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

[Bootstrap]

I'd be more interested in hearing opinions on why CRT should be rejected on principle (or why you think they should accept it, if that's your opinion) rather than turn it to a discussion about personalities again, which would likely degenerate into another shouting match.

CRT writers are pretty different from each other. So far, it seems that some have useful things to say, others have very little to say that I find of value.

I think it would be a lot easier to discuss specific articles if the goal is to evaluate CRT. For instance, here is the article many credit as starting the field, I think there's a lot of useful content in it:

Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma

But in general, I think we are a lot better off reading what the New Testament shows us about how Jesus related to Samaritans and Gentiles, the conflict between Jews and Greeks in the New Testament, teachings on foreigners in the Old Testament, and adopting the attitudes the Bible tells us to take with respect to the last, the least, and the lost. The only reason I have looked at CRT is that it became such an issue on MennoNet.

[Bootstrap]

I'm still trying to understand Hegel. I'm getting better at it. Out of necessity not interest.

I'm trying to imagine a reason that it would be necessary to study Hegel. I've read a lot of Hegel, I see no reason most people can't ignore him. The only reason I am discussing either Hegel or CRT at all is that they become hot topics on MennoNet.

[Ken]

I'd be more interested in hearing opinions on why CRT should be rejected on principle (or why you think they should accept it, if that's your opinion) rather than turn it to a discussion about personalities again, which would likely degenerate into another shouting match.

Honestly, CRT is something best ignored entirely. It is mostly obscure academic theory that is not being taught or used in any meaningful way in K-12 schools, which is where most of the so-called controversy is being ginned up. So it isn't anything that even demands acceptance or rejection. Rather than getting lost in the weeds about CRT it would be more useful to have an actual concrete discussion about systemic racism. Which is, indeed a real thing.

[Josh]

I'd be more interested in hearing opinions on why CRT should be rejected on principle (or why you think they should accept it, if that's your opinion) rather than turn it to a discussion about personalities again, which would likely degenerate into another shouting match.

Honestly, CRT is something best ignored entirely. It is mostly obscure academic theory that is not being taught or used in any meaningful way in K-12 schools, which is where most of the so-called controversy is being ginned up. So it isn't anything that even demands acceptance or rejection. Rather than getting lost in the weeds about CRT it would be more useful to have an actual concrete discussion about systemic racism. Which is, indeed a real thing.

This simply isn’t true, these crt based materials are showing up quite a few places.

[Falco Underhill]

I'd be more interested in hearing opinions on why CRT should be rejected on principle (or why you think they should accept it, if that's your opinion) rather than turn it to a discussion about personalities again, which would likely degenerate into another shouting match.

Honestly, CRT is something best ignored entirely. It is mostly obscure academic theory that is not being taught or used in any meaningful way in K-12 schools, which is where most of the so-called controversy is being ginned up. So it isn't anything that even demands acceptance or rejection. Rather than getting lost in the weeds about CRT it would be more useful to have an actual concrete discussion about systemic racism. Which is, indeed a real thing.

That's not exactly true. In this case, they're trying to get a church to accept their "tools of analysis." The question here is whether the churches should do that or not. They are the ones making it an issue here.

[joshuabgood]

I'd be more interested in hearing opinions on why CRT should be rejected on principle (or why you think they should accept it, if that's your opinion) rather than turn it to a discussion about personalities again, which would likely degenerate into another shouting match.

Honestly, CRT is something best ignored entirely. It is mostly obscure academic theory that is not being taught or used in any meaningful way in K-12 schools, which is where most of the so-called controversy is being ginned up. So it isn't anything that even demands acceptance or rejection. Rather than getting lost in the weeds about CRT it would be more useful to have an actual concrete discussion about systemic racism. Which is, indeed a real thing.

In this neck of the woods you won't find many that will acknowledge systemic racism.

[Falco Underhill]

I'd be more interested in hearing opinions on why CRT should be rejected on principle (or why you think they should accept it, if that's your opinion) rather than turn it to a discussion about personalities again, which would likely degenerate into another shouting match.

CRT writers are pretty different from each other. So far, it seems that some have useful things to say, others have very little to say that I find of value.

I think it would be a lot easier to discuss specific articles if the goal is to evaluate CRT. For instance, here is the article many credit as starting the field, I think there's a lot of useful content in it:

Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma

But in general, I think we are a lot better off reading what the New Testament shows us about how Jesus related to Samaritans and Gentiles, the conflict between Jews and Greeks in the New Testament, teachings on foreigners in the Old Testament, and adopting the attitudes the Bible tells us to take with respect to the last, the least, and the lost. The only reason I have looked at CRT is that it became such an issue on MennoNet.

I take it you're fine with the church officially adopting CRT "tools of analysis" in setting hiring policies, Bible studies etc? No big deal? What's the big concern, yes?

[Bootstrap]

But in general, I think we are a lot better off reading what the New Testament shows us about how Jesus related to Samaritans and Gentiles, the conflict between Jews and Greeks in the New Testament, teachings on foreigners in the Old Testament, and adopting the attitudes the Bible tells us to take with respect to the last, the least, and the lost. The only reason I have looked at CRT is that it became such an issue on MennoNet.

I take it you're fine with the church officially adopting CRT "tools of analysis" in setting hiring policies, Bible studies etc? No big deal? What's the big concern, yes?

I take it you're fine with making things up and putting them into my mouth, then asking me to defend them?

I think we would be much better off letting the Bible be our focus, but also really paying attention to what it has to say to us. I think we would be much better off actually taking the time to look at anything we want to discuss in depth, as a discussion rather than a winner-take-all debate. Most things aren't worth that much effort. That should tell us something.

[Falco Underhill]

I take it you're fine with making things up and putting them into my mouth, then asking me to defend them?

I think we would be much better off letting the Bible be our focus, but also really paying attention to what it has to say to us. I think we would be much better off actually taking the time to look at anything we want to discuss in depth, as a discussion rather than a winner-take-all debate. Most things aren't worth that much effort. That should tell us something.

I should have said "May I take it", sorry.

Still, I admit i didn't expect to get a straight yes or no answer from you.

If you're afraid to give a straight yes or no in a winner take all scenario then it means you're willing to compromise with them, yes?

Can I get a straight yes or no to that one?

What would that look like? They're asking the church to adopt their tools of analysis. What would your vote be? Maybe, with conditions? What would be your conditions?

[Bootstrap]

Still, I admit i didn't expect to get a straight yes or no answer from you.

If you're afraid to give a straight yes or no in a winner take all scenario then it means you're willing to compromise with them, yes?

Oh come on. You are now portraying me as evasive and afraid to give a straight answer. Instead of discussing the subject you are making it about me and putting me on defense, insisting that I am not guilty of political incorrectness. Can we please stop playing this stupid, offensive game? If I used the same techniques on you, you would be offended. I could give you a long list of questions you have not given straight answers to. I don't respond this way to you.

But here's the straight answer you asked for: I think CRT and Trumpism and other secular isms should all be treated the same way for the purposes of church policy. The church is about Jesus and the Bible, not about these modern isms. But Jesus and the Bible do have consequences for how we live in the world around us.