Responding to Mike Winger's Sectarianism - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Responding to Mike Winger's Sectarianism ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/pXq3XBFzgKI/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Responding to Mike Winger's Sectarianism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXq3XBFzgKI) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [christianity, religious-authority, biblical-interpretation] > author: Adonai and his Asher > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXq3XBFzgKI > date created: 2024-12-28 16:45 > > # 🏷️ Title: Responding to Mike Winger's sectarianism >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research New Testament contradictions on law observance — 05:23 #biblical-studies - [H2] Examine Jesus's renegotiation of Hebrew Bible teachings — 12:45 #christology - [H3] Analyze sectarian identity performance in religious discourse — 18:30 #religious-sociology ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Mike Winger's Original Statement](context-needed) - [Biblical Texts on Law Observance](various) ## 📝 Summary - A response to Mike Winger's claim that Christians cannot "invent their own version of Christianity" - Argues that all Christians must necessarily create their own interpretations due to biblical contradictions and lack of pure authority - Demonstrates how New Testament authors themselves disagreed on fundamental issues - Critiques Winger's arbitrary claims about Jesus's positions on contemporary issues - Bottom line: Christianity has always been pluralistic and interpretive, not monolithic ## 📖 Main Content The video responds to evangelical pastor Mike Winger's assertion that Christians cannot create their own versions of Christianity. The speaker argues this position is "profoundly uninformed" and presents three core arguments: **No Pure Christianity Exists**: Christianity functions as a social identity and conceptual category that cannot be reduced to necessary and sufficient features. Even using the New Testament as authority requires constant negotiation with contradictory texts and positions. **Multiple Written Versions**: Hundreds of different Christian doctrinal systems exist today, all resulting from different negotiation processes between individuals, their social contexts, received traditions, and authoritative texts. **Unique Lived Experience**: Every individual Christian's lived faith differs from all others, even when endorsing the same written doctrine, due to countless personal decisions and interpretations. The speaker challenges Winger's specific claims about Jesus's positions on corporal punishment, noting that Jesus never addressed child discipline directly and actually overruled Hebrew Bible positions on capital punishment in the adultery story. The video concludes by characterizing Winger's approach as authoritarian identity politics rather than genuine theological argument. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=0) — [H1] Mike Winger's core claim - Key idea: Claims Christians cannot invent their own version of Christianity - Evidence: "You don't get to invent your own version of Christianity... if I wanted to become Muslim, I don't get to create a new version of Islam" #### ⏱️ [01:15](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=75) — [H1] Response: Christianity invention is inevitable - Key idea: All Christians must inevitably create their own interpretations - Evidence: "Not only do you get to invent your own version of Christianity, you have absolutely no other choice" #### ⏱️ [02:30](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=150) — [H2] No pure Christianity exists - Key idea: Christianity is a social identity that cannot be reduced to fixed features - Evidence: "There is no pure Christianity and there is no authority over what Christianity is" #### ⏱️ [03:45](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=225) — [H2] New Testament lacks unified authority - Key idea: Even biblical authority requires interpretive choices between contradictory positions - Evidence: "You have to choose between a variety of different positions where the New Testament authors disagree" #### ⏱️ [05:23](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=323) — [H3] Example: Law of Moses observance - Key idea: Matthew and other NT authors disagree on Torah observance requirements - Evidence: "Does Christianity require you follow the law of Moses until the heavens and earth pass away? That depends on who you give priority to" #### ⏱️ [07:10](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=430) — [H3] Unifying frameworks impose interpretation - Key idea: Christians impose frameworks of inspiration and inerrancy to resolve contradictions - Evidence: "You have to reinterpret Matthew to bring the Gospel into alignment with other passages you've already decided to prioritize" #### ⏱️ [09:00](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=540) — [H2] Hundreds of written Christianities exist - Key idea: Multiple doctrinal systems result from different negotiation processes - Evidence: "There are hundreds and hundreds of different versions of Christianity on paper" #### ⏱️ [10:45](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=645) — [H2] Lived Christianity differs individually - Key idea: Personal faith experience creates unique constellations of belief - Evidence: "Every last Christian who has ever existed has made decisions... that will not match anyone else's" #### ⏱️ [12:45](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=765) — [H1] Winger's false binary critique - Key idea: Winger reduces Christianity to simple take-it-or-leave-it choice - Evidence: "Mike here would like you to believe that all Christianity is reducible down to a simple binary" #### ⏱️ [14:30](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=870) — [H3] Winger's arbitrary Jesus claims - Key idea: Winger declares Jesus's positions without textual evidence - Evidence: "Mike is just arrogating to himself the prerogative to declare arbitrarily... what Jesus would have believed" #### ⏱️ [16:15](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=975) — [H3] Jesus overruled capital punishment - Key idea: Jesus contradicted Hebrew Bible on execution in adultery story - Evidence: "Jesus says, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'... overruling what the Hebrew Bible says about capital punishment" #### ⏱️ [18:30](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=1110) — [H2] Jesus invented his own Judaism - Key idea: Jesus himself renegotiated received religious tradition - Evidence: "The Jesus of the New Testament is also inventing his own version of Greco-Roman period Judaism" #### ⏱️ [20:00](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=1200) — [H3] Identity markers vs. harm reduction - Key idea: Some Christians abandon harmful practices while maintaining faith - Evidence: "Other versions of Christianity... have abandoned those identity markers because they know they're harmful and stupid" #### ⏱️ [22:15](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=1335) — [H1] Winger's authoritarian performance - Key idea: Winger's rhetoric serves right-wing identity politics rather than theology - Evidence: "That helps gin up that collective effervescence of identity politics and in this case right-wing authoritarian identity politics" ## 📚 References - [Gospel of Matthew](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17-20&version=NRSV) - [Romans 13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NRSV) - [John 8 - Adultery Story](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=NRSV) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Christianity has always been interpretive because the New Testament contains contradictory teachings that require readers to make choices about which positions to prioritize - Every Christian necessarily creates their own version of faith through countless interpretive decisions, even when following established doctrines - Mike Winger's claims about "pure Christianity" ignore both historical reality and the diverse ways Christians have always negotiated between scripture, tradition, and contemporary concerns ## 📰 Newsletter **Rethinking Religious Authority in Digital Discourse** This week's spotlight examines how religious leaders navigate authority claims in an era of unprecedented access to original texts and critical scholarship. A response video to evangelical pastor Mike Winger highlights three key insights about religious interpretation: **The Interpretive Reality**: Even fundamentalist approaches to scripture require hundreds of interpretive decisions when biblical authors disagree. This creates space for legitimate diversity within religious traditions. **Digital Democratization**: Online platforms allow scholars and practitioners to directly challenge religious authorities' claims about "pure" doctrine, revealing the constructed nature of all religious systems. **Community Boundaries**: Religious leaders increasingly use authoritarian rhetoric not to convince outsiders but to maintain in-group solidarity and identity markers. **Practical Applications**: Understanding these dynamics helps community leaders, educators, and interfaith practitioners navigate religious diversity more effectively while respecting both tradition and critical inquiry. **Key Resources**: For deeper exploration, check academic resources on biblical criticism, sociology of religion, and the history of Christian thought. Resources: [Society of Biblical Literature](https://sbl-site.org/), [American Academy of Religion](https://aarweb.org/), [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create educational content on handling ideological diversity in technical communities - Education: Workshop on respectful engagement with authority claims in documentation - Community management: Guidelines for theological/philosophical discussions in tech spaces #### Community - Maintainers: Templates for handling doctrinal disagreements in faith-based projects - Contributors: Onboarding materials addressing diverse worldview integration - Sponsors: Transparent policies on supporting projects across ideological spectrum #### WordPress - Community: Guidelines for WordCamp presentations involving religious/political content - Training: Lesson plans on inclusive community building across belief systems - Documentation: Style guides for respectful treatment of diverse perspectives ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Religious authority claims become more rigid when challenged by accessible critical scholarship - Online platforms democratize religious interpretation by enabling direct textual engagement - Authoritarian religious rhetoric increases during periods of social instability - Digital communities require new frameworks for navigating traditional vs. progressive tensions ### 📊 Methodology - Content analysis of religious authority claims across digital platforms - Survey research on changing patterns of religious interpretation - Ethnographic study of online religious community dynamics ### ❓ Questions - How do digital platforms reshape traditional religious authority structures? - What role does critical biblical scholarship play in contemporary religious identity formation? - How can diverse communities maintain cohesion while respecting interpretive differences? ### 🔮 Future Research - Impact of AI-assisted biblical interpretation on religious authority - Cross-platform analysis of religious discourse patterns - Longitudinal study of religious community adaptation to digital environments ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Need for more nuanced approaches to religious diversity in secular spaces - Policy: Guidelines for handling religious expression in public forums - Education: Training on religious literacy for community managers - Community: Frameworks for productive interfaith and intra-faith dialogue ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 12th Grade (Flesch-Kincaid) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Video format with speaker presentation - Improve: Diagram showing New Testament contradictions, timeline of Christian doctrinal development #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Audio argumentation and verbal examples - Improve: Podcast-style summary with key points highlighted #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions of sectarianism, biblical interpretation, authority - Improve: Glossary of theological terms, comparison charts of different Christian traditions #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Structured argument progression - Improve: Interactive biblical contradiction explorer, step-by-step interpretation guide #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Three-part logical argument structure, cause-effect relationships - Improve: Decision tree for biblical interpretation, formal logic notation #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Response format engaging with another's arguments - Improve: Discussion prompts for interfaith dialogue groups #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual analysis and critique - Improve: Reflection questions on personal religious interpretation #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Limited environmental connections - Improve: Analogies to ecosystem diversity, organic development of traditions ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure in transcript - Improve: Detailed alt text for any visual elements #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard YouTube video controls - Improve: Chapter markers for key argument sections #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast video player interface - Improve: Transcript with adjustable text sizing #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript provided - Improve: Professional captions with speaker identification ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Engages with dominant American evangelical Christianity - Improve: Include perspectives from global Christianity, non-Western interpretive traditions #### Inclusive language - Present: Avoids exclusionary religious terminology - Improve: Define technical theological terms for broader audience #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear argument structure, logical progression - Improve: Content warnings for religious trauma, section summaries #### Representation - Present: Male speaker addressing male religious authority - Improve: Include diverse voices in religious interpretation discussions #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful critique without personal attack - Improve: Acknowledge emotional aspects of religious identity challenges ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Valid syllogism about interpretive necessity given textual contradictions - Inductive strength: Good evidence from specific biblical examples (Matthew vs. other texts) - Causal reasoning: Clear connection between social contexts and interpretive outcomes - Analogical strength: Effective comparison of Jesus's interpretive practices to contemporary ones #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Minor personal characterizations of Winger as "uninformed" - Straw man: Accurately represents Winger's binary position without distortion #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic but accessible, confident without being dismissive, passionate about intellectual honesty ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns present - Attack: Limited to intellectual critique rather than personal attack - Reverse victim/offender: No victimization reversal present - Emotional cues: Appeals to harm reduction (child welfare) as legitimate concern ## 🎯 Conclusion The video effectively demonstrates that religious interpretation is inherently pluralistic and that claims to "pure" Christianity ignore both historical reality and textual complexity. The practical takeaway is that religious diversity within traditions should be expected and respected rather than suppressed through authoritarian rhetoric. This connects to broader questions about how communities navigate authority, tradition, and change in digital environments where established hierarchies face new challenges from accessible scholarship and democratic participation. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad ### Religious interpretation requires negotiation with contradictory texts > [!quote] [Responding to Mike Winger's sectarianism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXq3XBFzgKI) by [[Adonai and his Asher]] via [[YouTube]]. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-28. > "You have to choose between a variety of different positions where the New Testament authors disagree with --- ## Full Transcript [00:10] All right, let's see it. [00:12] >> You don't get to invent your own version [00:13] of Christianity. I mean, this is just a [00:15] logical reality, right? Like, if I [00:16] wanted to become Muslim, I don't get to [00:18] create a new version of Islam. [00:19] >> So, this is just profoundly uninformed [00:22] and misguided. And it is very clear Mike [00:24] has never thought at all hard about any [00:27] of this because not only do you get to [00:30] invent your own version of Christianity, [00:32] you have absolutely no other choice but [00:34] to invent your own version of [00:36] Christianity. And I'm going to talk [00:38] about three reasons why that's the case. [00:41] To start, there's no such thing as pure [00:44] Christianity. Christian is a social [00:46] identity. It's a conceptual category. It [00:50] cannot be reduced to a set of necessary [00:53] and sufficient features. There is no [00:56] pure Christianity and there is no [00:58] authority over what Christianity is. And [01:01] no, the New Testament is not that [01:03] authority because even if you go try to [01:06] construct a view of Christianity from [01:08] the New Testament, you have to negotiate [01:10] with the text. You have to choose [01:13] between a variety of different positions [01:15] where the New Testament authors disagree [01:17] with each other. And so you are the one [01:20] who is inventing your version of [01:24] Christianity, even if you're just going [01:25] to the New Testament to try to find out [01:27] what Christianity is in the New [01:30] Testament. And I'll give you an example. [01:32] Does Christianity require you follow the [01:34] law of Moses until the heavens and the [01:36] earth pass away? Well, that depends on [01:39] who you give priority to. If you give [01:41] priority to the gospel of Matthew, then [01:43] yes, followers of Jesus are required to [01:45] follow the law of Moses until the [01:47] heavens and the earth pass away. If you [01:49] reject the authority of Matthew on that [01:52] question, then no, that is not required [01:55] of followers of Jesus. Now, what [01:58] Christians have done overwhelmingly is [02:01] imposed a unifying framework on the [02:03] Bible. The presupposition of [02:05] inspiration, of inherency, of [02:07] univocality, and of historicity. And [02:09] what that means is that you are not [02:11] allowed to let that tension stand. You [02:16] have to resolve that tension, which [02:18] means you have to reinterpret Matthew to [02:21] bring the Gospel of Matthew into [02:23] alignment [02:24] with the other passages you've already [02:27] decided are going to be prioritized and [02:30] are going to be centered in this [02:32] particular negotiation. [02:35] So you have to do that hundreds and [02:37] hundreds of times just to try to [02:39] construct a notion of Christianity from [02:42] the New Testament. Which means you are [02:44] inventing through all of your many [02:47] different choices, all of your many [02:49] different decisions about how to answer [02:51] these questions your own version of [02:54] Christianity. And that's just to get [02:55] something down on paper. And that brings [02:58] up the second issue. When we look around [03:00] the world today, there are hundreds and [03:02] hundreds of different versions of [03:04] Christianity on paper. And those [03:07] versions of Christianity on paper are [03:09] the outcome of that process of [03:11] negotiation between individuals in their [03:14] social and their historical [03:15] circumstances, their received tradition, [03:18] their goals for the future and the [03:21] authoritative texts. And because social [03:24] and historical circumstances, receive [03:26] traditions and goals for the future are [03:28] constantly changing, so too the outcomes [03:32] of those negotiations are also changing. [03:35] So we will always have new and different [03:38] versions of Christianity on paper. And [03:41] that brings up the third issue. The [03:43] version of Christianity that is on paper [03:45] will never [03:48] isometrically exactly identically match [03:51] anyone's lived Christianity because your [03:54] lived Christianity multiplies those [03:57] questions and those answers and those [03:59] decisions and those choices by hundreds [04:01] of hundreds of times and no two are [04:03] going to be exactly alike. So, every [04:05] last Christian who has ever existed has [04:09] made decisions and answered questions [04:11] and made choices about what their [04:13] Christianity is, that creates a [04:16] phenomenally complex constellation of [04:19] ideas about what their Christianity is [04:21] that will not match anyone else's. Even [04:24] if two people endorse the same version [04:27] of Christianity that is on paper, if [04:29] they talk about what their Christianity [04:31] is and how they live it, at some point [04:33] they are going to arrive at something [04:35] they disagree on. It might not be [04:37] something that they consider essential [04:39] or critical or central. [04:42] But the threshold of where that is is [04:44] also going to differ. So you cannot have [04:47] a pure Christianity. You cannot have an [04:50] authority over all Christianity. [04:52] Everyone invents their own version of [04:55] Christianity. Even if a bunch of people [04:57] get together and decide we're going to [04:59] agree on a short list of necessary and [05:03] sufficient features for our particular [05:05] version of Christianity. But once you [05:08] look beyond that threshold, which again [05:10] is going to differ from person to person [05:12] and from group to group, it all differs [05:14] from there. So yes, you absolutely [05:17] indisputably [05:19] get to invent your own version of [05:21] Christianity. In fact, again, you have [05:23] absolutely no other possible choice but [05:26] to invent your own version of [05:28] Christianity. [05:30] >> I have to believe it or not believe it. [05:31] Take it or leave it. [05:32] >> So Mike here would like you to believe [05:35] that all Christianity is reducible down [05:37] to a simple binary and you either take [05:40] it or leave it. You believe it or you [05:42] don't. which ignores that all versions [05:44] of Christianity have always involved a [05:47] number of different things that you can [05:49] take or leave because you can be a [05:51] Christian and you can leave something [05:54] that another brand of Christianity finds [05:56] central or critical or essential and you [05:59] can take something that another version [06:01] of Christianity actually thinks [06:03] disqualifies you from being Christian. [06:06] There is no single pure Christianity. [06:09] every lived Christianity is different [06:12] from every other one. And even if we're [06:14] talking about the doctrinal kind of [06:15] Christianity you can write down on [06:17] paper, there are thousands of different [06:19] versions of that. And again, it all goes [06:21] back to attempts to construct [06:24] Christianity from a pluroiform [06:26] collection of texts that frequently [06:28] disagree with each other regarding what [06:30] Christianity is, who Jesus was, and what [06:33] being a follower of Jesus demands of [06:36] you. But if you take the label Christ [06:38] and then you stand for things that Jesus [06:40] is opposed to, right? Like Jesus would [06:42] have believed the Old Testament where it [06:43] talked about disciplining your kids. [06:44] Jesus would have believed the Old [06:45] Testament where it talked about corporal [06:47] punishment, including Romans 13 where we [06:49] read that even after the uh advent of [06:52] Christ, we have an affirmation of [06:54] corporal punishment of the death penalty [06:56] actually. So here Mike is just [06:57] arrogating to himself the prerogative to [07:00] declare arbitrarily and without argument [07:02] what Jesus would have believed on [07:05] questions that are nowhere answered by [07:07] Jesus in the New Testament. But even if [07:09] we did have answers in the New [07:10] Testament, remember the New Testament [07:12] frequently disagrees with itself. And [07:14] when it comes to capital punishment, we [07:16] actually have in the New Testament Jesus [07:19] overruuling the Hebrew Bible's position [07:22] on capital punishment when he refuses to [07:25] endorse the execution of a woman who was [07:29] supposed to have been caught in the very [07:31] act of adultery with some guy who was [07:34] also engaged in adultery but was just [07:36] let off. Jesus says, "Let he who is [07:40] without sin cast the first stone." [07:42] sidest stepping, overruling, undermining [07:45] what the Hebrew Bible says about capital [07:48] punishment. So Mike here is disagreeing [07:51] with Jesus, or at least the Jesus of [07:55] this particular story, which critical [07:57] scholars today agree was not written by [08:00] the author of the Gospel of John, was [08:01] only added to the text centuries later. [08:04] So there's a question we have to answer [08:07] before we decide what Jesus would have [08:09] believed about these things. Throughout [08:11] the New Testament, we find instances [08:13] where Jesus is actually altering what [08:16] the Hebrew Bible says and is being [08:18] accused by others of altering or [08:21] ignoring or contradicting things the [08:24] Hebrew Bible says. because the Jesus of [08:27] the New Testament is also inventing his [08:30] own version of Greor Roman period [08:32] Judaism which he had no other possible [08:36] choice but to do and this is one of the [08:38] reasons you find a lot of different [08:39] versions of Jesus in the New Testament [08:42] because they're all using Jesus to [08:44] facilitate their invention of their own [08:47] version of Greor Roman period Judaism [08:49] and then this way of Jesus following [08:52] which would become known as [08:54] Christianity. [08:55] So these things are important and [08:57] they're genuinely connected to [08:59] Christianity. [09:00] >> Well, they're genuinely connected to [09:02] Christianity as identity markers for [09:04] certain versions of Christianity that [09:06] people have invented. And there are [09:08] other versions of Christianity that [09:10] people have invented that have abandoned [09:12] those identity markers because they know [09:15] they're harmful and stupid. And so they [09:19] would rather be better parents and raise [09:22] better children than wave around an [09:25] identity marker that hurts people. [09:27] >> And I know you don't like them. You may [09:28] not enjoy them. Just don't be Christian [09:30] then. But don't kid yourself and pretend [09:31] the blood of Jesus is covering you when [09:33] you spit in the face of the things that [09:35] Jesus believes and taught and stood for. [09:38] That's not Christian. That is an [09:40] incredible offense to Christ. [09:43] So, nothing in this video demonstrates [09:45] that believing it's not okay to hit your [09:49] kids is spitting in the face of the [09:51] things that Jesus taught because Jesus [09:54] never taught anything related to that. [09:56] And all Mike has done in this video is [09:58] assert again arbitrarily without [10:00] argument that Jesus would have accepted [10:04] the endorsement of beating your kids [10:06] from the Old Testament. There are no [10:08] data that indicate that and Mike is [10:10] certainly not going to engage the fact [10:12] that Jesus renegotiates an awful lot of [10:15] what's going on in the Hebrew Bible and [10:18] that the authors of the New Testament [10:20] renegotiate an awful lot of what Jesus [10:23] stood for and disagreed with each other [10:26] in a lot of different ways. So Mike has [10:27] not demonstrated a single word of this. [10:30] Saying it's wrong to hit your kids [10:32] doesn't spit in the face of anything [10:34] that Jesus taught. It just disagrees [10:37] with the version of Christianity that [10:40] Mike has invented and is endorsing and [10:44] is performing conviction regarding not [10:47] to convince anybody who doesn't already [10:49] agree but to perform confidence and [10:52] conviction for people who already agree [10:54] and not because they need to be [10:56] convinced of anything but just because [10:59] that helps jin up that collective [11:01] effervescence of identity politics and [11:04] in this case right-wing authorit arian [11:07] identity politics. People who hit their [11:08] kids are going to feel better about [11:10] hitting their kids if Mike can say, [11:13] "Well, it's spitting in the face of the [11:15] things Jesus taught to say, no, the [11:17] Bible's wrong. You shouldn't beat your [11:20] kids." And that's just pathetic. And the [11:22] fit for this video has been Adonai and [11:24] his Asher.  [[3. Resources/Readwise/Full Document Contents/Articles/Responding to Mike Winger's Sectarianism|Full Document Contents]] ## Document Notes --- tags: #christianity #religious-authority #biblical-interpretation author: Adonai and his Asher source: YouTube reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXq3XBFzgKI date created: 2024-12-28 16:45 --- # 🏷️ Title: Responding to Mike Winger's sectarianism ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research New Testament contradictions on law observance — 05:23 #biblical-studies - [H2] Examine Jesus's renegotiation of Hebrew Bible teachings — 12:45 #christology - [H3] Analyze sectarian identity performance in religious discourse — 18:30 #religious-sociology ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Mike Winger's Original Statement](context-needed) - [Biblical Texts on Law Observance](various) ## 📝 Summary - A response to Mike Winger's claim that Christians cannot "invent their own version of Christianity" - Argues that all Christians must necessarily create their own interpretations due to biblical contradictions and lack of pure authority - Demonstrates how New Testament authors themselves disagreed on fundamental issues - Critiques Winger's arbitrary claims about Jesus's positions on contemporary issues - Bottom line: Christianity has always been pluralistic and interpretive, not monolithic ## 📖 Main Content The video responds to evangelical pastor Mike Winger's assertion that Christians cannot create their own versions of Christianity. The speaker argues this position is "profoundly uninformed" and presents three core arguments: **No Pure Christianity Exists**: Christianity functions as a social identity and conceptual category that cannot be reduced to necessary and sufficient features. Even using the New Testament as authority requires constant negotiation with contradictory texts and positions. **Multiple Written Versions**: Hundreds of different Christian doctrinal systems exist today, all resulting from different negotiation processes between individuals, their social contexts, received traditions, and authoritative texts. **Unique Lived Experience**: Every individual Christian's lived faith differs from all others, even when endorsing the same written doctrine, due to countless personal decisions and interpretations. The speaker challenges Winger's specific claims about Jesus's positions on corporal punishment, noting that Jesus never addressed child discipline directly and actually overruled Hebrew Bible positions on capital punishment in the adultery story. The video concludes by characterizing Winger's approach as authoritarian identity politics rather than genuine theological argument. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=0) — [H1] Mike Winger's core claim - Key idea: Claims Christians cannot invent their own version of Christianity - Evidence: "You don't get to invent your own version of Christianity... if I wanted to become Muslim, I don't get to create a new version of Islam" #### ⏱️ [01:15](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=75) — [H1] Response: Christianity invention is inevitable - Key idea: All Christians must inevitably create their own interpretations - Evidence: "Not only do you get to invent your own version of Christianity, you have absolutely no other choice" #### ⏱️ [02:30](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=150) — [H2] No pure Christianity exists - Key idea: Christianity is a social identity that cannot be reduced to fixed features - Evidence: "There is no pure Christianity and there is no authority over what Christianity is" #### ⏱️ [03:45](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=225) — [H2] New Testament lacks unified authority - Key idea: Even biblical authority requires interpretive choices between contradictory positions - Evidence: "You have to choose between a variety of different positions where the New Testament authors disagree" #### ⏱️ [05:23](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=323) — [H3] Example: Law of Moses observance - Key idea: Matthew and other NT authors disagree on Torah observance requirements - Evidence: "Does Christianity require you follow the law of Moses until the heavens and earth pass away? That depends on who you give priority to" #### ⏱️ [07:10](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=430) — [H3] Unifying frameworks impose interpretation - Key idea: Christians impose frameworks of inspiration and inerrancy to resolve contradictions - Evidence: "You have to reinterpret Matthew to bring the Gospel into alignment with other passages you've already decided to prioritize" #### ⏱️ [09:00](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=540) — [H2] Hundreds of written Christianities exist - Key idea: Multiple doctrinal systems result from different negotiation processes - Evidence: "There are hundreds and hundreds of different versions of Christianity on paper" #### ⏱️ [10:45](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=645) — [H2] Lived Christianity differs individually - Key idea: Personal faith experience creates unique constellations of belief - Evidence: "Every last Christian who has ever existed has made decisions... that will not match anyone else's" #### ⏱️ [12:45](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=765) — [H1] Winger's false binary critique - Key idea: Winger reduces Christianity to simple take-it-or-leave-it choice - Evidence: "Mike here would like you to believe that all Christianity is reducible down to a simple binary" #### ⏱️ [14:30](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=870) — [H3] Winger's arbitrary Jesus claims - Key idea: Winger declares Jesus's positions without textual evidence - Evidence: "Mike is just arrogating to himself the prerogative to declare arbitrarily... what Jesus would have believed" #### ⏱️ [16:15](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=975) — [H3] Jesus overruled capital punishment - Key idea: Jesus contradicted Hebrew Bible on execution in adultery story - Evidence: "Jesus says, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'... overruling what the Hebrew Bible says about capital punishment" #### ⏱️ [18:30](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=1110) — [H2] Jesus invented his own Judaism - Key idea: Jesus himself renegotiated received religious tradition - Evidence: "The Jesus of the New Testament is also inventing his own version of Greco-Roman period Judaism" #### ⏱️ [20:00](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=1200) — [H3] Identity markers vs. harm reduction - Key idea: Some Christians abandon harmful practices while maintaining faith - Evidence: "Other versions of Christianity... have abandoned those identity markers because they know they're harmful and stupid" #### ⏱️ [22:15](https://youtu.be/pXq3XBFzgKI?t=1335) — [H1] Winger's authoritarian performance - Key idea: Winger's rhetoric serves right-wing identity politics rather than theology - Evidence: "That helps gin up that collective effervescence of identity politics and in this case right-wing authoritarian identity politics" ## 📚 References - [Gospel of Matthew](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17-20&version=NRSV) - [Romans 13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NRSV) - [John 8 - Adultery Story](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=NRSV) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Christianity has always been interpretive because the New Testament contains contradictory teachings that require readers to make choices about which positions to prioritize - Every Christian necessarily creates their own version of faith through countless interpretive decisions, even when following established doctrines - Mike Winger's claims about "pure Christianity" ignore both historical reality and the diverse ways Christians have always negotiated between scripture, tradition, and contemporary concerns ## 📰 Newsletter **Rethinking Religious Authority in Digital Discourse** This week's spotlight examines how religious leaders navigate authority claims in an era of unprecedented access to original texts and critical scholarship. A response video to evangelical pastor Mike Winger highlights three key insights about religious interpretation: **The Interpretive Reality**: Even fundamentalist approaches to scripture require hundreds of interpretive decisions when biblical authors disagree. This creates space for legitimate diversity within religious traditions. **Digital Democratization**: Online platforms allow scholars and practitioners to directly challenge religious authorities' claims about "pure" doctrine, revealing the constructed nature of all religious systems. **Community Boundaries**: Religious leaders increasingly use authoritarian rhetoric not to convince outsiders but to maintain in-group solidarity and identity markers. **Practical Applications**: Understanding these dynamics helps community leaders, educators, and interfaith practitioners navigate religious diversity more effectively while respecting both tradition and critical inquiry. **Key Resources**: For deeper exploration, check academic resources on biblical criticism, sociology of religion, and the history of Christian thought. Resources: [Society of Biblical Literature](https://sbl-site.org/), [American Academy of Religion](https://aarweb.org/), [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create educational content on handling ideological diversity in technical communities - Education: Workshop on respectful engagement with authority claims in documentation - Community management: Guidelines for theological/philosophical discussions in tech spaces #### Community - Maintainers: Templates for handling doctrinal disagreements in faith-based projects - Contributors: Onboarding materials addressing diverse worldview integration - Sponsors: Transparent policies on supporting projects across ideological spectrum #### WordPress - Community: Guidelines for WordCamp presentations involving religious/political content - Training: Lesson plans on inclusive community building across belief systems - Documentation: Style guides for respectful treatment of diverse perspectives ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Religious authority claims become more rigid when challenged by accessible critical scholarship - Online platforms democratize religious interpretation by enabling direct textual engagement - Authoritarian religious rhetoric increases during periods of social instability - Digital communities require new frameworks for navigating traditional vs. progressive tensions ### 📊 Methodology - Content analysis of religious authority claims across digital platforms - Survey research on changing patterns of religious interpretation - Ethnographic study of online religious community dynamics ### ❓ Questions - How do digital platforms reshape traditional religious authority structures? - What role does critical biblical scholarship play in contemporary religious identity formation? - How can diverse communities maintain cohesion while respecting interpretive differences? ### 🔮 Future Research - Impact of AI-assisted biblical interpretation on religious authority - Cross-platform analysis of religious discourse patterns - Longitudinal study of religious community adaptation to digital environments ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Need for more nuanced approaches to religious diversity in secular spaces - Policy: Guidelines for handling religious expression in public forums - Education: Training on religious literacy for community managers - Community: Frameworks for productive interfaith and intra-faith dialogue ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 12th Grade (Flesch-Kincaid) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Video format with speaker presentation - Improve: Diagram showing New Testament contradictions, timeline of Christian doctrinal development #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Audio argumentation and verbal examples - Improve: Podcast-style summary with key points highlighted #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions of sectarianism, biblical interpretation, authority - Improve: Glossary of theological terms, comparison charts of different Christian traditions #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Structured argument progression - Improve: Interactive biblical contradiction explorer, step-by-step interpretation guide #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Three-part logical argument structure, cause-effect relationships - Improve: Decision tree for biblical interpretation, formal logic notation #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Response format engaging with another's arguments - Improve: Discussion prompts for interfaith dialogue groups #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual analysis and critique - Improve: Reflection questions on personal religious interpretation #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Limited environmental connections - Improve: Analogies to ecosystem diversity, organic development of traditions ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure in transcript - Improve: Detailed alt text for any visual elements #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard YouTube video controls - Improve: Chapter markers for key argument sections #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast video player interface - Improve: Transcript with adjustable text sizing #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript provided - Improve: Professional captions with speaker identification ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Engages with dominant American evangelical Christianity - Improve: Include perspectives from global Christianity, non-Western interpretive traditions #### Inclusive language - Present: Avoids exclusionary religious terminology - Improve: Define technical theological terms for broader audience #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear argument structure, logical progression - Improve: Content warnings for religious trauma, section summaries #### Representation - Present: Male speaker addressing male religious authority - Improve: Include diverse voices in religious interpretation discussions #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful critique without personal attack - Improve: Acknowledge emotional aspects of religious identity challenges ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Valid syllogism about interpretive necessity given textual contradictions - Inductive strength: Good evidence from specific biblical examples (Matthew vs. other texts) - Causal reasoning: Clear connection between social contexts and interpretive outcomes - Analogical strength: Effective comparison of Jesus's interpretive practices to contemporary ones #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Minor personal characterizations of Winger as "uninformed" - Straw man: Accurately represents Winger's binary position without distortion #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic but accessible, confident without being dismissive, passionate about intellectual honesty ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns present - Attack: Limited to intellectual critique rather than personal attack - Reverse victim/offender: No victimization reversal present - Emotional cues: Appeals to harm reduction (child welfare) as legitimate concern ## 🎯 Conclusion The video effectively demonstrates that religious interpretation is inherently pluralistic and that claims to "pure" Christianity ignore both historical reality and textual complexity. The practical takeaway is that religious diversity within traditions should be expected and respected rather than suppressed through authoritarian rhetoric. This connects to broader questions about how communities navigate authority, tradition, and change in digital environments where established hierarchies face new challenges from accessible scholarship and democratic participation. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad ### Religious interpretation requires negotiation with contradictory texts > [!quote] [Responding to Mike Winger's sectarianism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXq3XBFzgKI) by [[Adonai and his Asher]] via [[YouTube]]. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-28. > "You have to choose between a variety of different positions where the New Testament authors disagree with --- ## Full Transcript [00:10] All right, let's see it. [00:12] >> You don't get to invent your own version [00:13] of Christianity. I mean, this is just a [00:15] logical reality, right? Like, if I [00:16] wanted to become Muslim, I don't get to [00:18] create a new version of Islam. [00:19] >> So, this is just profoundly uninformed [00:22] and misguided. And it is very clear Mike [00:24] has never thought at all hard about any [00:27] of this because not only do you get to [00:30] invent your own version of Christianity, [00:32] you have absolutely no other choice but [00:34] to invent your own version of [00:36] Christianity. And I'm going to talk [00:38] about three reasons why that's the case. [00:41] To start, there's no such thing as pure [00:44] Christianity. Christian is a social [00:46] identity. It's a conceptual category. It [00:50] cannot be reduced to a set of necessary [00:53] and sufficient features. There is no [00:56] pure Christianity and there is no [00:58] authority over what Christianity is. And [01:01] no, the New Testament is not that [01:03] authority because even if you go try to [01:06] construct a view of Christianity from [01:08] the New Testament, you have to negotiate [01:10] with the text. You have to choose [01:13] between a variety of different positions [01:15] where the New Testament authors disagree [01:17] with each other. And so you are the one [01:20] who is inventing your version of [01:24] Christianity, even if you're just going [01:25] to the New Testament to try to find out [01:27] what Christianity is in the New [01:30] Testament. And I'll give you an example. [01:32] Does Christianity require you follow the [01:34] law of Moses until the heavens and the [01:36] earth pass away? Well, that depends on [01:39] who you give priority to. If you give [01:41] priority to the gospel of Matthew, then [01:43] yes, followers of Jesus are required to [01:45] follow the law of Moses until the [01:47] heavens and the earth pass away. If you [01:49] reject the authority of Matthew on that [01:52] question, then no, that is not required [01:55] of followers of Jesus. Now, what [01:58] Christians have done overwhelmingly is [02:01] imposed a unifying framework on the [02:03] Bible. The presupposition of [02:05] inspiration, of inherency, of [02:07] univocality, and of historicity. And [02:09] what that means is that you are not [02:11] allowed to let that tension stand. You [02:16] have to resolve that tension, which [02:18] means you have to reinterpret Matthew to [02:21] bring the Gospel of Matthew into [02:23] alignment [02:24] with the other passages you've already [02:27] decided are going to be prioritized and [02:30] are going to be centered in this [02:32] particular negotiation. [02:35] So you have to do that hundreds and [02:37] hundreds of times just to try to [02:39] construct a notion of Christianity from [02:42] the New Testament. Which means you are [02:44] inventing through all of your many [02:47] different choices, all of your many [02:49] different decisions about how to answer [02:51] these questions your own version of [02:54] Christianity. And that's just to get [02:55] something down on paper. And that brings [02:58] up the second issue. When we look around [03:00] the world today, there are hundreds and [03:02] hundreds of different versions of [03:04] Christianity on paper. And those [03:07] versions of Christianity on paper are [03:09] the outcome of that process of [03:11] negotiation between individuals in their [03:14] social and their historical [03:15] circumstances, their received tradition, [03:18] their goals for the future and the [03:21] authoritative texts. And because social [03:24] and historical circumstances, receive [03:26] traditions and goals for the future are [03:28] constantly changing, so too the outcomes [03:32] of those negotiations are also changing. [03:35] So we will always have new and different [03:38] versions of Christianity on paper. And [03:41] that brings up the third issue. The [03:43] version of Christianity that is on paper [03:45] will never [03:48] isometrically exactly identically match [03:51] anyone's lived Christianity because your [03:54] lived Christianity multiplies those [03:57] questions and those answers and those [03:59] decisions and those choices by hundreds [04:01] of hundreds of times and no two are [04:03] going to be exactly alike. So, every [04:05] last Christian who has ever existed has [04:09] made decisions and answered questions [04:11] and made choices about what their [04:13] Christianity is, that creates a [04:16] phenomenally complex constellation of [04:19] ideas about what their Christianity is [04:21] that will not match anyone else's. Even [04:24] if two people endorse the same version [04:27] of Christianity that is on paper, if [04:29] they talk about what their Christianity [04:31] is and how they live it, at some point [04:33] they are going to arrive at something [04:35] they disagree on. It might not be [04:37] something that they consider essential [04:39] or critical or central. [04:42] But the threshold of where that is is [04:44] also going to differ. So you cannot have [04:47] a pure Christianity. You cannot have an [04:50] authority over all Christianity. [04:52] Everyone invents their own version of [04:55] Christianity. Even if a bunch of people [04:57] get together and decide we're going to [04:59] agree on a short list of necessary and [05:03] sufficient features for our particular [05:05] version of Christianity. But once you [05:08] look beyond that threshold, which again [05:10] is going to differ from person to person [05:12] and from group to group, it all differs [05:14] from there. So yes, you absolutely [05:17] indisputably [05:19] get to invent your own version of [05:21] Christianity. In fact, again, you have [05:23] absolutely no other possible choice but [05:26] to invent your own version of [05:28] Christianity. [05:30] >> I have to believe it or not believe it. [05:31] Take it or leave it. [05:32] >> So Mike here would like you to believe [05:35] that all Christianity is reducible down [05:37] to a simple binary and you either take [05:40] it or leave it. You believe it or you [05:42] don't. which ignores that all versions [05:44] of Christianity have always involved a [05:47] number of different things that you can [05:49] take or leave because you can be a [05:51] Christian and you can leave something [05:54] that another brand of Christianity finds [05:56] central or critical or essential and you [05:59] can take something that another version [06:01] of Christianity actually thinks [06:03] disqualifies you from being Christian. [06:06] There is no single pure Christianity. [06:09] every lived Christianity is different [06:12] from every other one. And even if we're [06:14] talking about the doctrinal kind of [06:15] Christianity you can write down on [06:17] paper, there are thousands of different [06:19] versions of that. And again, it all goes [06:21] back to attempts to construct [06:24] Christianity from a pluroiform [06:26] collection of texts that frequently [06:28] disagree with each other regarding what [06:30] Christianity is, who Jesus was, and what [06:33] being a follower of Jesus demands of [06:36] you. But if you take the label Christ [06:38] and then you stand for things that Jesus [06:40] is opposed to, right? Like Jesus would [06:42] have believed the Old Testament where it [06:43] talked about disciplining your kids. [06:44] Jesus would have believed the Old [06:45] Testament where it talked about corporal [06:47] punishment, including Romans 13 where we [06:49] read that even after the uh advent of [06:52] Christ, we have an affirmation of [06:54] corporal punishment of the death penalty [06:56] actually. So here Mike is just [06:57] arrogating to himself the prerogative to [07:00] declare arbitrarily and without argument [07:02] what Jesus would have believed on [07:05] questions that are nowhere answered by [07:07] Jesus in the New Testament. But even if [07:09] we did have answers in the New [07:10] Testament, remember the New Testament [07:12] frequently disagrees with itself. And [07:14] when it comes to capital punishment, we [07:16] actually have in the New Testament Jesus [07:19] overruuling the Hebrew Bible's position [07:22] on capital punishment when he refuses to [07:25] endorse the execution of a woman who was [07:29] supposed to have been caught in the very [07:31] act of adultery with some guy who was [07:34] also engaged in adultery but was just [07:36] let off. Jesus says, "Let he who is [07:40] without sin cast the first stone." [07:42] sidest stepping, overruling, undermining [07:45] what the Hebrew Bible says about capital [07:48] punishment. So Mike here is disagreeing [07:51] with Jesus, or at least the Jesus of [07:55] this particular story, which critical [07:57] scholars today agree was not written by [08:00] the author of the Gospel of John, was [08:01] only added to the text centuries later. [08:04] So there's a question we have to answer [08:07] before we decide what Jesus would have [08:09] believed about these things. Throughout [08:11] the New Testament, we find instances [08:13] where Jesus is actually altering what [08:16] the Hebrew Bible says and is being [08:18] accused by others of altering or [08:21] ignoring or contradicting things the [08:24] Hebrew Bible says. because the Jesus of [08:27] the New Testament is also inventing his [08:30] own version of Greor Roman period [08:32] Judaism which he had no other possible [08:36] choice but to do and this is one of the [08:38] reasons you find a lot of different [08:39] versions of Jesus in the New Testament [08:42] because they're all using Jesus to [08:44] facilitate their invention of their own [08:47] version of Greor Roman period Judaism [08:49] and then this way of Jesus following [08:52] which would become known as [08:54] Christianity. [08:55] So these things are important and [08:57] they're genuinely connected to [08:59] Christianity. [09:00] >> Well, they're genuinely connected to [09:02] Christianity as identity markers for [09:04] certain versions of Christianity that [09:06] people have invented. And there are [09:08] other versions of Christianity that [09:10] people have invented that have abandoned [09:12] those identity markers because they know [09:15] they're harmful and stupid. And so they [09:19] would rather be better parents and raise [09:22] better children than wave around an [09:25] identity marker that hurts people. [09:27] >> And I know you don't like them. You may [09:28] not enjoy them. Just don't be Christian [09:30] then. But don't kid yourself and pretend [09:31] the blood of Jesus is covering you when [09:33] you spit in the face of the things that [09:35] Jesus believes and taught and stood for. [09:38] That's not Christian. That is an [09:40] incredible offense to Christ. [09:43] So, nothing in this video demonstrates [09:45] that believing it's not okay to hit your [09:49] kids is spitting in the face of the [09:51] things that Jesus taught because Jesus [09:54] never taught anything related to that. [09:56] And all Mike has done in this video is [09:58] assert again arbitrarily without [10:00] argument that Jesus would have accepted [10:04] the endorsement of beating your kids [10:06] from the Old Testament. There are no [10:08] data that indicate that and Mike is [10:10] certainly not going to engage the fact [10:12] that Jesus renegotiates an awful lot of [10:15] what's going on in the Hebrew Bible and [10:18] that the authors of the New Testament [10:20] renegotiate an awful lot of what Jesus [10:23] stood for and disagreed with each other [10:26] in a lot of different ways. So Mike has [10:27] not demonstrated a single word of this. [10:30] Saying it's wrong to hit your kids [10:32] doesn't spit in the face of anything [10:34] that Jesus taught. It just disagrees [10:37] with the version of Christianity that [10:40] Mike has invented and is endorsing and [10:44] is performing conviction regarding not [10:47] to convince anybody who doesn't already [10:49] agree but to perform confidence and [10:52] conviction for people who already agree [10:54] and not because they need to be [10:56] convinced of anything but just because [10:59] that helps jin up that collective [11:01] effervescence of identity politics and [11:04] in this case right-wing authorit arian [11:07] identity politics. People who hit their [11:08] kids are going to feel better about [11:10] hitting their kids if Mike can say, [11:13] "Well, it's spitting in the face of the [11:15] things Jesus taught to say, no, the [11:17] Bible's wrong. You shouldn't beat your [11:20] kids." And that's just pathetic. And the [11:22] fit for this video has been Adonai and [11:24] his Asher. ## Highlights - are going to be centered in this particular negotiation. So you have to do that hundreds and hundreds of times just to try to construct a notion of Christianity from the New Testament. Which means you are inventing through all of your many different choices, all of your many different decisions about how to answer these questions your own version of Christianity. And that's just to get something down on paper. And that brings up the second issue. When we look around ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kdr60rkaath7bzsxjnhtxp54)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - is and how they live it, at some point they are going to arrive at something they disagree on. It might not be something that they consider essential or critical or central. But the threshold of where that is is also going to differ. So you cannot have a pure Christianity. You cannot have an authority over all Christianity. Everyone invents their own version of Christianity. Even if a bunch of people get together and decide we're going to agree on a short list of necessary and ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kdr60rkwh59d8g9c92fzhmg9)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted ## New Highlights added 2026-02-28 at 7:48 PM - are going to be centered in this particular negotiation. So you have to do that hundreds and hundreds of times just to try to construct a notion of Christianity from the New Testament. Which means you are inventing through all of your many different choices, all of your many different decisions about how to answer these questions your own version of Christianity. And that's just to get something down on paper. And that brings up the second issue. When we look around ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kdr60rkaath7bzsxjnhtxp54)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - is and how they live it, at some point they are going to arrive at something they disagree on. It might not be something that they consider essential or critical or central. But the threshold of where that is is also going to differ. So you cannot have a pure Christianity. You cannot have an authority over all Christianity. Everyone invents their own version of Christianity. Even if a bunch of people get together and decide we're going to agree on a short list of necessary and ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kdr60rkwh59d8g9c92fzhmg9)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted