This goal (the evasion of responsibility) is achieved through various tactics calculated against clarity & precision...
One defining feature of many Christian men today is the effeminate practice of covert and evasive speech.
Even worse is the fact that this manner of speaking is widely seen as the moral, "charitable," and polite manner of speech, to be praised, encouraged, & emulated.
(Thread)
This goal (the evasion of responsibility) is achieved through various tactics calculated against clarity & precision...
It is the widely accepted and prescribed method of communication for a "good Christian man."
Directness of speech, on the other hand, is considered a sign of bad manners, or even of sinfulness...
This man is seen as "arrogant," "divisive," "rude," "uncharitable," and unworthy of public engagement...
Only error can prosper in a climate of dogmatic ambiguity, and only truth can suffer as a result.
If we want true and lasting reform in the Church, this must change...
We must insist upon shining the sanitizing light of clear speech into every facet of evangelical culture...
More from Religion
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?