The Twitter Twirlies

Sharing Options

A few things have become increasingly clear to me in the aftermath of my most recent post on Rachael Denhollander and her continued efforts to get C.J. Mahaney. I bring this up because . . . well, because I would like to mention them.

First, set the stage in your mind by reading through this article on the recent firing of the estimable Sir Roger Scruton—how it was set-up, who demanded it, who facilitated it, who immediately collapsed in front of the demand, and how the whole process went down. There really is such a thing as a Twitter mob, and there really are ostensible conservative leaders who are afraid of that mob. Compare what Scruton was accused of saying with what he actually did say, and you don’t have to agree with what he did say to identify this as a hit job. Read through this article and recognize that this is a feature of the world we live in. Recognize also that we—being the copycats that we are—have parallels within our evangelical subculture.

Whenever I post something on the C.J. Mahany thing, it is most instructive to observe what might be called the Twitter twirlies afterward. So I recently posted something about this ongoing affair, and offered my arguments. Someone associated with C.J. reposts it. A collection of the cool kids react to that reposting with the whole face palm gif argument, with me using the term argument for the benefit of those who would like to believe they are somehow conducting one. Now in their minds, I was relegated to a theological leper colony some years ago, the same one they have now assigned to Sovereign Grace Churches. But now they are yelling at the new guys over the fence, telling them not to stand to close to me because of the cooties. The only argument they have is cool shaming. That would be my criticism. But in their defense, whenever they use it on the evangelical leaders who are playing the same role as the conservative MPs who called for the sacking of Scruton, it totally works for them. So there’s that.

Somebody else on Twitter was totally indignant over my “crap.” He still holds, the sneer went, to the view that says that men lay the concrete and women fluff the pillows. My response was “men don’t lay the concrete?” The reply came back, arch and full of starch, that men do lay the concrete, and women do as well. Somebody was sent to government schools when they shouldn’t have been, but while there, they certainly learned the catechism answers.

Two things may be observed here. One is to work with the illustration of concrete and pillows. What is the ratio of men to women in concrete work? And if we find that it is something like 97/3, is this difference the result of an oppressive patriarchy? Or is it the result of individual choices grounded on the fact that God gave men and women different natures? For, make no mistake, feminism in all its forms is a war against nature. And, as a wise man once said, naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret. You can drive nature out with a pitchfork, but she keeps returning. Feminism in all its forms is a war against nature and the God of nature, which means that is also a war against Scripture, and the God who revealed himself in Scripture. In short, it is a war on truth. The results you see around you.

And this relates to the constituencies that are developing around what Denhollander is now doing. The stalwart conservative leadership that has apparently committed to the pattern of folding whenever survivors demand it are going to discover that the ranks of these developing constituencies are crammed full of flat-out feminists. If you doubt what I say, just dispute something of theirs on Twitter and see what happens.

Last thing. I am certainly defending C.J. Mahaney, but fundamentally I am defending due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the other processes that adorn true biblical justice. In a word, I am defending western civilization, not just a man.

So run a thought experiment with me. If in the future some new evidence came out, and it was real evidence that met the biblical standards, and it was damning to C.J.’s case, I would certainly accept that new evidence, but would have nothing to apologize for. This is because you don’t condemn anyone, including a guilty man, on insufficient grounds. When the process is honest, and the grounds are sufficient, yes. Not before then. But if in the future some exculpatory evidence for C.J. came out, and it met the standards of biblical justice, those who are currently after him, or who caved to those who are currently after him, would have a lot to seek forgiveness for.

Justice matters.