Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Phil Cotnoir's avatar

I generally appreciate your writing but I think this one is off-putting. Why? The timing is off. Read the room, as they say.

Simply put, you haven't defined what a conspiracy theory is. And here we are in 2023 when a number of things that were once dismissed as conspiracy theories are acknowledged consensus (such as the lab leak theory, or Epstein's island). The term itself is often used by some bad faith actors to shut down debate. If we had a solid definition of what conspiracy theory means, and a societally accepted consensus on reality, then I think this article could work. But we are at a moment when public trust in sense-making institutions is at an all-time low. In other words, probably more people than ever are open to reconsidering what they previously thought to be conspiracy theories because they have seen the institutions they once trusted beclown themselves with contradictory and patently false statements. And evangelical institutions are not exempt from that.

I agree with you that some subset of any congregation will have bought in to some wacky and distracting theories that are not based in reality. Often such people are immune to reason and contrary evidence.

My concern is that a piece like this risks alienating the kind of reasonable person who is suffering from institutional trust fatigue.

Expand full comment
Mark Hollywood's avatar

I have interpreted what you have written within my own circle of friends and churched people. Many of our discussions have a Canadian perspective. I appreciated Phil's thoughts but appreciate even more your effort to write down what you have. Stay on the journey.

Expand full comment

No posts