On Jason Whitlock
On Jason Whitlock
Jason Whitlock is an American sports journalist and culture critic. Whitlock is a columnist, podcaster and digital TV host for Blaze Media, where he hosts the show Fearless with Jason Whitlock. Whitlock is a former columnist at the Kansas City Star, AOL Sports, Foxsports.com, and ESPN. He has captured everyone's attention with his new show Fearless. Fearless bills itself as a show aimed at protecting the realm of common sense and challenge the groupthink mandated by elites. It is a cultural renewal movement with the goal of turning back the culture toward more halcyon times.
As much as I love Jason Whitlock's overall approach, I have to say, I am dissatisfied with the support he marshals for his religious takes. His broad appeals to God and the Bible to justify a particular political stance does not show how the two are connected. Since he is the one making the appeals, he should demonstrate how his theological perspective authorizes his political statements. He does not do that. Instead he uses a patina of Scripture to stoke sentiment rather than to spark deep reflection. Ultimately, his use of Scripture relegates the Christian voice—one he seeks to use to revive America—to a voice among many voices. We can’t be too easily appeased because he aligns himself with our worldview to not ask the next question, is he really supporting our worldview or merely using it?
I think those are valid criticisms, but I don’t want to go so far with that critique as to say that he is using us or manipulating us. I want us to not be afraid or not thoughtful enough to not ask the question. I am not yet sure whether that is the case. I think Whitlock is undergoing some sort of personal revival. You can track this growth on film, interview by interview, over the years. This change or hardening in perspective isn’t an overnight shift; it has been a slow progression. My criticism is, he hasn’t had the years of deep biblical reflection that we ought to expect from people who attempt to lead us spiritually. This is revealed in his broad appeals to Scripture and his inability to connect those appeals to Christian thought. Whitlock brings in Christians—men whose views I don’t know and am not necessarily criticizing—to make the biblical case. I find that their takes are not clearly delineated from the political perspective they were brought onto the program to opine on. This serves, maybe unintentionally, to give the impression that political views are necessarily biblical views rather than demonstrating how these political views may or may not be biblically supported. Admittedly, that is a nuanced position, but it is a nuanced position with grave ramifications. A good example of this can be seen in how earlier Christians saw that the Scriptures taught that where sin abounds, grace abounds even more [this is true], yet, erroneously concluded that we should sin even more egregiously so that an overabundance of grace might abound. Their desire to find justification to sin from Scripture overcame their right reading of Scripture. In the same way, when we don’t properly delineate what the Bible teaches from our political perspectives, we can be accused of finding justification to prop up or maintain a sinful edifice, through an erroneous use of Scripture—whether it is true or not.
A friend offered another example and commentary:
“Did you listen to the segment about the death penalty with the two pastors the other day? I thought the pastor making the argument for the death penalty made a much stronger case biblically, but Whitlock sided with the other [Pastor] making an argument against it (which he admitted beforehand is his position as well), even though his argument was logically and biblically inconsistent. To me, it kind of showed that Whitlock on some level may be interested in Christianity and the Bible to the extent that it can support his worldview, rather than having his worldview shaped by scripture.”
I think that is indicative of the point I am attempting to raise. Whitlock, in the words of Kevin Hart, “Ain’t ready!” We need to take a step back before we commit to joining his army. More subtly, Whitlock positions the Christian voice as just another voice in the conversation that he is having rather than the driving factor that he claims that we are. Whitlock says that Christian perspectives are welcomed, but shows that we are just another voice, not the driving voice, for this new awakening he wishes to bring to America. You have to ask yourself, is that the proper place for the Christian voice on a show that claims that the Christian voice needs to drive this new awakening? Or shouldn’t Whitlock be clearer? His show is a cultural show which marshals support from the various aspects of the culture, of which Christianity is a part, and he desires to use all of those voices to forward his particular vision of the culture.
Envision the Book of Eli, a post-apacolyptic film from 2010, where the star Denzil Washington's character is on a mission from God, risking life and limb, to preserve the Word of God for future use. In the movies, he risks life and limb protecting the Bible from people who would misuse it. We are shocked to find that he is blind and has memorized the entire Scripture. At the end of the movie, he begins to recite it from memory. They record his recitations and bring the Bible back to the world… only to place it on a shelf with other “holy” books. Now to one group, that is an awesome end. They think that God is witnessed in all of the books [voices] that it sits beside on the bookshelf. But to those of us who believe in Scripture, we can see the joke of it all. They are saying that the Bible is just like any other “holy” book; no better or no worse. That isn’t my view, nor is it the view of other Christians who hold views similar to mine. It is in that vein that I suggest wariness about people who are singing a similar—not the same—song. Ask, if they agree with us, why aren’t they singing the same song? Why are there so many discordant notes being sung? Maybe they aren’t reading from the same hymnal? That is my suggestion and critique for listening to Whitlock. Whitlock says that we are a driving factor, but I think he means we are a useful voice. In the end, if Whitlock got his way, the future he envisions would not be to my liking, it will be more of the same, with less Democrats in charge [Ok, I like that], but the same old secular society that we have now and have always had.
At best, Whitlock’s movement would turn the clock back 30 years, because that is where we were 30 years ago. Thirty years ago we had the same complaints. I want something more. In my opinion, he is still a half-baked cake; lovely on the outside, but the inside is too mushy to be enjoyed. In light of that, we should be very wary of following people like that no matter how sweet the song. In Homer's Odyssey, beautiful women called Sirens, would line the shores of an island. Their dulcet voices could be heard above the waves by sailors as they passed by the Island. Their voices wooed the sailors to turn their ships and come to them. What the sailors didn't know is that rocks surrounded the island making it impossible for their ships to ever make it to the shore. Ultimately, they all drowned and as their ships crashed on the rocks. Christians have to be very wary of people with similarly sounding songs but with discordant notes, lest we be shipwrecked. I don’t want the good old bad days. Do you?