We don't need to be afraid of CRT

[GaryK]

Somewhere on the preceding pages the prophecy of leveling hills and raising valleys was applied to the idea of raising the social standing of the down-trodden. Something I couldn't put my finger on was bothering me about that use of that Scripture (which I don't think has anything to do with that, in its original intent). But sometimes ideas can be used beyond their intended application w/o doing them violence. Anyway, here's what I think was bothering me about this: It smacks of the "theory" of "Limited Good", as found in many folk societies. Basically, it involves a belief that there is a limited amount of good in the world, and if someone else has a lot, that is the reason I have less. Some years ago a discussion broke out in mission circles that implied that the missionary activity originating in the West MUST diminish in order for the Holy Spirit to be able to bring about the involvement of non-Western Christians. This idea says that there is a limit to the power of the Holy Spirit, and if one group is doing a lot to exercise or apply the Spirit's power, then another group will not be able to.
Where this relates to the hills being lowered and the valleys raised is that since the oppressed are equated with the valleys that need to be raised up, then the hills that need to be pushed down are the other group. Limited Good.

Well said, Neto.

[Falco Underhill]

Maybe it is literally the Kingdom of God being at hand and the arrival of the King, who set up that kingdom.

Joshua, to what extent do you think your views (as expressed here) have been influenced by what is called "process theology"? Any influence of Hegel, for example?

[Bootstrap]

This is one place we disagree. I don't think Jesus came primarily so that individuals could be saved from their personal sin.

As I read the New Testament it's the reason Jesus died and rose again. To save us from sin.

That point "primarily" isn't essential to my argument. You could drop that word and the question is still why should CRT (which claims to be neutral about, and therefore doesn't acknowledge, Jesus Christ) be welcomed into the Church? As I read it, 2 John explicitly warns against it.

As I read the New Testament, the one thing Jesus could not stop talking about was the Kingdom of God. The Sermon on the Mount is the Constitution of the Kingdom of God, the Revelation shows the culmination of the Kingdom of God, which is the fulfillment of everything God intended from Genesis on. God wants a people who live this way, and that includes a certain dedication to justice, mercy, and the weightier matters of the law, it includes the way we treat and think of the last, the least, and the lost.

I identify with this quote:

Jesus thinks there’s a flood coming and another Sodom and Gomorrah coming. And the only way to avoid it is if Israel starts living by the Sermon on the Mount. To live by the Sermon on the Mount is to live by the ethic and the values of God’s Kingdom.

I agree with this summary:

• Jesus saw himself as bringing the story of Israel to its climax.
• The parables of Jesus occupy the same space as the prophetic words of warning and promise to ancient Israel. Jesus knew that his message would be dismissed or opposed by many.
• The parables reveal the nature of God’s Kingdom. To those who are open, the parables reveal the Kingdom. But to those who refuse to listen, the parables only conceal.

In the Parable of the Vineyard, I think the parallel with Isaiah is important:

Isaiah 5:7

For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel
And the men of Judah his delightful plant.
Thus he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed;
For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.

For Christians, the critical question is what we stand for and how we respond to injustice and unrighteousness, not what the government does. But when we advocate for policies with each other or with the government, or when we encourage others to harden their hearts, that's about us, not the about the government. I think this touches on themes found in the entire Bible.

[Bootstrap]

Maybe it is literally the Kingdom of God being at hand and the arrival of the King, who set up that kingdom.

Joshua, to what extent do you think your views (as expressed here) have been influenced by what is called "process theology"? Any influence of Hegel, for example?

Did Hegel talk about the Kingdom of God? Jesus did, over and over again.

[joshuabgood]

Of all the talks and messages by Voddie on racism that I've listened to, I don't recall reformed theology being something he mentions or that comes through in any way. Can you point me to where that connection is made?

The connection is the view of what salvation is. If salvation is construed as an eschatalogical and spiritual event accessed through the "finished work" and "PSA," then the present and real work of racial reconciliation, raising valleys and lowering mountains on earth as also in heaven, is work done amiss. If the salvation is on the other hand primarily about the Kingdom of God come on earth as also in heaven and being built by raising valleys and lowering mountains, then the real work of racial reconciliation in our society is important. Voddie opines that racial reconciliation is is already "finished" in the work of Christ and therefore Christians who are advocating for "social justice/righteousness" are focused amiss. He says we don't have to achieve it, it already exists. However, a quick review of our current society makes it clear that racial reconciliation doesn't exist. Part of the work of the Kingdom Christians is to like Jesus work for said reconciliation that doesn't exist. All that said, I'd prefer to get away from debating a "nonpresent" Voddie since he isn't here to speak for himself. I would like to continue the conversation around what I wrote. Are there any specific pieces around what I noted regarding CRT's worthwhile points that you object to? If so, which ones?

You seem to have missed my point about changing worldly societies and governments into right and just societies and governments. I don't believe the purpose of Jesus coming was to reform earthly societies and governments. If that was the purpose, then I see no reason for His followers not to get involved in politics and secular movements that try to effect change. I question whether Herod was fearful because he understood the nature of Jesus' Kingdom as much as he was fearful of being overthrown by another earthly power.

Jesus didn't come to "reform" worldly kingdoms, he came to replace them as the prince of peace with the government on his shoulders. The followers of Jesus are in fact political in that they belong to a real polity, that being the Kingdom of God. His Kingdom though doesn't operate like the worldly kingdoms with violence, oppression, and coercion. Followers of Jesus do however represent an existential threat to the Kingdoms of this world because they don't share the same leader, allegiance, or values. Jesus is a real King. That is why Herold was afraid. Likewise Caesar. The Kingdom of God is a rival nation. It is a polity. Because of this truth, that is what makes Christian nationalism so repugnant. And why it should gall us if people are "so thankful" for the "shed blood" of the USA military that "laid down its life" to make us safe (ie gives us salvation) and protects our way of liberty (ie gives us freedom). It is near blasphemy.

To be honest, it doesn't clear it up for me. You outrightly dismiss a black man's biblical view on racism simply because he holds to reformed theology. Yet you don't outrightly dismiss secular theories that promote clearly anti-NT Kingdom ideas. You seem to be saying that it's impossible for Voddie to have any valid scriptural points on racism because he has bought into a flawed theology but that it is possible for you to buy into certain parts of flawed secular ideologies that you yourself say promote anti-NT Kingdom ideas and somehow in spite of that, you should be listened to. That's why I have asked if you could point out from scripture where Voddie's biblical teaching on racial issues is flawed. Again, I do not recall any of the kind of teaching or ideas you refer to above being promoted by Voddie. In fact, his sermon on Ephesians 2 and racial reconciliation seems to do just the opposite. If you know differently, I would like to know.

This issue is, as I have tried to explain, reformed theology's perspective on what salvation is and what the work of the Kingdom is. That is the difference. Salvation is more than merely a "spiritual" event with future eschatological implications, it also includes a social component. Hence the need for (which Voddie denies) racial reconciliation in our society. CRT realizes, as I explained in my paper, that people make up societies and societies make up systems. It follows then that societal sins exist systemically. Consider the sexual revolution. Few would argue that the prevailing sexual mores of today don't exist at a systemic level in our society. If you doubt me check out the system of Hollywood or Netflix or Superbowl ads. These are not merely one off individual choices. It is systemic issue. So also with racism. Regarding my issues with Voddie's view on racial reconciliation I discussed that above. (I listened to that sermon to which you referred.)

As a matter of correction, I don't outrightly dismiss Voddie. I listened to many of his sermons. The issue with his reformed theology isn't an aside, like I have explained. It is the reformed theology view on salvation that impacts Voddie's perspective that I disagree with. As for Voddie, there are things he says with which I can agree, but the reformed theology and that perspective on the "good news of Jesus" and its ancillary out workings with regard to how salvation is realized, isn't one of them. I don't see where the conflict is. It shouldn't be that hard to thoughtfully analyze ideas, acknowledging what they get right, and discarding what is wrong. As I see it, CRT, gets some important things right with regard to observing things that need put right. Same with Marxism. Same with Capitalism. And they get the solutions wrong.

If you would be willing, I'd like to discuss with you a bit more anything specifically I wrote in the paper, and lay Voddie and his angle to rest a bit since he isn't here. Are there any specific points that I said are worthwhile that CRT brings to the table that you agree are in fact worthwhile? Are there any that you disagree with?

[joshuabgood]

Somewhere on the preceding pages the prophecy of leveling hills and raising valleys was applied to the idea of raising the social standing of the down-trodden. Something I couldn't put my finger on was bothering me about that use of that Scripture (which I don't think has anything to do with that, in its original intent). But sometimes ideas can be used beyond their intended application w/o doing them violence. Anyway, here's what I think was bothering me about this: It smacks of the "theory" of "Limited Good", as found in many folk societies. Basically, it involves a belief that there is a limited amount of good in the world, and if someone else has a lot, that is the reason I have less. Some years ago a discussion broke out in mission circles that implied that the missionary activity originating in the West MUST diminish in order for the Holy Spirit to be able to bring about the involvement of non-Western Christians. This idea says that there is a limit to the power of the Holy Spirit, and if one group is doing a lot to exercise or apply the Spirit's power, then another group will not be able to.
Where this relates to the hills being lowered and the valleys raised is that since the oppressed are equated with the valleys that need to be raised up, then the hills that need to be pushed down are the other group. Limited Good.

I don't use it in the sense of "limited good." I agree with your critique in that sense.

I use it generically in the sense that Jesus came to make things (social and individual) right. And making things right, means acknowledging there are things (social and individual) wrong. Racism is one such wrong thing that is part of the human condition, exists socially and individually, and needs to be made right. I don't mean that some have to "come down" so others can "go up" literally.

The other portions of that text from Isaiah include wording like "rough places plain" and the "crooked straight." The point is that Jesus came as real King, with the government upon his shoulders, a real prince of peace to right the wrongs in the world. By all accounts black people have been tremendously wronged in USA society. Part of the work and salvation of Jesus is making that right. Part of our work as his followers is working for reconciliation and restitution.

[Szdfan]

Somewhere on the preceding pages the prophecy of leveling hills and raising valleys was applied to the idea of raising the social standing of the down-trodden. Something I couldn't put my finger on was bothering me about that use of that Scripture (which I don't think has anything to do with that, in its original intent). But sometimes ideas can be used beyond their intended application w/o doing them violence. Anyway, here's what I think was bothering me about this: It smacks of the "theory" of "Limited Good", as found in many folk societies. Basically, it involves a belief that there is a limited amount of good in the world, and if someone else has a lot, that is the reason I have less. Some years ago a discussion broke out in mission circles that implied that the missionary activity originating in the West MUST diminish in order for the Holy Spirit to be able to bring about the involvement of non-Western Christians. This idea says that there is a limit to the power of the Holy Spirit, and if one group is doing a lot to exercise or apply the Spirit's power, then another group will not be able to.
Where this relates to the hills being lowered and the valleys raised is that since the oppressed are equated with the valleys that need to be raised up, then the hills that need to be pushed down are the other group. Limited Good.

I don't use it in the sense of "limited good." I agree with your critique in that sense.

I use it generically in the sense that Jesus came to make things (social and individual) right. And making things right, means acknowledging there are things (social and individual) wrong. Racism is one such wrong thing that is part of the human condition, exists socially and individually, and needs to be made right. I don't mean that some have to "come down" so others can "go up" literally.

The other portions of that text from Isaiah include wording like "rough places plain" and the "crooked straight." The point is that Jesus came as real King, with the government upon his shoulders, a real prince of peace to right the wrongs in the world. By all accounts black people have been tremendously wronged in USA society. Part of the work and salvation of Jesus is making that right. Part of our work as his followers is working for reconciliation and restitution.

I never understood those scriptures about raising the hills and lowering the valleys as advocacy for "limited good" or that some people had to come down in order for others to come up. I understood those scriptures to be about the hope and dream that the work of Jesus Christ was going to remake the landscape.

[joshuabgood]

Maybe it is literally the Kingdom of God being at hand and the arrival of the King, who set up that kingdom.

Joshua, to what extent do you think your views (as expressed here) have been influenced by what is called "process theology"? Any influence of Hegel, for example?

My influences have been more S Claiborne, Matthew Bates, McKnight, F Kuruvilla, J Martin, J D Weaver, etc.

[Falco Underhill]

Maybe it is literally the Kingdom of God being at hand and the arrival of the King, who set up that kingdom.

Joshua, to what extent do you think your views (as expressed here) have been influenced by what is called "process theology"? Any influence of Hegel, for example?

My influences have been more S Claiborne, Matthew Bates, McKnight, F Kuruvilla, J Martin, J D Weaver, etc.

Thanks, I appreciate it. However, I'm not familiar with any of them and there seem to be a lot of S Clairbornes, Matthew Bateses and McKnights, etc. Did any of these in particular influence your thoughts about CRT?

[Falco Underhill]

Maybe it is literally the Kingdom of God being at hand and the arrival of the King, who set up that kingdom.

Joshua, to what extent do you think your views (as expressed here) have been influenced by what is called "process theology"? Any influence of Hegel, for example?

My influences have been more S Claiborne, Matthew Bates, McKnight, F Kuruvilla, J Martin, J D Weaver, etc.

Thanks, I appreciate it. However, I'm not familiar with any of them and there seem to be a lot of S Clairbornes, Matthew Bateses and McKnights, etc., on Google.

Were any of these particularly influential on your thoughts about CRT?