According to google and other places, the word included in this title is inappropriate for a scholarly work. I’m surprised no one has said anything about this. Many were whining when Dracula made it to Logos and now this. I wonder what the author is trying to accomplish with such title? Then of course, cursing is tolerated by many who don’t mind posting F-bombs in Facebook and what not; so I’m sure many won’t mind having this since according to today’s standards this particular word is considered “Cool.” Here’s the link in case the picture doesn’t show: https://www.logos.com/product/185678/burying-white-privilege-resurrecting-a-badass-christianity
I personally don't like a subtitle like this but, from reading about this resource more, it appears the author is doing this purposefully in order to evoke an emotional response, especially from those of "white privilege".
Here is one review that explains this further - https://pres-outlook.org/2019/05/burying-white-privilege-resurrecting-a-badass-christianity/ This is a quote from the review:
"This book is a tough reading assignment. The language is intentionally and effectively provocative, rather than a clinical diagnosis with objective language and a clear protocol for addressing the disease. The book has no intention of offering either a happy ending or a how-to guide. Instead, it is a mirror with harsh lighting, intended to expose flaws with genuine righteous indignation. And it is unrelenting, because De La Torre anticipates the reader’s defense mechanism – an inclination to respond, “But I’m not like that!” – and shows how that response itself is characteristic of privilege."
Vulgar, as common. As the base for the Vulgate. Maybe usage these days, but I'd not be offended, since the meaning is well beyond its root meaning.
That's not to argue that DAL is wrong. I'd assume culture.
I don't know about a generalized privilege (lots of poor), but race is definitely alive and well in the 'church'. Of course, I voted myself, for the Roman Senate, to stop those awful Galatian Christians from entering our Achaia. More seriously, Jerusalemites knew exactly who the Galileans were.
Thanks for the link.
"De La Torre anticipates the reader’s defense mechanism – an inclination to respond, “But I’m not like that!” – and shows how that response itself is characteristic of privilege."
Ah, the old "If you're white, admission of your racism is evidence that you're racist, and denial of your racism is ALSO evidence that you are racist." Nothing wrong with that logic at all. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Honestly, the blatant false narrative of this book is more offensive than the inappropriate language in the title. Still, the addition of the inappropriate language in the title is bothersome, especially on a website I normally feel safe to have my kids navigate.
For a Cuban, he definitely has some nerve writing a book like that. He’s bashing America when Cuba is in no better shape. I was going to mention racism, but I didn’t want to spark more controversy (De la Torre ironically comes across as racist himself).
Yep, the book is definitely ironic. The saying ” Preacher, preach to yourself” rightly applies to this guy. It’s a pattern with cubans. Trust me, living in Florida and dealing with quite a few of them has helped me to get to know them really well. Cuba is number 1 and they wanna fight for their country from here, but when they’re in their country all they want to do is run away and keep quiet. It’s easier to criticize someone else’s country and be bold about it than actually taking the beam out of your own eye first.
Irony o ironies!
DAL
Our language is definitely coarsening. I truly regret that, but it's likely one of the least of our problems as a society. I question the wisdom of using coarse language as a means of provocation. Having said that, I'm neither surprised nor offended that Faithlife would offer this work. It has absolutely no appeal to me - but I suspect I'm not in the author's target audience. If I were, he'd likely have chosen a different title. But that's ok. It's not all about me, or about people like me.
"De La Torre anticipates the reader’s defense mechanism – an inclination to respond, “But I’m not like that!” – and shows how that response itself is characteristic of privilege." Ah, the old "If you're white, admission of your racism is evidence that you're racist, and denial of your racism is ALSO evidence that you are racist." Nothing wrong with that logic at all. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Honestly, the blatant false narrative of this book is more offensive than the inappropriate language in the title. Still, the addition of the inappropriate language in the title is bothersome, especially on a website I normally feel safe to have my kids navigate.
”This is the book that everybody who cares about contemporary American Christianity will want to read.”
So if you don’t read the book then you don’t care about contemporary American Christianity ?
Personally not overly concerned about the title. Context needs to be considered before getting offended by it. And obviously it is being used by the publisher / author to draw attention to the book and distinguish it from the next book on the shelf - to get it noticed - which it has been effective in doing since we are discussing it.
Each has their own way to parent and knows their children better than others but generally speaking if a child saw this title I would see it as a discussion starter with that child rather than seeing it as something to protect them from seeing in the first place. With each child being different the nature of conversation would vary accordingly.
For me as presented the premises of the book come across in a way that the book doesn’t appeal to me as one to pick up and read but if I was researching this topic I might purchase purely to gain this authors perspective to get a wide view of the topic. Reading only what appealed to me would or I agreed with would be pointless.
You've read it? Will you please give an outline of its argument? Thanks.
I'm seeing more books that tell me the church cares more about what the world thinks rather than caring more about the mission of telling what God thinks to the world.
It's not the title that is the problem.
Thanks y'all. I wasn't going to buy this, but my curiosity was piqued.
I'm not bothered by the word bad***. It's a common slang word meaning "ultra cool" or "tough guy". It's been in use since the 1950s. It does not bring to mind the human backside at all to me, so I don't consider it a vulgar word. Whether the derivation originally came from the three-letter word meaning the human backside is beside the point (there's some doubt about that -- many source think it's more likely that it came from a stubborn donkey). It no longer has that connection.
Can someone help me understand how we can deploy the wealth of tools we have in Logos to find all possible meanings for Eph 4:29; 5:4?
I wasn't going to buy this, but my curiosity was piqued.
So does that mean you bought it? If so I'd love to hear a review from you.
I wasn't going to buy this, but my curiosity was piqued. So does that mean you bought it? If so I'd love to hear a review from you.
Yes, I did buy it. That doesn't mean I've got time to read it any time soon. Will try to at least poke around in it and give you my thoughts, but no guarantees. I'm pretty busy these days.
According to google and other places, the word included in this title is inappropriate for a scholarly work
Thanks for bringing this to my attention - without the discussion in this thread I would have never gone to Amazon to preview this book - and follow Rosie in picking it up. It's an expansion of an opinion piece that appeared in a Baptist publication. And no, the "white" of the title is not intended to refer to skin color per se. And no, I've always assumed badass referred to an animal.
This is a quote from the review: "This book is a tough reading assignment. The language is intentionally and effectively provocative, rather than a clinical diagnosis with objective language and a clear protocol for addressing the disease. The book has no intention of offering either a happy ending or a how-to guide. Instead, it is a mirror with harsh lighting, intended to expose flaws with genuine righteous indignation. And it is unrelenting, because De La Torre anticipates the reader’s defense mechanism – an inclination to respond, “But I’m not like that!” – and shows how that response itself is characteristic of privilege."
This is a quote from the review:
This review sums up all I need to know. While I haven't read this particular title, I've read / listened to hundreds of arguments / provocateurs like this. It's just logically fallacious, agenda driven, sweeping generalizations, that are absolutely politically motivated.
Putting political parties aside, in the most general sense, there are two primary approaches to racism: 1. Disregard race, and treat all people the same, or 2. Focus on race, and treat people differently according to their race. This book clearly focuses on the latter. Treating people differently solely because of their race is, in my estimation, the basic premise of racism - and yes, treating white people differently, or telling them that they are guilty of something (white privilege) solely because they are white, is a racist premise (not to mention simply inaccurate). The anti-racism book is self-defeating.
My guess is that he will redefine 'racism' so that it can only be committed by groups of people whom he wants to be guilty of it - Again, a common tactic in the modern university.
Anyway, to anyone who reads it, feel free to post a review here. I'm sure it will elicit much discussion.
I will not -- by principle -- support monetarily an author that uses inappropriate language to be provocative, trendy, or marketing savvy. A Christian author who thinks he/she has something to say to the Church yet apparently does not understand that this is not appropriate is already showing that they lack the spiritual maturity to teach others. This is not to say that there could not be value in what is written (or said by some other provocative, "cool" preachers and teachers). However, God requires more from those who teach and that includes being examples to others. This clearly is a bad example.
I am not surprised however that people will actually do the reverse: buy the book precisely because of the attention its controversial title (and perhaps message) attracts. They prove this sort of tactics works and this is why authors will continue rather than be discouraged to do more of this. To each his own as we will all give an account for ourselves before the Lord (Matthew 16:27; Luke 6:46).
1. Disregard race, and treat all people the same
As in ...
"Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him — a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."
New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Col 3:9–11
I will not -- by principle -- support monetarily an author that uses inappropriate language to be provocative, trendy, or marketing savvy. A Christian author who thinks he/she has something to say to the Church yet apparently does not understand that this is not appropriate is already showing that they lack the spiritual maturity to teach others
Well said, Francis [Y]
According to google and other places, the word included in this title is inappropriate for a scholarly work.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that it takes both an author and a publisher to finalize a title like this. In this case it is Eerdmans. Generally I've always thought of Eerdmans as more of an academic publisher, so it makes me wonder whether this type of marketing/positioning has happened before or whether this is just an anomaly.
According to google and other places, the word included in this title is inappropriate for a scholarly work. One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that it takes both an author and a publisher to finalize a title like this. In this case it is Eerdmans. Generally I've always thought of Eerdmans as more of an academic publisher, so it makes me wonder whether this type of marketing/positioning has happened before or whether this is just an anomaly.
Hm. As an ESL person this discussion is very interesting (it is very difficult to put swearwords and other colorful language into the right cultural context and register - especially since usage depends so much on the specific subgroups and may rapidly change). I looked up 'badass' in several E-E dictionaries and most just give something like informal. Nearly all dictionaries recognize it may be a positive description of somebody, along the lines of tough, uncompromising, impressive and powerful, not afraid to get into trouble and admired for this quality (some see it as a general positive qualifier to denote something as very good).
Only the American Heritage Dictionary (which I didn't know before and which may be more conservative than others, given its chosen self-definition) thinks the adjective to be vulgar (in their opinion: vulgar slang). It may very well be that the word started to be used in the 1950s/60s as a slang word, but changed meaning - at least for those who use it actively - since then.
I personally don't think the book is meant to be academic / scholarly - it seems to aim at lay readers (and the publisher's decription "This is the book that everybody who cares about contemporary American Christianity will want to read." says so very clearly), in fact I checked twice that this is a Logos edition, not a FL eBook, since that's the shop I would have expected it to be sold.
Actually the subtitle leaves me puzzled - I'd expect authors like Doug Wilson or Mark Driscoll to argue for the return of "badass christianity", not somebody who fights against "white privilege". But then again, such things may be too cultural specific to the current US culture for me to understand from afar.
Still waiting for a review from someone who's actually read it.
I will not -- by principle -- support monetarily an author that uses inappropriate language to be provocative, trendy, or marketing savvy. A Christian author who thinks he/she has something to say to the Church yet apparently does not understand that this is not appropriate is already showing that they lack the spiritual maturity to teach others.
[Y]
The title and subtitle of this book suggests to me that the author almost certainly lacks the kind of substantive reasoning that would cause the premise of his book to stand on its own merit. It seems to me like a desire by the author and/or publisher is to profit off of the hyper-politicized atmosphere of these times. It certainly is in vogue today to attack "white privilege" and it seems that politicians and authors/publishers are more than happy to profit by attacking it.
Putting political parties aside, in the most general sense, there are two primary approaches to racism:
If you read a bit of the book - a page or two of the Amazon preview - you would know that your judgment is completely off base. The book is not about racism, it is about a church that has lost it's moral compass. I learned in high school to avoid a "yard mouth" -- one I had stuck three feet in. And I am concerned about our culture which encourages the making and sharing of judgments without sufficient information - think real crime shows with their pop surveys.
Thank you for admitting this is a guess. The guess is incorrect in that the topic is not racism. The book was commissioned by the publisher based on the reaction to an opinion piece that the author wrote. There is no reason to bring anti-academia into the discussion as it is a red herring.
