What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church?

[Bootstrap]

Are there also examples where the confederates are made out like evil people? Or is the bias entirely one sided?

Revisionist history makes it extremely difficult to determine actual truth of an event. If we revise historical accounts one should provide primary sources showing why the original "history" was wrong.

It does seem like that particular text book was bias but I would have to see if they provided a counterpoint to it and it was just showing the broader two sides of the story.

Confederate soldiers fought for a lot of different reasons, loyalty to their local community and to their State was a big one. Back then, most people considered themselves citizens of their State, not of the country as a whole.

But that's different from saying that the Civil War was a noble cause. Clearly, the South fought to preserve slavery, and that should not be whitewashed.

I think any unbiased account would contain original documents like The Cornerstone Address, in which the Vice President of the Confederacy explains the new Constitution for the Confederacy.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

[Ken]

Here is an interesting article from the new evangelical-oriented web site Current on the topic of CRT and evangelicals

https://currentpub.com/2021/06/25/syste ... ce-theory/

The author basically argues that during the end of the civil rights era, southern evangelicals quickly shifted from a belief in white supremacy and segregation, to what he calls "color-blind conservatism" which essentially preserves existing white power structures and inequalities by insisting that in a color-blind society, race is a topic that is never considered, and is off-limits for discussion. But he argues that this "color-blind conservatism" doesn't come from a place of racism, but rather from an historic belief in egalitarianism in southern Appalachian society. But that this "color-blind conservatism" is the obstacle preventing southern evangelicals from exploring the topic of systemic racism.

Like most other white southern conservative evangelicals who changed their attitudes on race in the late 1960s, Falwell experienced a conversion that was entirely personal. He did not change his partisan allegiances. He did not join a civil rights march. He did not begin advocating for racial justice in housing, schools, or the legal system. Instead, he embraced “color-blind” conservatism—that is, the view that both the law and social practices should be race-neutral, without any special privileges accorded to any particular race. His conversion was complete, he thought, when he welcomed Blacks into his church and professed love for them in his heart.

The vast majority of white southern evangelicals who lived through the civil rights era can recount similar conversions. Although they might have once been segregationists, they were delighted when the “Whites Only” and “Colored” signs came down, they claim. And although it may have taken a little longer, nearly all came to accept interracial marriage and invite Blacks into their homes and to their social activities. In reality, they probably misunderstood King’s message (King was much more concerned about structural racial and economic inequality than most white conservative evangelicals realize), but, at least in their own view, they had fully accepted the tenets of the civil rights movement when they repented of personal racism.

Why did white conservative evangelicals who had once been segregationists experience a mass conversion to color-blind conservatism a half-century ago?

To some of their critics, the answer is obvious: Color-blind conservatism preserves racial inequality. Conservative white evangelicals like Falwell found it easy to exchange overt segregationist thinking for color-blind conservatism because they never really changed their racist views, and they found color-blind ideology a convenient fig leaf to cover their continued advocacy of white privilege.

I think such a view misunderstands the values of the evangelical culture of which Falwell was a part. Evangelicals in general—and white Appalachian evangelicals in particular—have long been democratically-minded egalitarians. With their suspicion of hierarchical ecclesiastical structures and their proclamation of individual Christians’ ability to both interpret the Bible for themselves and find salvation not through a church but through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, evangelicals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries pioneered an individualist theology that appealed to both Black and white Americans, especially on the southern frontier. Southern white evangelicals rejected the antislavery campaigns and social activism of their northern counterparts, but they preserved the movement’s emphasis on the equality of all believers. Although continuing to accept the racial prejudices of their society—and sometimes appealing to Scripture to support those prejudices—they nevertheless remained open to interracial mission and the principle that people of all races needed to hear the gospel and be saved through faith in Christ. On the impoverished margins of southern evangelicalism, the early Pentecostals even engaged in interracial worship.

For most white southern evangelicals, the principles of fairness and individualistic-minded equality of opportunity are as deeply engrained as the belief that God loves people of every race and culture. When the civil rights movement developed, they opposed it as long as they thought that it was the work of “northern agitators,” but when segregation laws were repealed, they quickly made peace with the new reality. This was partly because evangelical leaders whom they respected (such as Billy Graham) endorsed racial integration and partly because it accorded with their own egalitarian impulses, which they believed came directly from Scripture. The idea that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of skin color, was so obviously true to most evangelicals that most quickly embraced it at the end of the 1960s or shortly thereafter, even if they also called for policies of “law and order” that exacerbated racial inequality.

he continues...

When it comes to color-blind conservatism, white evangelicals generally practice what they preach: They welcome Blacks into their churches and ministries and treat them as full human beings.

But they show no interest in changing the structures of society that perpetuate racial inequality. When white evangelicals exchanged segregationist thinking for color-blind conservatism, they did not change their biblical hermeneutic. Instead, they became more consistent practitioners of an egalitarian ethos that they had at some level already believed. The idea that sin is structural as well as individual, however, or that ostensibly race-neutral laws and practices are in reality racially biased, is so far removed from traditional white southern evangelical theology that many white conservative evangelicals view these ideas as heretical.

And so, instead of seeking further racial justice, many white conservative evangelicals find consolation in their own conversions from personal racism. They have already been “born again” on this issue, they believe, and they’re not seeking a second conversion.

[Josh]

“Colour-blindness” was the purported moral philosophy of the progressive movement in the 1960s; it’s interesting to see it cast as racist now.

[Bootstrap]

“Colour-blindness” was the purported moral philosophy of the progressive movement in the 1960s; it’s interesting to see it cast as racist now.

That's why CRT is considered a criticism of the liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s. The Bell article that I pointed to started from this problem: OK, we now have legal integration of schools, but the schools aren't integrated, and it's a fight as long as whites don't think their interests coincide with the interests of blacks. So how do we set things up so that both whites and blacks win? Magnet schools are one example he gives of an effective strategy.

That's the article many say launched CRT. I have a hard time interpreting that article as a call for a Marxist revolution. It's trying to understand the systems and work and looking for win-wins.

But CRT is a big enough, broad enough, and diffuse enough academic discipline that you can find whatever you want in it. In general, I think it's easier to discuss these things without all the fancy language.

[Ken]

“Colour-blindness” was the purported moral philosophy of the progressive movement in the 1960s; it’s interesting to see it cast as racist now.

The whole point of CRT is that many institutions are not actually color-blind even though they might claim to be.

[Bootstrap]

“Colour-blindness” was the purported moral philosophy of the progressive movement in the 1960s; it’s interesting to see it cast as racist now.

The whole point of CRT is that many institutions are not actually color-blind even though they might claim to be.

And some systems seem to be keeping black people down even if that is not their intent.

[MaxPC]

This thread is for continuing the conversation we were having without being sidetracked by the Beth Moore issue.

The topic of this thread is Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church, not Beth Moore.

Rules of this Thread:

1. Do not label anyone or anyone's opinion a conspiracy theory.

Okay, let's see how this goes.

[Falco Underhill]

This thread is for continuing the conversation we were having without being sidetracked by the Beth Moore issue.

The topic of this thread is Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church, not Beth Moore.

Rules of this Thread:

1. Do not label anyone or anyone's opinion a conspiracy theory.

Okay, let's see how this goes.

Unfortunately, rather than criticizing CRT in the Church it's become another thread for singing its praises. "There's nothing to see here folks, just move right along."

[MaxPC]

This thread is for continuing the conversation we were having without being sidetracked by the Beth Moore issue.

The topic of this thread is Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church, not Beth Moore.

Rules of this Thread:

1. Do not label anyone or anyone's opinion a conspiracy theory.

Okay, let's see how this goes.

Unfortunately, rather than criticizing CRT in the Church it's become another thread for singing its praises. "There's nothing to see here folks, just move right along."

Perhaps if more members joined in and shared their experiences and thoughts; and there was less monopolising of this thread by two individuals who are obsessive about "educating" everyone to their pov, it would be more fruitful.

Interestingly there is a large group of conservative African American pastors (e.g. Voddie Baucham) who cite CRT as harmful to race relations and are preaching against it. These pastors are producing sound theological arguments against CRT.

[Bootstrap]

Unfortunately, rather than criticizing CRT in the Church it's become another thread for singing its praises. "There's nothing to see here folks, just move right along."

Singing its praises? Not exactly, I think most of this is trying to see if we can even come up with a clear definition of what CRT means and how it is influencing the church.

Your goal is clearly to criticize CRT. Can you start with a commonly accepted definition of what it is? And by documenting the kind of bad things you think it is leading to and where? Please be concrete. And what do you think the correct way is to approach issues involving race in the church?