A couple months ago, Cosper went after Meg Basham and called her dishonest over a picayune mincing concerning the definition of a word. I realized then that he was problematic and this only serves to further cement that impression. He reminds me of a pastor I used to be in church with who joined a mainline denomination and spends inordinate amounts of time bashing conservative evangelicals on social media. They're all a sad bunch.
Don't know much about Cosper but do love the irony of catering to a left-wing audience with anecdotal evidence. The same people would probably scoff at anecdotal evidence of, say, the decline in child literacy, attention spans, and life satisfaction brought on by smartphones. It's all about demonstrating the right sort of curiosity about the right (invariably conservative) social phenomena, consistent evidentiary standards be damned.
“I’ve literally never met a deconstructing Christian where deconstruction preceded a shift in personal sexual ethics.”
It’s really weird that Cosper thinks *this* is what conservatives are claiming, that people deconstruct and then change their views on sex as a result. I’ve always heard people say, and thought personally based on my own observations, that people deconstruct *because* their views on sex changed. I think he thinks the same thing, but is couching it as “concern for LGBT friends and loved ones.” Honestly, even for the people whose public views on sex change after a public deconstruction, I often suspect the change in view actually came before, such as Joshua Harris.
It’s obvious that this would be the case because sex is *the* issue of our day. Just like people in the first century couldn’t get over the utter shamefulness of the Messiah being crucified, people today can’t get over being asked to mortify their desires - it’s a bridge too far for them. I always wonder if it’s possible to put that genie back in the bottle, so to speak. It seems that the reason there are so many sexual perversions (homosexual or otherwise) today is that people hear about them so quickly, and when they do, they’re normalized. Is it ever possible to un-normalize them? But then we also don’t want to go down the road of making temptations to that effect something unspeakable, so that people just have to suffer in silence.
Exactly. The shift in personal sexual ethics is chronologically prior, sometimes by years. The deconstruction, though, can serve as the first public acknowledgement of the pre-existing shift.
We can cut straight through all the falderal and justifications with an objective examination of human nature. These people are "deconstructing" or apostatizing because they want to have sex outside the confines of one-man, one-woman marriage. It really is as simple as that. They want license to do as they please.
First -- yes, please do let's not use "deconstruct." Such an odious, self-important word. It's probably sinful of me (I mean this), but I can easily sympathize with somebody who loses their faith or even apostatizes or succumbs to doubt or can no longer believe; but if somebody self-describes as "deconstructing," it is hard for me not to view them as bartering their soul for some kind of attempt at social media credibility. I realize this is not true, but the word is still just horrible.
Second -- yes, I too have met people who overtly gave up their faith over this and were honest enough to say so. I have, in fairness, also met people who did not change their position from the Christian sexual ethic in any appreciable way when they left. I suspect there are plenty of both, and I'm amazed Cosper hasn't met any.
May I hypothesize? Perhaps people who self-describe as "deconstructing" feel a pressure to be doing so for reasons of a particular type and respectability. Old vanilla apostates perhaps have more room for frankness here.
This resonates with me. I have also noticed there is a certain amount of social-media type of performative self-importance in claims to be deconstructing. I also think that the pressure you speak of to be deconstructing for certain reasons may go hand-in-hand with that social media performativity.
Another thing that I think isn't raised here is the question of whether those who describe themselves as deconstructing are always being honest in their stated reasons. Given the human tendency towards self-justification and excuse making, isn't it reasonable to conclude that at least some people who are deconstructing are liable to giving stated reasons for doing so that are actually not their real reasons. Given the prominence of evangelical bashing in certain sectors of social media, it seems like certain cliche reasons my be ready at hand for those who wish to use them.
Thank you for pointing out that anecdotal evidence cuts both ways. Additionally, the term "personal sexual ethic" is a bit confusing. I would conjecture that in most cases this term doesn't refer to a principled ethical stand, but personal preference. When people say they have a "personal sexual ethic," I'd like to know the principles upon which they base that ethic and the rules they derive from those principles. In most cases, the "ethic" is likely just an expression of emotivism.
Furthermore, immature faith can be encouraged. Doubt addressed. Denial addressed by Christ. (Luke 22:31-34; John 21)
Self control is fourth on the list of virtues, in 2 Peter 1:6 (see also v. 9)
Also, how many in our day get scared because some are dragging them to court over a past sin? How many are in fear and denial. (Good to see Jesus is Lord in Acts, in these situations. Let us pray others have strength, grace, wisdom and courage!)
See how Jesus treated His weak disciples (Gethsemane). He didn’t throw them out! All fled but one!
In my perpetual illiteracy (as my wife says) I thought a “canard” was a horizontal control surface forward (as opposed to normally aft) of the main wing (lift surface). I’m trying to put together an analogy but all I know (& remember from basic aeronautics from the AF Academy) is forward horizontal stabilizers (canards) were “inherently unstable”! It takes computers to “smooth them out”. Even the Wright brothers figured this out eventually. Have a nice day too!🤗❤️
If they “leave the faith,” they were never chosen to begin with. If they wander for a season, they are rebels; God will prevail. He sounds like Preston Sprinkle on X yesterday. Do they all get the morning memo from The Afterparty?
I think many of them are just generally shallow and highly prone to groupthink, even though they may not realize it. I spent two decades in progressive leaning church circles, and it was something I consistently observed. They're inordinately shaped by being trapped in the microcosm of their rebellion against the conservative evangelical subculture many of them came out of.
I have noticed sometimes people fall, are embarrassed and guilted, try to hide for a while, accusations come, and instead of receiving grace and forgiveness, YHWH’s patience, they finally give up faith, after perhaps much needling.
It’s true it’s difficult to go on sinning and be Christian, but God came after weak people. Notice John 12:47-48
I was sorely tempted when young for a while. Someone said shelve what isn’t helping you right now. I did and this gave me time to work on stress, pray about it. John 7:17
Then I finally decided the Bible was still for today, but had to pray for strength to give up bad thoughts, hopelessness about marriage.
Then they’re was the anger at unkind Christians seeming to reject me for what?
I recall finally thinking if I had a relationship, I’d finally have something to confess and they’d accept me. Satan is so subtle—at least I recognized this.
How can we as Christians recall people sin, offer grace which forgives, is patient, instead of decides the other is not a Christian anymore. I’ve seen what appears like Protestants and Catholics trying to trip each other to say the other side is not a Christian, to get followers,
Furthermore, the Prodigal sin was still a sin. The exiled Israelites and Judeans were still, except maybe some. Ezekiel 20 reminds us of grace. Another writer reminds us, people come back around. They come home again, “back to life again”. Luke 15:24, 32. It’s a terrible thing when it’s Christians who won’t grace or forgive (not talking about accepting sin in good standing church), but grace which is without gaps, and we do well to remember this. John 1:14-17, 29
My faith began to be strengthened taking communion publicly, at a sweet church, which reminded me of forgiveness I had as a child, which it seemed so many around me in their views of me socially (my mom’s friends) had seemed to forget.
Madame Guyon (I’ve heard, not read) is about a French woman who fell occasionally. God brought her back and used her.
A couple months ago, Cosper went after Meg Basham and called her dishonest over a picayune mincing concerning the definition of a word. I realized then that he was problematic and this only serves to further cement that impression. He reminds me of a pastor I used to be in church with who joined a mainline denomination and spends inordinate amounts of time bashing conservative evangelicals on social media. They're all a sad bunch.
Don't know much about Cosper but do love the irony of catering to a left-wing audience with anecdotal evidence. The same people would probably scoff at anecdotal evidence of, say, the decline in child literacy, attention spans, and life satisfaction brought on by smartphones. It's all about demonstrating the right sort of curiosity about the right (invariably conservative) social phenomena, consistent evidentiary standards be damned.
“I’ve literally never met a deconstructing Christian where deconstruction preceded a shift in personal sexual ethics.”
It’s really weird that Cosper thinks *this* is what conservatives are claiming, that people deconstruct and then change their views on sex as a result. I’ve always heard people say, and thought personally based on my own observations, that people deconstruct *because* their views on sex changed. I think he thinks the same thing, but is couching it as “concern for LGBT friends and loved ones.” Honestly, even for the people whose public views on sex change after a public deconstruction, I often suspect the change in view actually came before, such as Joshua Harris.
It’s obvious that this would be the case because sex is *the* issue of our day. Just like people in the first century couldn’t get over the utter shamefulness of the Messiah being crucified, people today can’t get over being asked to mortify their desires - it’s a bridge too far for them. I always wonder if it’s possible to put that genie back in the bottle, so to speak. It seems that the reason there are so many sexual perversions (homosexual or otherwise) today is that people hear about them so quickly, and when they do, they’re normalized. Is it ever possible to un-normalize them? But then we also don’t want to go down the road of making temptations to that effect something unspeakable, so that people just have to suffer in silence.
Exactly. The shift in personal sexual ethics is chronologically prior, sometimes by years. The deconstruction, though, can serve as the first public acknowledgement of the pre-existing shift.
We can cut straight through all the falderal and justifications with an objective examination of human nature. These people are "deconstructing" or apostatizing because they want to have sex outside the confines of one-man, one-woman marriage. It really is as simple as that. They want license to do as they please.
First -- yes, please do let's not use "deconstruct." Such an odious, self-important word. It's probably sinful of me (I mean this), but I can easily sympathize with somebody who loses their faith or even apostatizes or succumbs to doubt or can no longer believe; but if somebody self-describes as "deconstructing," it is hard for me not to view them as bartering their soul for some kind of attempt at social media credibility. I realize this is not true, but the word is still just horrible.
Second -- yes, I too have met people who overtly gave up their faith over this and were honest enough to say so. I have, in fairness, also met people who did not change their position from the Christian sexual ethic in any appreciable way when they left. I suspect there are plenty of both, and I'm amazed Cosper hasn't met any.
May I hypothesize? Perhaps people who self-describe as "deconstructing" feel a pressure to be doing so for reasons of a particular type and respectability. Old vanilla apostates perhaps have more room for frankness here.
This resonates with me. I have also noticed there is a certain amount of social-media type of performative self-importance in claims to be deconstructing. I also think that the pressure you speak of to be deconstructing for certain reasons may go hand-in-hand with that social media performativity.
Another thing that I think isn't raised here is the question of whether those who describe themselves as deconstructing are always being honest in their stated reasons. Given the human tendency towards self-justification and excuse making, isn't it reasonable to conclude that at least some people who are deconstructing are liable to giving stated reasons for doing so that are actually not their real reasons. Given the prominence of evangelical bashing in certain sectors of social media, it seems like certain cliche reasons my be ready at hand for those who wish to use them.
Thank you for pointing out that anecdotal evidence cuts both ways. Additionally, the term "personal sexual ethic" is a bit confusing. I would conjecture that in most cases this term doesn't refer to a principled ethical stand, but personal preference. When people say they have a "personal sexual ethic," I'd like to know the principles upon which they base that ethic and the rules they derive from those principles. In most cases, the "ethic" is likely just an expression of emotivism.
People like to decide about others. Those others may be confused due to 1 Corinthians 6:12, and bad advice.
Did you read Ezekiel 20? God emoting?
Romans 11:17-23
Let’s not be the stumble-makers, but work, pray, toward better understanding of grace, truth, redemption.
God justifies and He redeems. Let’s not decide He can’t. Matthew7:5
Furthermore, immature faith can be encouraged. Doubt addressed. Denial addressed by Christ. (Luke 22:31-34; John 21)
Self control is fourth on the list of virtues, in 2 Peter 1:6 (see also v. 9)
Also, how many in our day get scared because some are dragging them to court over a past sin? How many are in fear and denial. (Good to see Jesus is Lord in Acts, in these situations. Let us pray others have strength, grace, wisdom and courage!)
See how Jesus treated His weak disciples (Gethsemane). He didn’t throw them out! All fled but one!
In my perpetual illiteracy (as my wife says) I thought a “canard” was a horizontal control surface forward (as opposed to normally aft) of the main wing (lift surface). I’m trying to put together an analogy but all I know (& remember from basic aeronautics from the AF Academy) is forward horizontal stabilizers (canards) were “inherently unstable”! It takes computers to “smooth them out”. Even the Wright brothers figured this out eventually. Have a nice day too!🤗❤️
If they “leave the faith,” they were never chosen to begin with. If they wander for a season, they are rebels; God will prevail. He sounds like Preston Sprinkle on X yesterday. Do they all get the morning memo from The Afterparty?
I think many of them are just generally shallow and highly prone to groupthink, even though they may not realize it. I spent two decades in progressive leaning church circles, and it was something I consistently observed. They're inordinately shaped by being trapped in the microcosm of their rebellion against the conservative evangelical subculture many of them came out of.
Was still a son
Oops, prodigal son
I have noticed sometimes people fall, are embarrassed and guilted, try to hide for a while, accusations come, and instead of receiving grace and forgiveness, YHWH’s patience, they finally give up faith, after perhaps much needling.
It’s true it’s difficult to go on sinning and be Christian, but God came after weak people. Notice John 12:47-48
I was sorely tempted when young for a while. Someone said shelve what isn’t helping you right now. I did and this gave me time to work on stress, pray about it. John 7:17
Then I finally decided the Bible was still for today, but had to pray for strength to give up bad thoughts, hopelessness about marriage.
Then they’re was the anger at unkind Christians seeming to reject me for what?
I recall finally thinking if I had a relationship, I’d finally have something to confess and they’d accept me. Satan is so subtle—at least I recognized this.
How can we as Christians recall people sin, offer grace which forgives, is patient, instead of decides the other is not a Christian anymore. I’ve seen what appears like Protestants and Catholics trying to trip each other to say the other side is not a Christian, to get followers,
Furthermore, the Prodigal sin was still a sin. The exiled Israelites and Judeans were still, except maybe some. Ezekiel 20 reminds us of grace. Another writer reminds us, people come back around. They come home again, “back to life again”. Luke 15:24, 32. It’s a terrible thing when it’s Christians who won’t grace or forgive (not talking about accepting sin in good standing church), but grace which is without gaps, and we do well to remember this. John 1:14-17, 29
My faith began to be strengthened taking communion publicly, at a sweet church, which reminded me of forgiveness I had as a child, which it seemed so many around me in their views of me socially (my mom’s friends) had seemed to forget.
Madame Guyon (I’ve heard, not read) is about a French woman who fell occasionally. God brought her back and used her.
Until we walk in someone else’s shoes….
So let’s keep the faith for others! Mark 2:4-5
Great analysis, Anne!
I have to wonder if he's lying about his anecdotal evidence.