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

[Falco Underhill]

Oh come on. You are now portraying me as evasive and afraid to give a straight answer. Can we please stop playing this stupid, offensive game?

Sure. As soon as you stop evading and give me a straight yes or no answer.

You can say under certain conditions even.

Why is this so difficult for you! You and Ken keep telling us they're just a bunch of nerdy academics who have no effect in the real world. Shouldn't your answer just be "sure why not, what could it hurt?"

[Bootstrap]

Oh come on. You are now portraying me as evasive and afraid to give a straight answer. Can we please stop playing this stupid, offensive game?

Sure. As soon as you stop evading and give me a straight yes or no answer.

Sorry, but the way to have direct answers is to look directly at the document that we are talking about and discuss it. Directly. I won't give a direct answer to a misleading question that implies things about the document that are untrue. We don't need Hegel to discuss this document, we have the text of the document itself.

So it's your turn. Please look at this document (this is only a partial quote) and tell me exactly what you find offensive about it. Let's stop beating around the bush and playing games with Hegel. What exactly do you object to in this statement?

https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/re ... tionality/

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, June 11–12, 2019, affirm Scripture as the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to redress social ills, and we reject any conduct, creeds, and religious opinions which contradict Scripture; and be it further

RESOLVED, That critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture—not as transcendent ideological frameworks; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the gospel of Jesus Christ alone grants the power to change people and society because “he who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Philippians 1:6); and be it further

RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists will carefully analyze how the information gleaned from these tools are employed to address social dynamics; and be it further

RESOLVED, That Southern Baptist churches and institutions repudiate the misuse of insights gained from critical race theory, intersectionality, and any unbiblical ideologies that can emerge from their use when absolutized as a worldview; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we deny any philosophy or theology that fundamentally defines individuals using categories identified as sinful in Scripture rather than the transcendent reality shared by every image bearer and divinely affirmed distinctions; and be it further

RESOLVED, That while we denounce the misuse of critical race theory and intersectionality, we do not deny that ethnic, gender, and cultural distinctions exist and are a gift from God that will give Him absolute glory when all humanity gathers around His throne in worship because of the redemption accomplished by our resurrected Lord; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That Southern Baptist churches seek to exhibit this eschatological promise in our churches in the present by focusing on unity in Christ amid image bearers and rightly celebrate our differences as determined by God in the new creation.

[Ken]

Oh come on. You are now portraying me as evasive and afraid to give a straight answer. Can we please stop playing this stupid, offensive game?

Sure. As soon as you stop evading and give me a straight yes or no answer.

You can say under certain conditions even.

Why is this so difficult for you! You and Ken keep telling us they're just a bunch of nerdy academics who have no effect in the real world. Shouldn't your answer just be "sure why not, what could it hurt?"

All that I am saying is that the current fuss over CRT among the conservative world isn't really about CRT at all. I have not read one single intelligent conservative criticism of CRT that looks at actual real life examples. What I have read is a bunch of straw-men arguments in which one side invents something out of thin air that they are calling CRT that doesn't actually exist, and then expend a lot of energy and fury attacking it. That is what is happening right now in my own home town. Angry people are showing up at our local school board meetings to scream (yes SCREAM) about the teaching of CRT in the local schools when that is something that doesn't happen and has never happened.

What are they really angry about? I'm not really sure. But it isn't CRT because CRT isn't part of any local curriculum in this state. I think it is really just an effort to deny that any sort of systemic racism exists in our society meaning that any sort of education or discussion about racism and equity within the schools is no longer necessary and should be expunged. When anyone with any common sense can see that is not true. It feels more like the last gasp of some racist white folks who don't want to be faced with or challenged by the some of the fundamental realities of the society in which they live.

[temporal1]

Oh come on. You are now portraying me as evasive and afraid to give a straight answer. Can we please stop playing this stupid, offensive game?

Sure. As soon as you stop evading and give me a straight yes or no answer.

You can say under certain conditions even.

Why is this so difficult for you! You and Ken keep telling us they're just a bunch of nerdy academics who have no effect in the real world. Shouldn't your answer just be "sure why not, what could it hurt?"

Voddie Baucham / “Systemic racism in America”


Thomas Sowell / “Systemic racism has no meaning”


Thomas Sowell / “Intellectuals and Society” / Part 1 of 5


Both men have more to offer, these are short out takes.

[Josh]

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.

I am very much on board with what you’re saying in the last paragraph, Boot - but that does require a sincere commitment to not accepting a certain political faction dictating what the “tools of analysis” must be.

[Bootstrap]

I am very much on board with what you’re saying in the last paragraph, Boot - but that does require a sincere commitment to not accepting a certain political faction dictating what the “tools of analysis” must be.

I agree. On both sides. So why do we keep getting stuck in the latest talking points from political factions?

[Falco Underhill]

Resolved: ... we do not deny that ethnic, gender, and cultural distinctions exist and are a gift from God that will give Him absolute glory when all humanity gathers around His throne in worship because of the redemption accomplished by our resurrected Lord

Well "gender and cultural distinctions" as a gift from God could be massaged to mean many things.

My vote is no. I wouldn't adopt a neo-Marxist "philosophy" as part of church policy, period.

[Josh]

I am very much on board with what you’re saying in the last paragraph, Boot - but that does require a sincere commitment to not accepting a certain political faction dictating what the “tools of analysis” must be.

I agree. On both sides. So why do we keep getting stuck in the latest talking points from political factions?

That’s what I’m asking. CRT and “intersectionality” aren’t things I want polluting my practice of Christianity, or my church. I’m not a Southern Baptist, so much of this is irrelevant to me personally, but on the flip side, some of these things are very in vogue in the workplace and I do have to deal with them.

[Bootstrap]

Resolved: ... we do not deny that ethnic, gender, and cultural distinctions exist and are a gift from God that will give Him absolute glory when all humanity gathers around His throne in worship because of the redemption accomplished by our resurrected Lord

Well "gender and cultural distinctions" as a gift from God could be massaged to mean many things.

My vote is no. I wouldn't adopt a neo-Marxist "philosophy" as part of church policy, period.

I'm pretty sure the Southern Baptists agree with you. Including all the groups involved in this particular dispute. So do I.

[Falco Underhill]

Well "gender and cultural distinctions" as a gift from God could be massaged to mean many things.

My vote is no. I wouldn't adopt a neo-Marxist "philosophy" as part of church policy, period.

I'm pretty sure the Southern Baptists agree with you. Including all the groups involved in this particular dispute. So do I.

Sometimes you surprise me, Boot.