Vulgar title on prepub

Thanks for the link.

Christopher Bucklin said:

Bruce Dunning said:

"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.

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.

mab said:

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 possible due to both Jesus' discussion with the extra-religious jews (issue of hypocracy), and the good apostle Paul's emphasis on 'how things look', both relative to saving the jews and cosmos respectively.

I haven’t read the book but it got me curious enough to read the product description from the publisher revie website: 

Short. Timely. Poignant. Pointed. Burying White Privilege is all of these and more. This is the book that everybody who cares about contemporary American Christianity will want to read. 

Many people wonder how white Christians could not only support Donald Trump for president but also rush to defend an accused child molester running for the US Senate. In a 2017 essay that went viral, Miguel A. De La Torre boldly proclaimed the death of Christianity at the hands of white evangelical nationalists. He continues sounding the death knell in this book.

De La Torre argues that centuries of oppression and greed have effectively ruined evangelical Christianity in the United States. Believers and clerical leaders have killed it, choosing profits over prophets. The silence concerning—if not the doctrinal justification of—racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia has made white Christianity satanic. Prophetically calling Christian nationalists to repentance, De La Torre rescues the biblical Christ from the distorted Christ of white Christian imagination.

MJ. Smith said:

This is not the place to inject political partisan comments. If the forums cease to be a refuge from partisan crap, I'm out of here.

If you look at the author of the book and everything he does and writes about, it is most certainly political and partisan. Whyndell is simply reacting to it. Even the book's description reeks of it. 

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.

DAL said:

The author seems to be more into politics than “evangelicalism.”

Precisely. The same spiel comes from every nook and cranny in academia and the media and coating it with some "Christian" rhetoric doesn't make it either Christian or compelling.

DAL said:

He needs to repent and remove the beam from his eye before he can ”call people to repentance.”

Conviction and repentance are the work of God.

We all need to repent of things, DAL, but might not due to pride, arrogance, or foolishness on our part. Perhaps we should turn our attention to the sin that God sees in us?

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). 

Christopher Bucklin said:

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

Still waiting for a review from someone who's actually read it.

Provocative titles are used on academic works all the time. I'd say the title would offend certain tastes, but wouldn't call it vulgar.

I'd be tempted to buy it if I had more time to read.

Mattillo said:

I haven’t read the book but it got me curious enough to read the product description from the publisher revie website: 

Short. Timely. Poignant. Pointed. Burying White Privilege is all of these and more. This is the book that everybody who cares about contemporary American Christianity will want to read. 

Many people wonder how white Christians could not only support Donald Trump for president but also rush to defend an accused child molester running for the US Senate. In a 2017 essay that went viral, Miguel A. De La Torre boldly proclaimed the death of Christianity at the hands of white evangelical nationalists. He continues sounding the death knell in this book.

De La Torre argues that centuries of oppression and greed have effectively ruined evangelical Christianity in the United States. Believers and clerical leaders have killed it, choosing profits over prophets. The silence concerning—if not the doctrinal justification of—racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia has made white Christianity satanic. Prophetically calling Christian nationalists to repentance, De La Torre rescues the biblical Christ from the distorted Christ of white Christian imagination.

"Many people wonder how white Christians could not only support Donald Trump for president but also rush to defend an accused child molester running for the US Senate. In a 2017 essay that went viral, Miguel A. De La Torre boldly proclaimed the death of Christianity at the hands of white evangelical nationalists. He continues sounding the death knell in this book."

Really why is it that ole whitey church member is guilty cause he or she voted for Trump? Who else was there? Hillary- good grief spare me. And speaking of pedophiles- the Dem's are loaded with, not to mention every other kind of sexual pervert on Earth- so every "political" persuasion is guilty to no end. 

His dog whistle words 'white privilege' speaks volumes. Every Nation on Earth is guilty- sinfully guilty- and its not limited to 'white' people. If your gonna die on a hill this isn't it- its not from the Lord.

Whyndell Grizzard said:

Ben Amundgaard (Faithlife) said:

Hey y'all,

This thread is bordering on theological/political discussion. Please try to keep things within the forum guidelines.

Thanks!

And it may very well be but FL made a decision to sell this volume- knowing it had dog whistle words in its title and the content of the book would be generally offensive to a group of people. I know FL is based in Seattle- but has the liberal political influence taken root in the company?

Does not feel good when someone makes an unfair and unjust assumption about you when you just live their does it.

It's a book.  You can either buy it or not.  You seem to be implying that Logos shouldn't sell it, and this is where we are getting into dangerous territory.  You may not agree with the book, and I may not agree with the book, but when we start shouting down opposing viewpoints and accusing a company of being liberal whose job it is to sell books about theology containing various opinions, we are in trouble.  Calling Faithlife "liberal" for offering a book with which you disagree is wrong.  This reminds me of the Bart Ehrman discussion.  Because people disagree with his conclusions, they don't want his books in Logos.  This is so backwards.

I would rather Faithlife err on the side of offering resources and allow me to make the decision about whether to buy them or not than to make decisions based on whether or not some people might be offended.