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

[NedFlanders]

None of what you said is relevant to whether or not Critical Theory needs to be pushed on teachers and taught to elementary students.

Elementary students don't need to be learning about race, "white supremacy" (whatever that is), and racial identities and grievances at all. How about teaching elementary students:

- Reading
- Writing
- Arithmetic

Or maybe you should stop buying into the latest made-up fake moral panic nonsense coming from the right wing and just let teachers and schools decide for themselves how best to reach all of their students....(snip)

And this is why we have private schools and homeschoolers - teachers in a failing system who are saying parents should have no choice in their children's education. The bolded comment is incredible!

[Ken]

None of what you said is relevant to whether or not Critical Theory needs to be pushed on teachers and taught to elementary students.

Elementary students don't need to be learning about race, "white supremacy" (whatever that is), and racial identities and grievances at all. How about teaching elementary students:

- Reading
- Writing
- Arithmetic

Or maybe you should stop buying into the latest made-up fake moral panic nonsense coming from the right wing and just let teachers and schools decide for themselves how best to reach all of their students....(snip)

And this is why we have private schools and homeschoolers - teachers in a failing system who are saying parents should have no choice in their children's education. The bolded comment is incredible!

Parents and students do have many choices in the public school system and there is parental input all the way through the system from the development of curriculum standards at the state level to the adoption of textbooks and curriculum resources at the district and school level.

What Josh wants do do in the blurb you quoted is short circuit that process and substitute his own judgement based on nothing but right wing culture war talking points and memes.

In the public schools, things like diversity training isn't about indoctrinating students. It is about helping teachers understand where their increasingly diverse student population is coming from and how best to engage them in the material that they need to learn. For example, in the district where I teach we have a growing population of Pacific islanders from places like Guam, Samoa, and the Mariana Islands. And they tend to struggle in American schools. Why is that? Is there something about the very communal Pacific island culture that doesn't lend itself to ready success in the very individualist American school system? What should teachers know and how can they best help such students succeed? What tools can we use to engage them? That is the sort of thing that diversity training is actually about.

[temporal1]

2021: OP

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.

2023:

https://twitter
Everyone notice EM plans to "transform Twitter into the everything app"?
Ready for X/Twitter?

Even more for me to ignore?

So you're not planning on getting your brain chipped, and communicating telepathically with your new Tesla phone?

Me neither.
I don't know whether it will really come out in 2024 or not, but I bet will be a hot seller when it finally does.

The younger generation is going to eat this stuff up.
You can already get a virtual AI girlfriend. People in Japan are already dating robots.

Is it MN policy that a banned member has the opportunity to contact Admin-Mods regarding a fresh start?
i believe this was the case on MD. Don’t recall anything about it for MN.

Falco III .. ?

- - - - - - -

113 guests?!
562 guests?!

[temporal1]

2025 / PAUL JOSEPH KRAUSE

2022:

As for the whole "neomarxism" stuff? That is all YOU overlaying the writings of an old irrelevant 1960s leftist writer Herbert Marcuse (who died over 40 years ago) onto a present day movement. And who obviously was NOT writing about the social justice movements of today, two generations after his death.

Two generations ago, and we still live very much in the logic of that essay, imo. He was one of the key persons who helped give birth to the social justice movements of today.

Books have been written on the relation of today's social justice movements to Herbert Marcuse — not by conservatives opposed to social justice movements but by contemporary social justice theorists themselves.

Here's one quote from Wikipedia about Herbert Marcuse's influence on social justice movements today.

Marcuse's thought remains influential in the 21st century. In the introduction to an issue of New Political Science dedicated to Marcuse, Robert Kirsch and Sarah Surak described his influence as, "alive and well, vibrant across multiple fields of inquiry across many areas of social relations."[46] Marcuse's concept of repressive tolerance attracted renewed attention following the 9/11 attacks.[47] Repressive tolerance is also relevant to 21st century campus protests and the Black Lives Matter movement.[48]

Note that it specifically says how his repressive tolerance is especially relevant to Black Lives Matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

If you don't understand Marcuse’s concept of repressive tolerance, you have no idea why leftist protestors today will shout down conservative speakers and even riot just to prevent their views from being heard on campuses today.

They believe there can be no equality between "fascist" (often, conservative) and "antifascist" speech. Toleration of "fascist" speech is in their view "repressive tolerance," and that cannot be tolerated.

That is why they are opposed to what Marcuse called the "fallacy of free speech."

The concept of repressive tolerance as expressed by Herbert Marcuse in a famous essay by that name is still very much alive today. It is a foundational neomarxist concept. Ideas have consequences and can often survive for generations. This is just one of those neomarxist concepts by Herbert Marcuse that is still very much in play today.

Google Herbert Marcuse and social justice and see what comes up. There's plenty on it. It isn't me making stuff up.

Paul Joseph Krause / Why the Left Sees Fascism Everywhere! / -15min

Description:
In this lecture on Late Capitalism and Fascism, we explain why the Left sees fascists and fascism everywhere.
Looking at the New Marxist historical imagination and its revision of understanding capitalism and fascism, we learn that fascism is a historic phase of capitalism: late capitalism. To be an anti-fascist also means to be anti-capitalist. And in the new Marxist imaginary of world history, developed from the 1930s and after World War II, the new dichotomy of politics is not capitalist and proletariat but fascist and anti-fascist.

0:00-1:02 - Introduction
1:02-3:23 - Historical Fascism
3:23-4:54 - Fascism in Power
4:54-12:50 - The New Marxist History of the World
12:50-14:46 - The Story of Fascism

Paul Krause is the editor-in-chief of VoegelinView.
He is a political philosopher, literary critic, and classicist. He has written on the arts, culture, classics, literature, politics, philosophy, religion, and history for numerous publications in the English-speaking world.

He is the author of Finding Arcadia (2023), The Odyssey of Love (2021), and the Politics of Plato (2020);
he has also contributed to The College Lecture Today (2019) and Making Sense of Diseases and Disasters (2022).

When Falco responded to these topics, in the way he did, i found them interesting and eye-opening.
Strangely, years later, more references appear - - in the mainstream.

It’s helpful to be able to refer back to these topics in attempt to have a better view of what’s currently being said.
Of course, much of the chatter is likely baseless/hyperbole. It’s best to have some balance to draw on.

[JayP]

One of my academic peeves is the use of the word fascist. I truly do not believe the word has any value or meaning in serious conversations outside its use as a historical adjective for say, Nazi Germany, Franco, and Fascist Italy…all self described as fascist

But the word is used simply as a pejorative. We poor describe any thing authoritarian as fascist. The Soviets were very much so but hardly fascist. I just hate lazy use of vocabulary

[barnhart]

One of my academic peeves is the use of the word fascist. I truly do not believe the word has any value or meaning in serious conversations outside its use as a historical adjective for say, Nazi Germany, Franco, and Fascist Italy…all self described as fascist

But the word is used simply as a pejorative. We poor describe any thing authoritarian as fascist. The Soviets were very much so but hardly fascist. I just hate lazy use of vocabulary

It looks like you have something in common with Ken from back on page 14.

Woke Law Schools

Video/Discussion (not sure the link works for everyone)

https://www.theepochtimes.com/aaron-sib ... 42157.html

In this video, Aaron Sibarium discusses the ways in which Woke ideologues are taking over law schools, and what can be done about it.

This is really what it's all about: when Antonio Gramsci said, "we must re-evaluate what it means to rule," this is exactly what he meant. He was telling his acolytes to become teachers, to get into administrative positions, to create bureaucracies and NGOs. Administrative positions, bureaucracies and NGOs are all ways to effect government policy.

Aaron Sibarium says if we want public educational institutions not to be platforms for Woke ideologies then we need to become teachers and administrative officials ourselves within these institutions. He stresses the importance of administrative positions, and that teaching positions aren't enough.

Presumably such a strategy might not appeal to some Mennonites with a "two kingdom" theology.

He doesn't really address what we can do about bureaucracies and NGOs specifically. Most Christians I assume do not relish these things with the religious fervor of Gramsciite activists.

Using the term “woke” is like using the term “Nazi”. It automatically discredits your argument.

What do you even mean by the term “woke?” Do you even have any idea? Best as I can figure it vaguely refers to anything related to what used to be called “politically correct” except that conservatives now prefer the term because it evokes urban slang and therefore has racist undertones.

[temporal1]

One of my academic peeves is the use of the word fascist. I truly do not believe the word has any value or meaning in serious conversations outside its use as a historical adjective for say, Nazi Germany, Franco, and Fascist Italy…all self described as fascist

But the word is used simply as a pejorative. We poor describe any thing authoritarian as fascist. The Soviets were very much so but hardly fascist. I just hate lazy use of vocabulary

It’s a current mainstay of tech+social media. “Lazy” is a good word for it.
Sound bites are used to control narratives across large audiences, even globally. They’re like chants.

Think of the MANY examples of msm and politicians RECITING 1 DESIGNATED SHORT SCRIPT.
An established tool of propaganda, “given wings”. In WWII, Tokyo Rose was an early example of abusing airwaves for propaganda.

Oddest thing, even after being identified and called out, there’s little or no slowing down. Maybe doubling down!

It’s profitable.
Where there are profits, people will go to the ends to protect their interests. No matter how obviously inane. $$$$
No shame.

In former times, Christian ethics would more often cause the guilty to withdraw in shame.
Today, human law school-centric, guilt is nothing! Proudly continue on, the end justifies the means. No shame.

CONSUMERS can learn to reject. No profits = they’ll stop.

We’re in early days of learning how to best use tech. Pretty rough so far.
Hopefully, people will look back and laugh at how primitive this is.

[Bootstrap]

I've read this entire thread, but I'm still confused about the two central issues.

What exactly do people mean by “Hegelian Dialectic” in the context of the church? And where are people seeing significant or widespread influence of CRT in church life? I’ve seen occasional hints of it, but it still seems fairly fringe to me.

I don’t think I’ve seen a clear explanation with concrete examples in the thread so far, and I’d really appreciate any insight. Sometimes it feels like dramatic language gets used in place of actual evidence—as if just repeating a strong-sounding phrase is enough to prove the point. I’m not trying to be dismissive. If this is real, I'd really like to understand what’s being seen and how people are connecting it to what’s actually happening in churches.

[JohnH]

I've read this entire thread, but I'm still confused about the two central issues.

What exactly do people mean by “Hegelian Dialectic” in the context of the church? And where are people seeing significant or widespread influence of CRT in church life? I’ve seen occasional hints of it, but it still seems fairly fringe to me.

I don’t think I’ve seen a clear explanation with concrete examples in the thread so far, and I’d really appreciate any insight. Sometimes it feels like dramatic language gets used in place of actual evidence—as if just repeating a strong-sounding phrase is enough to prove the point. I’m not trying to be dismissive. If this is real, I'd really like to understand what’s being seen and how people are connecting it to what’s actually happening in churches.

An interesting thing that emerged recently was how David Platt used CRT as a tool to gain power in a church.

[Ken]

I've read this entire thread, but I'm still confused about the two central issues.

What exactly do people mean by “Hegelian Dialectic” in the context of the church? And where are people seeing significant or widespread influence of CRT in church life? I’ve seen occasional hints of it, but it still seems fairly fringe to me.

I don’t think I’ve seen a clear explanation with concrete examples in the thread so far, and I’d really appreciate any insight. Sometimes it feels like dramatic language gets used in place of actual evidence—as if just repeating a strong-sounding phrase is enough to prove the point. I’m not trying to be dismissive. If this is real, I'd really like to understand what’s being seen and how people are connecting it to what’s actually happening in churches.

An interesting thing that emerged recently was how David Platt used CRT as a tool to gain power in a church.

Oh really?

CRT is a pretty esoteric academic theory. How does one use it to gain power in a church? That's like saying someone used quantum field theory or the theory of relativity to gain power in a church.