning from him (and Calvinism, which would hold true of the Founders as well).

As for the comments on his latest show, they seemed very much in the vein of "Come on, let's give the benefit of the doubt to our guys (but not their guys)!"
 
Last edited:
I’ve been thinking about the woke issue off and on for a while now.

My main 2 points:
- the white American cannot begin to understand experientially the history of segregation and all that comes with it felt by black men and women of former generations and its effects on the current ones.
- the wokist seeks a political savior to undo and overcome related injustices, much of it very real even today, some it perceived.

Both ‘sides’ can learn something.
1. There are many unregenerate Christians and even some who are regenerate that have perpetuated racism.
2. Many pro-wokists have returned hate for hate. Some black pulpits have taught it and like the Jews sought a political savior, not deliverance from sin and a sinful world.....


That video won’t help
 
Some thoughts on this inspired by R. Scott Clark's recent thread on Twitter.
And Dr. Clark is indeed no friend of "Social Justice".

My big problem with this whole thing is that on the one hand, Founders wants us to distance ourselves from "wokeness" and trying to appropriate Critical Race Theory, or even to learn from "Social Justice Warriors", which is pretty much right, but then they take to a level such that anyone who seems to be saying anything even vaugely similar or criticising their approach, or simply not being quite as outraged as they are get thrown under the bus.

On the other hand, they are fine with quasi-alliances with Doug Wilson and his crew, despite their heretical teachings and various other failings, simply because they agree with them on these issues.

Founders' whole problem with the "woke" crowd or people who show them sympathy is that they put social concerns before the gospel. Except that's exactly what they are doing too. They overlook certain people's errors on the gospel but only if they are on "our side".

And doesn't this idea of needing to be a certain level of "outraged" at the correct things seem to be very much a "woke" or liberal argument? For example, "I'll take pro-life Christians seriously when they start having the same amount of outrage over poverty/single mothers/refugees/racism as they do about abortion". It's just whataboutism at its finest.

And finally, in response to James White and others who say that they'll take criticism of the film trailer seriously when the critics make as big a deal about the other problems in the SBC etc. I'll take that argument seriously around about the time when he and Founders actually distance themselves from Wilson and his heretical gang instead of uniting forces with him to slander actual faithful Christians like the Denhollanders.
The outrage is because they are taking a legit sin/issue, racism/prejudice, and are twisting the gospel and their own theology to address it and it is creeping into denominations like the opc, who rightly are not embracing Doug Wilson over the issue, so the concerns are becoming more widespread. The very gospel is at stake here. At least that is the (pretty legit) fear.

I believe woke theology is merely repacked liberation theology which is not a mere social issue but troubling to the core of the gospel and systematic reformed theology as it turns it on its head. James Cone was a disciple of Karl Barth.... So this is very much a theology issue and somewhat of a crisis/threat against sound doctrine. Racism is just a tool/excuse to get there.

That being said, I don’t think that trailer is helpful at all. Using Rachel DenHollander is completely unacceptable.
 
Last edited:

The Denhollenders are members of a Reformed Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky pastored by Jim Savastio. Pastor Savastio is talking to the Founders and messaged me this morning.

So I assume her theology is sound and her speaking at churches has not been preaching but talking on a very specific topic of abuse in churches as a subject-matter expert. I believe God is greatly using her in this area and that she is a blessing to the church.

As far as Chandler goes, I agree he is a legit target.....BUT not that clip. That clip is one of the better things he has said and he was advocating getting outside help in cases of abuse in churches, instead of covering up or doing an internal investigation, which invariably puts the name of the church as a priority and not the best interests of the victim. Even this use of Chandler in the trailer was a bad move.

It is a terrible idea to tie in abuse advocacy with Wokeism. Some folks, of course, might blame "patriarchy" for abuse...and some forms of patriarchy may, indeed, lead to domestic abuse. But strengthening child safety policies in church and being better at reporting cases of abuse is not SJWism. It is not social justice, but TRUE and biblical justice. We have seen ample evidence that many churches - even churches with sound theology such as ARBCA - fail to report and even cover up child abuse.

Also, we should talk about the ethics of how to interview somebody: Several of the other pastors interviewed by the Founders reported later they were blindsided by the interviews. They thought they were being interviewed about one thing and them BAM, the trailer uses their interview for another topic.

Plus, we should talk about the effects and editing. off-light and weird colors and even a sort of shaky camera effect and even strange music like from a horror movie appears whenever these other guys are shown, whereas Ascol's image is clear and bright as if he were the hero. Like old Westerns where the bad guys wears a black cowboy hat and the hero wears a white hat.

The Founders don't want to stoop to the level of "Gotcha" Journalists or propaganda films, do they?

Truthfully, I don't think ANY of the people shown are promoting "heresy" - for heresy is soul-destroying. Women preachers are bad and in error, but does not condemn one to hell. I am not ready to say Beth Moore ain't going to heaven because she thinks she can preach. Even Russ Moore seems to know and love the Gospel. Even if I get angered hearing talk of racial reparations, I believe some of these black race-baiters are saved as well, even Ron Burns. But it seems the approach of the trailer is heavy on the polemics and not very irenic. Or even fair.

I thought White's Dividing Line on the whole thing, as is usually the case with his show, was very good. He gave a good overview of the situation and why he thinks the response has been hysterical on one hand, and co-ordinated (by some) on the other. I also think he offered a good theory as to why they used the Matt Chandler clip. When he first saw the trailer he thought that the use of that clip was a bit off but he is willing to wait and see how it is used in the context of the film.

His theory as to why they used the clip of Chandler ties in with the Denhollanders: the panel discussion which both clips (of Chandler and Denhollander) appeared to be taken from whilst ostensibly on the subject of abuse apparently descended into advocacy for egalitarianism. Which is what my fear would be in regards to people like Denhollander: that they would be co-opted by those who have a malicious agenda but will hide behind victim advocacy to enact it. I don't see what good can come from sharing a platform with the likes of Chandler and Beth Moore.

I have seen that some have accused Founders of "duping" them into appearing in the film. That is merely an accusation. What is their evidence for that? Are we to believe them, and not Tom Ascol who has said he would not get someone's involvement in an interview/film under false pretences? I would be inclined to think the disavowals are a result of the reaction to the trailer.

The music of the trailer was corny but documentaries use effects like that. White also pointed out that in the trailer there is a shot of Ascol looking glum accompanied by the narration "we've been played". If we follow the logic used by those who said they were attacking Denhollander then we would say the trailer was suggesting that Tom Ascol had "played us". But no-one made that point. Apparently the editing was completely arbitrary in regards to Ascol but deliberate in regards to Denhollander.
 
Last edited:
I thought White's Dividing Line on the whole thing, as is usually the case with his show, was very good. He gave a good overview of the situation and why he thinks the response has been hysterical on one hand, and co-ordinated (by some) on the other. I also think he offered a good theory as to why they used the Matt Chandler clip. When he first saw the trailer he thought that the use of that clip was a bit off but he is willing to wait and see how it is used in the context of the film.

His theory as to why they used the clip of Chandler ties in with the Denhollanders: the panel discussion which both clips (of Chandler and Denhollander) appeared to be taken from whilst stensibly on the subject of abuse apparently descended into advocacy for egalitarianism. Which is what my fear would be in regards to people like Denhollander: that they would be co-opted by those who have a malicious agenda but will hide behind victim advocacy to enact it. I don't see what good can come from sharing a platform with the likes of Chandler and Beth Moore.

I have seen that some have accused Founders of "duping" them into appearing in the film. That is merely an accusation. What is their evidence for that? Are we to believe them, and not Tom Ascol who has said he would not get some someone's involvement in an interview/film under false pretences? I would be inclined to think the disavowals are a result of the reaction to the trailer.

The music of the trailer was corny but documentaries use effects like that. White also pointed out that in the trailer there is a hot of Ascol looking glum accompanied by the narration "we've been played". If we follow the logic used by those who said they were attacking Denhollander then we would say the trailer was suggesting that Tom Ascol had "played us". But no-one made that point. Apparently the editing was completely arbitrary in regards to Ascol but deliberate in regards to Denhollander.

If 1 person said he was duped, maybe we should question who is telling the truth, him or Ascol. But there are 4 or 5 pastors who are all basically saying the same thing, that they were misled.

Also, didn't James White say something about the SBC being healthier in 1845 than now? You don't have to be an SJW to see that as a problematic statement since they were giving communion to man-stealers or those who profited from man-stealing.

I fully expect some feminists to use every sex abuse case to push feminism. But the Denhollenders are members of a solid 1689 church and so I would not expect them to fall for it. BUT, if the Founders are allies with ARBCA folks and Douglas Wilson, this also looks bad as well, if we want to be strict on judging folks by their allies.

And...it is really hard to judge anymore what folks mean when they say feminism, patriarchy, egalitarianism, and complementarianism. It has gotten to the point where we need to define these better or do away with these labels.

There are not just two sides here, people, the Founders or the SJWs and criticism of one does not mean total alliance with the other. It is more nuanced than that. And all sides have done a pretty poor job lately...
 
Last edited:
If 1 person said he was duped, maybe we should question who is telling the truth, him or Ascol. But there are 4 or 5 pastors who are all basically saying the same thing, that they were misled.

Also, didn't James White say something about the SBC being healthier in 1845 than now? You don't have to be an SJW to see that as a problematic statement since they were giving communion to man-stealers or those who profited from man-stealing.

I fully expect some feminists to use every sex abuse case to push feminism. But the Denhollenders are members of a solid 1689 church and so I would not expect them to fall for it. BUT, if the Founders are allies with ARBCA folks and Douglas Wilson, this also looks bad as well, if we want to be strict on judging folks by their allies.

And...it is really hard to judge anymore what folks mean when they say feminism, patriarchy, egalitarianism, and complementarianism. It has gotten to the point where we need to define these better or do away with these labels.

There are not just two sides here, people, the Founders or the SJWs and criticism of one does not mean total alliance with the other. It is more nuanced than that. And all sides have done a pretty poor job lately...

I didn't hear his comments about the SBC in 1845. Does anyone here seriously think our churches are stronger today than they were in 1845? The manstealer issue is a red-herring. There is a difference between those who had slaves in America and those who were involved in the slave trade. Dabney has a very good discussion on this in his book on the subject.

If one shares a platform with Beth Moore and Matt Chandler (and I'm only going on third party description of the panel I haven't seen it) then that is worrying. As I said there is nothing good that can come from associating with those people. I'm sure Denhollander's intention was very positive but people like Chandler and Moore should be avoided.

Many labels have become meaningless but it is clear what is being promoted by Beth Moore, Russell Moore and the like. I don't know what Beth Moore is even doing talking at these conventions, at churches nevermind what she's saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top