We don't need to be afraid of CRT

[joshuabgood]

That seems to be direct conflict with the values espoused in things like CRT or liberation theology, which call for “direct action” against “oppressors”.

I am not sure how many times I need to say that b/c I acknowledge some validity to the CRT concerns, that doesn't mean I support all the proposed solutions. But there it is one more time

My point to the original writing/post is that we need not fear it as a bogeyman. It brings some legit critiques. Just like the hippies brought some legit critiques, as did the feminists, etc...

[Neto]

When I was in Bible college a new sort of Marxism came to the forefront – only a lot of people didn’t recognize the marxist thought it involved – Liberation Theology. It was presented in my missiology courses as a great work of God, bringing minorities into the “harvest fields” as co-labors. But although the common Biblical terms of sin & salvation were at the forefront, they didn’t mean the same things. “Sin” was defined as being oppressed, and “salvation” as freedom from oppression, In some contexts, this seems to dovetail with a good deal of the talk about “race” today.

If I understand correctly, Critical Theory(CT) has it foundations in Liberation Theology, and CRT has it foundations in CT. They are all closely linked. They are all Marxist. Which is strange because Marx hated religion.

Liberation Theology is not Christian Theology. They use "Christian jargon", but with a different meaning. (I suspect that the reason is to deceive people into thinking that it is Christian thought, as we were in my schooling in that beginning era of LT.) I expect that some will disagree with my statement here, but I have seen it first hand, and had (mostly) friendly relationships with some top proponents of LT in Brazil. There is a whole NGO there that is Marxist in thought and action, although they claim to be Catholic (and do actually have some official recognition under the catholic Church there, but at the "real" official level, outside of Brazil, I don't know). This is logical, because Brazil is (or was) the most Catholic country in the world.

So LT was represented to us (in an Evangelical Bible College) as the move of ministry initiation out of the West, into the rest of the world. And we championed it, because we wanted to see that, but we were also fooled. Back to Brazil. My friend there was a (self-described) "Secular Priest". (He was from Germany originally.) I have no idea what his actual standing was - I only know what he told me personally. He asked my predecessor (in the Banawa work) what our objective was for being there. Rick told them, then asked the same question back. He was pretty straight-forward, because he said "to right the wrongs of the Catholic Church". What are those wrongs, Rick asked. "The destruction of native religion and culture. We want to restore the native religions." There is nothing Christian about a position like that. Restoring respect for native cultures, both in the minds of outsiders and for the people themselves, Yes, that is a value we shared. He was against our main objective there, and I'm pretty sure he would have liked to see us thrown out, but we also sometimes worked on the same side of some issues (like illegal lumber and fishing operations, for instance).

[joshuabgood]

Jesus is a liberator. His very name, Yeshua, means "God saves." The question is perhaps, what does he save us from? What is that salvation. I think a faithful reading of the scriptures supports with much scriptural data that that salvation is holistic. It is not merely social justice. Neither is it merely personal salvation and a pie in the sky when we die. It is both.

Liberation theology represented some useful correctives to "personal salvation" and "pie in the sky" distortions. That said, liberation theology itself, by itself, is a distortion.

[GaryK]

I appreciate what you wrote Neto. I would add I don't see it as an either/or regarding personal sin/salvation versus societal sin/salvation, as much as a both/and. Liberation theology represented the other half of the coin that often got neglected by Protestant missionaries emphasis on merely "spiritual" and personal salvation rather than a Kingdom centric approach to salvation on earth as also in heaven. Perhaps the good news is much more than personal salvation from hell fire. Maybe it is literally the Kingdom of God being at hand and the arrival of the King, who set up that kingdom.

I agree with much of this, especially the part I bolded. But, it raises a question in my mind. Are you under the impression that most theologians and Christian academics would agree with your view on this? If the answer is no, I'm assuming you are okay with being in the minority on this because you believe it's true and that you would also love to see more people embracing this view. How is that different than Thomas Sowel's and Voddie Bauchum's view on racism and CRT? Yet, earlier you sort of pushed back on promoting what they have to say because they are not supported by the majority of black academics.

I think I have probably dropped enough ink on this already and I am content to let that lie for the most part. In short the issue is that when white people selectively amplify black voices that articulate the positions they (white people) want promoted, it rings a bit hollow. On the one hand they say they are color blind and on the other hand they specifically amplify black voices that agree with them and point out "they are black." I think the written record, as it were, shows I have affirmed voices of "the black conservative." I have read them, listened to them, respected them, etc.

Voddie addresses these issues from a biblical basis and concludes that CT and CRT are theories that are at war with God's plan for humanity. I don't think I recall you refuting, from scripture, his conclusions. So, laying aside for the moment what you believe white people are doing when promoting what blacks like Voddie have to say, would you be willing to say where you stand on Voddie's view that CT and CRT are antithetical to God's plan for His NT Kingdom?

Regarding theology, if one takes the long view over Christian tradition and the wide view regarding how Christians across the denominations and time have viewed the good news of Jesus, I would say Bill Bright/Ray Comfort and otherwise colloquial Protestant theology wrapped up in "the four spiritual laws" and "personal salvation" and "escaping the the fires of hell and the wrath of God" as the essence of the good news, is likely not in the majority. Protestants are a relatively small piece of the pie...though in the modern USA they have an outsized chunk. However that influence on Anabaptists is very recent, and mostly unfortunate. It shows up in most of our 20th century confessions.

If the historical record is the standard by which the present reality should be measured, would you say that MLK and other early civil rights leaders promoted the same ideology that is being promoted by CRT and anti-racism proponents in the present?

Lastly, the question I am noting is not really "academic." It is experiential. If groups of people tell us they experience systemic racism, I think our default stance should be to hear them with an eye toward learning and understanding rather than explaining it away.

So the question this raises in my mind is, what should we as Kingdom minded people be promoting as it relates to these issues? Ideas with scriptural bases or ideas like "we don't need to be afraid of CRT"? In my view, statements like that indicate and openness to a theory that people like Voddie say is in direct opposition to the NT Kingdom. If Voddie is correct, then shouldn't Kingdom focused people be promoting Kingdom solutions rather than secular ones?

[Neto]

Jesus is a liberator. His very name, Yeshua, means "God saves." The question is perhaps, what does he save us from? What is that salvation. I think a faithful reading of the scriptures supports with much scriptural data that that salvation is holistic. It is not merely social justice. Neither is it merely personal salvation and a pie in the sky when we die. It is both.

Liberation theology represented some useful correctives to "personal salvation" and "pie in the sky" distortions. That said, liberation theology itself, by itself, is a distortion.

I would say that the group of Mennonites I was in at the time didn't need to learn anything from Liberation Theology that we hadn't already picked up from the Hippie movement, as a sort of Mennonite Revitalization Movement. (I've already talked about how Revitalization Movements always distort some element of the part of their past that they are attempting to bring back, so i do not endorse all that we/I stood for back then.) Also, the "Evangelical" Bible college I was at was "cutting edge Evangelical" - sort of "discovering" the value of the "social" part of the Gospel. So cheering LT was not a huge leap, nor unexpected. What I am saying is that we already thought that way, in so far as social justice is concerned. So we didn't learn anything from LT - we were just happy to see it popping up elsewhere.

I know that I am an outsider in CM circles (still, after nearly 40 years of close associations), but I would say that attention given to social concerns is not an area in which my people were lacking. Maybe that's why my response tends to be "We got that stuff down pat already." (My C&MA room-mate was so into it that he made a huge poster of the MCC logo for our door. A Lutheran friend went to Bolivia for a number of years, working in training people to use track animals in farming, moving from horticulture to agriculture. Sadly, his response was that while he always attempted to interject the love of God through the complete Gospel into his service there, he told me that most of the Mennonites he worked with didn't seem to have any consciousness of the spiritual side of the Gospel, in their work, or even in their own lives. (These were all "my people", "Russian" Mennonites, so I'm not criticizing CMs here.)

[joshuabgood]

Voddie addresses these issues from a biblical basis and concludes that CT and CRT are theories that are at war with God's plan for humanity... would you be willing to say where you stand on Voddie's view that CT and CRT are antithetical to God's plan for His NT Kingdom?

I don't have time to debate Voddie here...but suffice it to say, as I outlined in the paper I wrote, I see things differently. Feel free to engage with what I wrote that you disagree with and I'll perhaps debate you a bit =). One last word on Voddie though, I am in a much different place with regard to theology, hermeneutic, and orthopraxis than he is. He is far from being an Anabaptist or embracing Kingdom Theology. His view of Jesus, God, salvation and people, that being strongly Calvinist, are near blasphemy in my view. (He jokes about children being "vipers in diapers" as an example. He believes God will righteously send anybody whom he predestines (for his own glory, including young children) into eternal conscious torment.

It is not surprising to me at all that he sees the work of Jesus in a very different way than Anabaptists and Kingdom Christians. It is surprising to me that you find, if you do, much in common with him theologically or hermeneutically.

then shouldn't Kingdom focused people be promoting Kingdom solutions rather than secular ones?

I have already addressed this. Read the paper if you will. In short, denunciations like the SBC made, are harmful to the Kingdom of God. It is like the old red scare the Protestants used to wave around. It harms the church. We can acknowledge the critiques, which are valid, without needing to embrace all the solutions.

I would say that attention given to social concerns is not an area in which my people were lacking.

I believe you. However, within the CA context at large, it has been lacking. We have preferred being the quiet in the land who benefit from the social "status quo."

[GaryK]

Voddie addresses these issues from a biblical basis and concludes that CT and CRT are theories that are at war with God's plan for humanity... would you be willing to say where you stand on Voddie's view that CT and CRT are antithetical to God's plan for His NT Kingdom?

I don't have time to debate Voddie here...but suffice it to say, as I outlined in the paper I wrote, I see things differently. Feel free to engage with what I wrote that you disagree with and I'll perhaps debate you a bit =). One last word on Voddie though, I am in a much different place with regard to theology, hermeneutic, and orthopraxis than he is. He is far from being an Anabaptist or embracing Kingdom Theology. His view of Jesus, God, salvation and people, that being strongly Calvinist, are near blasphemy in my view. (He jokes about children being "vipers in diapers" as an example. He believes God will righteously send anybody whom he predestines (for his own glory, including young children) into eternal conscious torment.

It is not surprising to me at all that he sees the work of Jesus in a very different way than Anabaptists and Kingdom Christians. It is surprising to me that you find, if you do, much in common with him theologically or hermeneutically.

I thought Voddie's views on other issues might come up in your response to this. That's a pretty typical way to try to discount what a person has to say on a given subject, especially if their view on the subject counters the one being promoted. I suppose if you would do the same with CRT you would be sort of dismissive of it as well, seeing how you don't agree with parts of it.

Here is a quote from your paper:

Clearly, Jesus came for the down and out. The meek. The lowly. He came for the captives and the refugees. He came for those despised by middle-class society. He himself had no “real job” with no place to “lay his head.” Jesus himself preached against the selfish politically empowered groups, Herod’s government, the Sanhedrin, etc. The scriptures warn us against selfishness and favoritism as well as the danger of economic power.

I fully agree but I would add that Jesus came for everyone because all people are in need of the good news of Jesus. This quote, in the context of your paper, seems to elevate certain categories of people as the primary ones Jesus came for.

Jesus didn't come to elevate the down and out within secular societies to the up and in within secular societies. He didn't come to make captives and refugees the dominant part of secular societies. He didn't come to make those despised by middle class secular societies looked up to by middle class secular societies.

And He didn't come to make the up and in within secular societies the down and out within secular societies. He didn't come to make the dominant in secular societies become captives and refugees within secular societies. He didn't come to make middle class secular societies become part of lower class secular societies.

He came to make out of the brokenness of all people, one new people. This new people looks to a new set of rules to guide their lives. Secular rules and ideas are rejected by this new people. As Jesus stated, this new people is a small group compared to those on the broad way. This new people is not afraid to be in the minority and does its best to bring people out of the majority way into the narrow Kingdom way.

[Falco Underhill]

Maybe it is literally the Kingdom of God being at hand and the arrival of the King, who set up that kingdom.

I guess I was thrown off by your saying "Maybe it is literally the Kingdom of God being at hand" as if in a way it hadn't happened before.

So you're saying this is really just a continuance of the Kingdom brought by the First Coming, sort of a new development of first one?

The Church until now has only worried about personal salvation from sin but now that CRT has arrived the Church can concentrate on a more holistic approach?

Have I got that about right now?

[joshuabgood]

That's a pretty typical way to try to discount what a person has to say on a given subject, especially if their view on the subject counters the one being promoted.

The pieces are connected. His theology and hermeneutic drive his understanding of the work of Jesus and the Kingdom of God, that is salvation. They are not merely other unrelated ideas with which I disagree. I think we can agree on that.

Jesus didn't come to elevate the down and out within secular societies to the up and in within secular societies. He didn't come to make captives and refugees the dominant part of secular societies. He didn't come to make those despised by middle class secular societies looked up to by middle class secular societies.

He came to being justice and righteousness. Every valley will be exalted. Every mountain made low. The crooked straight and the rough places plain. Not to simply replace one oppressor with another. I agree with you.

This reckoning is not brought with violence or coercion like worldly kingdoms, but with the more powerful suffering love. Or what was once termed soul force. But it is a reckoning. A refining fire if you will.

[joshuabgood]

Maybe it is literally the Kingdom of God being at hand and the arrival of the King, who set up that kingdom.

I guess I was thrown off by your saying "Maybe it is literally the Kingdom of God being at hand".

So you're saying this is a continuance of the Kingdom brought by the First Coming, sort of a new development of first one?

The Church until now only worried about personal salvation from sin but now that CRT has arrived the Church can concentrate on personal salvation as well as a sort of holistic salvation?

Have I got that about right now?

Jesus established his Kingdom. It is come and coming. And yes it goes beyond merely the personal salvation.