One of the great perils of our increasingly connected, online existence is our inability to really know who we're talking to or hearing from. Of course, there are the obvious, frightening examples of "catfishing," child seduction through fake personas, and phishing traps set to steal identities.
But beyond those extreme and dangerous cases, there's this: when you know someone only through online interactions, it can be nearly impossible to know whether the person is real, sincere, or a fabricated parody designed to make an absolute fool of you and mockery of reasoned and reasonable discourse.
How many politicians, commentators, leaders, and "influencers" have been tricked into citing the testimony of some online entity as proof of their position, only to find out the entire account was a fake? How many tribal minions have glommed on to some firebrand social media presence, promoting and amplifying hot takes that later turn out to be mocking parodies?
"Tread lightly and trust nothing" is perhaps the best advice anyone could be given as they step away from the shores of face-to-face human interaction and into the tempest that is avatar-based social media.
And that's why I've been watching this particular "individual" for some time now with an incredulous disbelief that he is actually real. Some guy named "Kevin M. Young" just seems an all-too-perfect caricature of how many of us tend to envision "deconstructed," politically progressive, "ex-vangelical" Christian voices. From the obligatory "Dr." in front of his name to the "he/him/rev" at the end, not to mention the "post-evangelical" and "avid lifter," it's all just a bit too on the nose to be real, right?
I mean, perusing his content, it's almost as though some conservative, orthodox Christian invented this man as a character for the sole purpose of spouting the kind of strawman "arguments" that believers can humiliate without even trying. Like this:
A real person, particularly one so educated they obtained a doctorate, would see the glaring contradiction here. "Dr. Young" is telling us to run away from anyone who does what he is doing in his tweet. Those who would "judge" the authenticity of another person's relationship with Jesus should be abandoned and ignored…says the man who is judging the authenticity of those people's relationship with Jesus.
Francis Schaeffer always referred to this phenomenon as a person suffering through "points of tension" within their own brain. Young only says to run away from these people because he has judged their relationship with Christ to be lacking. But he says to flee from anyone who would judge another person's relationship with Christ. It's self-defeating sophistry. Hardly the thinking of a doctor, or a "reverend."
And this isn't an isolated incident, mind you. There was also this:
I suppose his use of the qualifying word "MAY" absolves him from completely contradicting himself again. But think this through. Labeling someone a heretic means that you have delineated conditions on who can be in and out of the Kingdom of God and determined that they are out. That's what makes them "heretical," after all. The first 2/3 of Young's tweet he's doing a bang-up job of determining who is in and who isn't.
Then there was this beauty:
When another person reproached Young for his statement, properly pointing out that church was a place to be discipled, the supposed progressive Christian replied,
See, this is why I am struggling to believe he is real. A great parody that mirrors the thoroughly untethered logic of Burger King Christianity ("have it your way")? Yes. An actual "reverend?"
- Well, I'd assume one of those would know that Hebrews exhorts Christians not to "neglect meeting together as some of in the habit of doing."
- I'd assume one of those would know a significant portion of the New Testament is written to local church congregations that were meeting together.
- I'd assume that one of those would know that Christ commissioned His followers to "make disciples" through the tool He had just trained them to institute in His absence - the local church.
- I'd assume one of those would know that the entire book of Acts is a history of the exploits of the early church assemblies and how they functioned under the leadership of the Apostles.
- I'd assume one of those would know that the individuals of the church were described by Paul as body parts - ones that rely on each other to properly function. You wouldn't tell an arm or toe that it needn't be part of a collective community with the torso or foot to function effectively.
He can't be real, right? Right?
