We don't need to be afraid of CRT

[Szdfan]

re: the lack of an out cry regarding the death of Botham Jean: Maybe "almost no outcry" was wrong terminology. But in comparison to these other cases, situations where a person already had a police record, had in some cases just committed a crime, or was uncooperative with police orders, in that sense there was very little response. (Not that I was hoping for riots, but such an unwarranted shooting almost cried out for one.) Maybe it was because he wasn't really a part of their in-group, their particular sub-culture. Maybe it was because his ancestors, if they had been slaves, were not slaves here in the States. I just don't understand it. It was more of a musing, really, something that just didn't (and doesn't) make sense to me.

I can think of a whole host of reasons that had nothing to do with Botham, perhaps the relationship between Dallas PD and the black community was better (or at least not as bad), perhaps the legal system responded more quickly, perhaps it was 2018 and things hadn’t reached the same crisis point. I don’t know. I don’t why some things spark a more vehement response and why sone things don’t.

[Szdfan]

Miriam Carey. crickets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_ ... prov=sfti1

On May 20, 2015 a vigil was held in Union Square, Manhattan as part of the Say Her Name campaign to recognize the lives and deaths of black women killed or injured by police. Miriam Carey's family attended the vigil and her name was highlighted as one of the women to be recognized. Carey's name and story has also been featured in the Say Her Name publication "Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women". Carey has been mentioned by critics of the Black Lives Matter movement as an example of the perceived lack of Intersectionality within the movement, citing the lack of coverage and continued discussion of her death

[temporal1]

re: the lack of an out cry regarding the death of Botham Jean: Maybe "almost no outcry" was wrong terminology.
But in comparison to these other cases, situations where a person already had a police record, had in some cases just committed a crime, or was uncooperative with police orders, in that sense there was very little response. (Not that I was hoping for riots, but such an unwarranted shooting almost cried out for one.)

Maybe it was because he wasn't really a part of their in-group, their particular sub-culture.
Maybe it was because his ancestors, if they had been slaves, were not slaves here in the States.
I just don't understand it.

It was more of a musing, really, something that just didn't (and doesn't) make sense to me.

Neto,
you aren’t the only one with questions about “how lives are prioritized,” and, i suspect, there is a volcano of emotion unexpressed regarding black on black crime. the ability of organized political groups to bully their way into the spotlight is gasp-worthy.

the black unborn / innocent, killed for-profit, without representation
https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/b ... story.html

Miriam Carey. crickets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_ ... prov=sfti1

On May 20, 2015 a vigil was held in Union Square, Manhattan as part of the Say Her Name campaign to recognize the lives and deaths of black women killed or injured by police. Miriam Carey's family attended the vigil and her name was highlighted as one of the women to be recognized. Carey's name and story has also been featured in the Say Her Name publication "Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women". Carey has been mentioned by critics of the Black Lives Matter movement as an example of the perceived lack of Intersectionality within the movement, citing the lack of coverage and continued discussion of her death.

i did not know about this publication, but i have followed enough to know her family and loved ones have been very unhappy.

i’m sorry her name has been picked up by an organized political bloc, but not surprised.
regardless, i highly doubt anything much will come of it, too political.

obama was in office, D.C. police/Secret Service? killed her, etc.
the officers were probably black or POC, and following orders. it can be presumed they had the best training and state of the art equipment. my guess, they probably could see she was unarmed with a baby in the back seat.

politics.
Neto has valid questions.

since Miriam Carey’s tragic death, my impression is, the White House has been overall less deadly in response to interlopers.
what she did was wrong, possibly a psychotic episode, but she did not deserve the death penalty. no prior record.

[joshuabgood]

I'm trying to understand why it's important for followers of Jesus to affirm "good" things in secular ideologies...

When white Christians denounce a social theory that has helped black people understand why they are on the bottom end of the social and economic structure of society, a social theory that has helped them identify the lie that they are lazier, or wickeder, or not as smart as everyone else, that denunciation by a group of people that historically has oppressed them, doesn't sit well. I have been privileged to work alongside, go to church alongside, etc, many black people and this sort of "white Christian" response (see SBC example) in the larger context is very problematic for black Christians. Further, black people that aren't Christian at all (some of whom associate Christianity with "white man's oppression" in the first place thanks the Christian Racism that was preached for centuries in this culture), when they hear Christians denouncing social theories that provide an explanation for why they have been and are in the lower strata of society, economically and socially, it does damage to the witness of Jesus. I cringe at the thought of how my black acquaintances would experience this white "Christian" "clapback" at CRT. I am not surprised it resulted in black churches pulling out of SBC, a conference that historically only exists because of its foundation on "Christian Racism" heresy. It bothers me to see this materializing in CA circles.

The primary problem I have with the first response is that it affirms parts of ideologies that are secular in nature. Secularism is clearly at odds with the NT Kingdom. And for Kingdom Christians to team up with these ideologies by promoting them, even to the extent of writing papers doing so, is, in my view, anti-Kingdom in nature.

I disagree here (which we don't need to debate, from my perspective at least we know where we disagree). I believe all truth is God's truth. Secular truth is God's truth. In my view there have been many true things that have came through people (themselves created by God with gifts from God in the image of God) that aren't (yet) disciples of Jesus. I have no problem bringing in all truth as God's truth. We need not fear it.

You state above: "CRT is not spoken of in glowing myths about its founders being Christian and it being a special theory blest by God." In your paper you say things like "So what then is the essence of some of these “valid points” CRT brings to the anti-racism conversation? Well, they are these (none of which contradict the person Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, his teachings and his witness):" and "None of the above propositions is particularly objectionable with regard to Jesus Christ and his good news or the scriptures. In fact, in some ways these particular components dovetail well with a biblical understanding of the human condition." That sounds pretty close to saying that parts of the theory are blest by God.

To my reading it feels like you are stretching things here to try and make a point. CRT is not in some mystical way "blest" by God. Aspects of CRT (and Marxism, and Buddhism, and Islam for that matter) - do contain parts of God's truth. However, there are no hymns written to CRT as in Christian Nationalism, there are no "lifted up" graven images/idols in public squares of CRT, there are no CRT banners in the front of churches being venerated, there are no "God bless" CRT at the end of speeches, there are not sacred ceremonies and liturgies with CRT as there are with Christian Nationalism (Pledge of Allegiance, hand over heart, standing for the flag, etc). The point I am making is simply that truth, any truth, does not contradict the person of Jesus and his witness. The truth of God can come from secular sources and people who aren't (yet) disicples. This is because all people are created in the image of God given gifts by God. Even atheists, like Karl Marx or James Baldwin, can bring truths to the table.

You seem to look negatively at Christians writing papers denouncing particular secular ideologies but seem to be okay with Christians writing papers promoting them. Why is the one more right than the other?

I don't think it bodes well for the Kingdom to "issue" formal denunciations of this or that social theory/political issue. I also don't think Christians should promote the whole of Marxism, Capitalism, CRTism, etc because they don't pose the solutions to our problems.

Here is what I do advocate for, finding super-ordinate goals (and super-ordinate problem diagnosis) where-ever we can as we work as peace-makers and reconciliators in a our broken societies. Kingdom Citizens ought to be among those in my view, who look beyond what isn't right, finding what is right, and building off of that to be peace-makers, salt and light, etc. That isn't just in the church but in the whole of society. Jesus certainly was.

The problem I have with the 2nd response you present is that I don't find in Jesus' and the apostles teaching where followers of Jesus are called to become activists against every secular ideology that comes along. I live in the south and see an abundance of "Christian" patriotism and anti-left sentiment and I want no part of it. These responses, in my view, are opposite sides of the same coin. The coin being the idea that it is the Christian's duty to try and reform societies through civil activism. I do not believe followers of Jesus are called to that.

I agree we don't use the tools of this world (violence and coercion) but Jesus taught us to be peacemaker and the salt and light in our society. He demonstrated how to speak truth to power by his conduct with the political powers of the day, Herod, the Sanhedrin, Rome/Pilate, etc.

I believe our calling as followers of Jesus is to present to individuals the good news as you presented it in the other thread rather than using the tools of secular societies to try and accomplish Kingdom building. I contend you are using some of those tools in your paper.

I agree again. We shouldn't use worldly tools (violence/coercion etc). But beyond just individual personal salvation, I think we are called to be peace-makers, and Kingdom builders. We are called to be salt and light. We are called to disciple. I believe we should do these things with everyone. Jesus taught the masses the Sermon the Mount. Why shouldn't we? In our work places we should disciple and challenge people in the Kingdom Values and the good news of Matt 5-7. Like Ernie mentioned somewhere, there is a place for discipleship in Kingdom Values perhaps even before formal baptism/decision - much like we do with our children prior to adult commitment. In our society we should work for reconciliation and peace among believers and nonbelievers. In our polity we should speak truth to power on behalf of the Kingdom of God as peace-makers...

[temporal1]

re: the lack of an out cry regarding the death of Botham Jean: Maybe "almost no outcry" was wrong terminology.
But in comparison to these other cases, situations where a person already had a police record, had in some cases just committed a crime, or was uncooperative with police orders, in that sense there was very little response. (Not that I was hoping for riots, but such an unwarranted shooting almost cried out for one.)

Maybe it was because he wasn't really a part of their in-group, their particular sub-culture.
Maybe it was because his ancestors, if they had been slaves, were not slaves here in the States.
I just don't understand it.

It was more of a musing, really, something that just didn't (and doesn't) make sense to me.

Neto,
you aren’t the only one with questions about “how lives are prioritized,” and, i suspect, there is a volcano of emotion unexpressed regarding black on black crime. the ability of organized political groups to bully their way into the spotlight is gasp-worthy.

the black unborn / innocent, killed for-profit, without representation
https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/b ... story.html

Miriam Carey. crickets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_ ... prov=sfti1

On May 20, 2015 a vigil was held in Union Square, Manhattan as part of the Say Her Name campaign to recognize the lives and deaths of black women killed or injured by police. Miriam Carey's family attended the vigil and her name was highlighted as one of the women to be recognized. Carey's name and story has also been featured in the Say Her Name publication "Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women". Carey has been mentioned by critics of the Black Lives Matter movement as an example of the perceived lack of Intersectionality within the movement, citing the lack of coverage and continued discussion of her death.

i did not know about this publication, but i have followed enough to know her family and loved ones have been very unhappy.

i’m sorry her name has been picked up by an organized political bloc, but not surprised.
regardless, i highly doubt anything much will come of it, too political.

obama was in office, D.C. police/Secret Service? killed her, etc.
the officers were probably black or POC, and following orders. it can be presumed they had the best training and state of the art equipment. my guess, they probably could see she was unarmed with a baby in the back seat.

politics.
Neto has valid questions.

since Miriam Carey’s tragic death, my impression is, the White House has been overall less deadly in response to interlopers.
what she did was wrong, possibly a psychotic episode, but she did not deserve the death penalty. no prior record.

In addition, the presumably elite POC police that killed Miriam Carey, had her license plate number, a BASIC source for police work everywhere. They knew very quickly there was no criminal record associated with this vehicle/owner.

Of course, these things happen in the moment, rapid decisions are made (on all sides) that can be fatal (on all sides).

The police could not be certain MC was driving (the baby complicates the event) the car could have been stolen, with the baby inside. i have not read whether police saw the baby. i suspect they did, given their state of the art equipment. unknown.

The car could have had a bomb or been weaponized in some way. The stakes were high.

i don’t see the police as defenseless in their aggressive action. MC made a bad choice that day.

the crickets are problematic, as Neto mentions, there is NO FAIR reporting, naturally, questions arise as to why a few questionable cases reign supreme, others ignored. this points to an agenda. when reports are not balanced, this equates to propaganda, not news.

In the MC case, i have seen NO names or photos of police involved.

politics.
Neto has valid questions.

[temporal1]

jbg:
I agree again.

you are incredibly blessed to have dialogue with GaryK (and others) on this forum. GaryK doesn’t post volumes, i try not to miss.
others are blessed to read when he writes to anyone on any topic.

[GaryK]

I'm trying to understand why it's important for followers of Jesus to affirm "good" things in secular ideologies...

When white Christians denounce a social theory that has helped black people understand why they are on the bottom end of the social and economic structure of society, a social theory that has helped them identify the lie that they are lazier, or wickeder, or not as smart as everyone else, that denunciation by a group of people that historically has oppressed them, doesn't sit well. I have been privileged to work alongside, go to church alongside, etc, many black people and this sort of "white Christian" response (see SBC example) in the larger context is very problematic for black Christians. Further, black people that aren't Christian at all (some of whom associate Christianity with "white man's oppression" in the first place thanks the Christian Racism that was preached for centuries in this culture), when they hear Christians denouncing social theories that provide an explanation for why they have been and are in the lower strata of society, economically and socially, it does damage to the witness of Jesus. I cringe at the thought of how my black acquaintances would experience this white "Christian" "clapback" at CRT. I am not surprised it resulted in black churches pulling out of SBC, a conference that historically only exists because of its foundation on "Christian Racism" heresy. It bothers me to see this materializing in CA circles.

The primary problem I have with the first response is that it affirms parts of ideologies that are secular in nature. Secularism is clearly at odds with the NT Kingdom. And for Kingdom Christians to team up with these ideologies by promoting them, even to the extent of writing papers doing so, is, in my view, anti-Kingdom in nature.

I disagree here (which we don't need to debate, from my perspective at least we know where we disagree). I believe all truth is God's truth. Secular truth is God's truth. In my view there have been many true things that have came through people (themselves created by God with gifts from God in the image of God) that aren't (yet) disciples of Jesus. I have no problem bringing in all truth as God's truth. We need not fear it.

You state above: "CRT is not spoken of in glowing myths about its founders being Christian and it being a special theory blest by God." In your paper you say things like "So what then is the essence of some of these “valid points” CRT brings to the anti-racism conversation? Well, they are these (none of which contradict the person Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, his teachings and his witness):" and "None of the above propositions is particularly objectionable with regard to Jesus Christ and his good news or the scriptures. In fact, in some ways these particular components dovetail well with a biblical understanding of the human condition." That sounds pretty close to saying that parts of the theory are blest by God.

To my reading it feels like you are stretching things here to try and make a point. CRT is not in some mystical way "blest" by God. Aspects of CRT (and Marxism, and Buddhism, and Islam for that matter) - do contain parts of God's truth. However, there are no hymns written to CRT as in Christian Nationalism, there are no "lifted up" graven images/idols in public squares of CRT, there are no CRT banners in the front of churches being venerated, there are no "God bless" CRT at the end of speeches, there are not sacred ceremonies and liturgies with CRT as there are with Christian Nationalism (Pledge of Allegiance, hand over heart, standing for the flag, etc). The point I am making is simply that truth, any truth, does not contradict the person of Jesus and his witness. The truth of God can come from secular sources and people who aren't (yet) disicples. This is because all people are created in the image of God given gifts by God. Even atheists, like Karl Marx or James Baldwin, can bring truths to the table.

You seem to look negatively at Christians writing papers denouncing particular secular ideologies but seem to be okay with Christians writing papers promoting them. Why is the one more right than the other?

I don't think it bodes well for the Kingdom to "issue" formal denunciations of this or that social theory/political issue. I also don't think Christians should promote the whole of Marxism, Capitalism, CRTism, etc because they don't pose the solutions to our problems.

Here is what I do advocate for, finding super-ordinate goals (and super-ordinate problem diagnosis) where-ever we can as we work as peace-makers and reconciliators in a our broken societies. Kingdom Citizens ought to be among those in my view, who look beyond what isn't right, finding what is right, and building off of that to be peace-makers, salt and light, etc. That isn't just in the church but in the whole of society. Jesus certainly was.

The problem I have with the 2nd response you present is that I don't find in Jesus' and the apostles teaching where followers of Jesus are called to become activists against every secular ideology that comes along. I live in the south and see an abundance of "Christian" patriotism and anti-left sentiment and I want no part of it. These responses, in my view, are opposite sides of the same coin. The coin being the idea that it is the Christian's duty to try and reform societies through civil activism. I do not believe followers of Jesus are called to that.

I agree we don't use the tools of this world (violence and coercion) but Jesus taught us to be peacemaker and the salt and light in our society. He demonstrated how to speak truth to power by his conduct with the political powers of the day, Herod, the Sanhedrin, Rome/Pilate, etc.

I believe our calling as followers of Jesus is to present to individuals the good news as you presented it in the other thread rather than using the tools of secular societies to try and accomplish Kingdom building. I contend you are using some of those tools in your paper.

I agree again. We shouldn't use worldly tools (violence/coercion etc). But beyond just individual personal salvation, I think we are called to be peace-makers, and Kingdom builders. We are called to be salt and light. We are called to disciple. I believe we should do these things with everyone. Jesus taught the masses the Sermon the Mount. Why shouldn't we? In our work places we should disciple and challenge people in the Kingdom Values and the good news of Matt 5-7. Like Ernie mentioned somewhere, there is a place for discipleship in Kingdom Values perhaps even before formal baptism/decision - much like we do with our children prior to adult commitment. In our society we should work for reconciliation and peace among believers and nonbelievers. In our polity we should speak truth to power on behalf of the Kingdom of God as peace-makers...

I'm going to leave this discussion with these few thoughts.

I reject the idea that it's necessary to affirm anti-Kingdom ideologies in order to understand the problem of racism. Unlike the idea of promoting secular ideologies, where the "good" in the ideologies are promoted but the solutions are denounced, the Bible adequately provides the understanding of the problem and adequately prescribes the solution. To team up with such ideologies is, in my view, something the Bible warns followers of Jesus against. I choose to continue attempting to build the Kingdom through biblical solutions and by attempting to let my life be an example of Jesus to those I interact with.

Blessings and peace.

[Josh]

re: the lack of an out cry regarding the death of Botham Jean: Maybe "almost no outcry" was wrong terminology. But in comparison to these other cases, situations where a person already had a police record, had in some cases just committed a crime, or was uncooperative with police orders, in that sense there was very little response. (Not that I was hoping for riots, but such an unwarranted shooting almost cried out for one.) Maybe it was because he wasn't really a part of their in-group, their particular sub-culture. Maybe it was because his ancestors, if they had been slaves, were not slaves here in the States. I just don't understand it. It was more of a musing, really, something that just didn't (and doesn't) make sense to me.

His death didn’t fit the agenda of radical leftists, who want to basically legitimise crime in order to seize political control. (This is a standard part of a Marxist-Leninist playbook, seizing control of the police and other state security apparatus.)

The most focus was placed on George Floyd, who was engaged in criminal activity and had a sordid criminal history. The least focus was placed on victims of police brutality who had no criminal record and were shot to death in their own homes.

Any discussion of “justice” is amiss without recognising the elephant in the room; in California, many stores have closed or cut hours because of how bad it’s become since San Francisco’s DA (the son of Bill Ayers, the author of “Rules for Radicals”), decided to make shoplifting legal.

This is the actual, real end of embracing Marxist ideology. Preventing police brutality isn’t the goal. The goal is to turn the police into an enforcement squad for the left. Tools like CRT are just tools to dupe Lenin’s “useful idiots” into helping install a totalitarian state.

[Josh]

joshgood,

“ However, there are no hymns written to CRT as in Christian Nationalism, there are no "lifted up" graven images/idols in public squares of CRT, there are no CRT banners in the front of churches being venerated,”

This isn’t even true. I’m sitting across from a church that still had its PRIDE flag from last month up that contains the intersectional banner (the pink/white/cyan/black/brown). That is 100% a Critical Theory flag.

But your point does stand, certain denominations do engage in a lot of political worship - but who are you addressing your complaint to? Mennonites don’t fly flags unless they are really liberal. They don’t go to the Super Bowl or “get into politics” about players kneeling. I go to church with a few people who like to talk about politics, and nobody has brought up player behaviour at the Super Bowl or talked about the national anthem.

Perhaps your issue is you need to start associating with more conservative (Mennonite) churches, and encourage people slipping into the right wing political world to do the same.

[joshuabgood]

I'm going to leave this discussion with these few thoughts.

I reject the idea that it's necessary to affirm anti-Kingdom ideologies in order to understand the problem of racism. Unlike the idea of promoting secular ideologies, where the "good" in the ideologies are promoted but the solutions are denounced, the Bible adequately provides the understanding of the problem and adequately prescribes the solution. To team up with such ideologies is, in my view, something the Bible warns followers of Jesus against. I choose to continue attempting to build the Kingdom through biblical solutions and by attempting to let my life be an example of Jesus to those I interact with.

Blessings and peace.

Fair enough. Just a point of clarification...the way I would frame it is "I don't affirm anti-Kingdom ideas either." I only affirm ideas that are Kingdom ideas, that is, those that are aligned with God's truth. For instance I affirm the teaching in Judaism/Islam that there is only one God.

Yes it seems I am more willing it seems to build from truth (at least how I see it) in various systems.

Thanks for the blessing and the peace. Likewise.