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

[Bootstrap]

Anyone talking about CRT needs to also be thinking about intersectionalism; you can’t accept CRT in the present era without accepting third wave feminism and LGBT affirmation. That presents a real problem.

Why not? How is that different from accepting conservative politics while rejecting white supremacy? I think it's possible to decide that you agree with one conservative but not with another, that some things make sense and others are beyond the pale.

Regardless, we need to use a biblical worldview while evaluating all ideologies, using the Bible as the authority to evaluate the rest.

[Ken]

Anyone talking about CRT needs to also be thinking about intersectionalism; you can’t accept CRT in the present era without accepting third wave feminism and LGBT affirmation. That presents a real problem.

Personally I don't talk or think about CRT one way or the other. And I hadn't even heard of the term before it became a the most recent bugaboo of the right. And I doubt most others looking to address sources of racism did either.

But I am, however, aware that systemic racism is a pervasive problem. Both in my profession and in wider society. So I am interested in exploring solutions to that problem.

As for "third wave feminism?" I don't even know what that is. As for LGBT affirmation? I'm not particularly interested in "affirming" any particular group, LGBT or otherwise. I just simply believe we should follow and uphold the Constitution which grants equal protection for all, whether they are Black, female, or LGBT.

Just because obscure academics try to link all these disparate issues into some universal theory doesn't mean people seeking to address problems such as racism are paying attention or even buy into that sort of framing at all. Because the question isn't whether or not you accept some obscure academic theory called CRT. That is a completely irrelevant red herring. No one in the real world is going around pledging allegiance to CRT. The question is whether you accept that racism in its various forms still exists in our society, and what we should do about it.

[Szdfan]

As for "third wave feminism?" I don't even know what that is.

Third wave feminism is loosely defined as the feminist academic writing and activism since about 1990, which plays a greater emphasis on the experiences of non-white women. One of the criticisms of Second Wave feminism (i.e. Betty Frieden) is that it focused almost exclusively on the experiences of white women in the US and Western Europe. Third Wave is more global and inclusive in its focus.

[PetrChelcicky]

For the history of CRT I recommend the following article:
https://www.takimag.com/article/the-age-of-black-rage/ (By David Cole)
Reminds the "Cress theory", written 1970, as a (or even "the") precursor of CRT. Cress did not get tenure at the Black Howard University, because they felt that her ideas did not make sense. However her ideas were popularized 1990 by a rap band (and not taken seriously by the white public).

A second article I recommend is:
https://www.amren.com/features/2021/06/ ... n-schools/ (By Gregory Hood)
A white nationalist here defends the study of CRT because:
1. CRT tries to describe relations of power and privilege, and this ought to be useful for the great masses of whites who experience just now that they have no power and no privilege, but have fallen prey to the real elites.
(The Harvard Law "interest convergence dilemma" seems to presuppose that there is one and only one white interest - but in fact whites were deeply divided about desegregation and most white nationalists of today would frame the conflict, ironically, as a conflict between Goodwhites and Badwhites)
2. CRT is divise and just therefore it helps to develop a white identitarian movement (which is needed urgently).
I think that he is right on both counts.

[Ken]

As for "third wave feminism?" I don't even know what that is.

Third wave feminism is loosely defined as the feminist academic writing and activism since about 1990, which plays a greater emphasis on the experiences of non-white women. One of the criticisms of Second Wave feminism (i.e. Betty Frieden) is that it focused almost exclusively on the experiences of white women in the US and Western Europe. Third Wave is more global and inclusive in its focus.

So 1st-wave feminism was what? The early 20th Century suffragette movement?
2nd-wave feminism was the 1960s white housewife women's lib movement?
And 3rd-wave feminism is the modern multi-cultural and 3rd world stuff?

Got it.

So what does Josh find so horrifying about the issues talked about in 3rd wave feminism?

In any event, this still seems a lot like theoretical inside baseball. Personally I tend to pay zero attention to the academic theorizing about any of this stuff. But I do have daughters and I do sometimes pay attention to actual real-life issues that affect women. Like sexual harassment, disproportionate pay, workplace discrimination, access to childcare, etc.

Frankly I don't see the actual point of trying to link all these disparate concrete issues into some master "theory of everything" unless you are trying to cleverly write an academic dissertation or something. Actual real problems have actual real causes and actual real solutions that aren't necessarily all part of some universal cause and effect.

[Bootstrap]

For the history of CRT I recommend the following article:
https://www.takimag.com/article/the-age-of-black-rage/ (By David Cole)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/takis-magazine/

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis.

[Szdfan]

As for "third wave feminism?" I don't even know what that is.

Third wave feminism is loosely defined as the feminist academic writing and activism since about 1990, which plays a greater emphasis on the experiences of non-white women. One of the criticisms of Second Wave feminism (i.e. Betty Frieden) is that it focused almost exclusively on the experiences of white women in the US and Western Europe. Third Wave is more global and inclusive in its focus.

So 1st-wave feminism was what? The early 20th Century suffragette movement?
2nd-wave feminism was the 1960s white housewife women's lib movement?
And 3rd-wave feminism is the modern multi-cultural and 3rd world stuff?

Got it.

Pretty much, though I think sometimes the early feminist movement in the late 19th century that emerged out of the abolition movement (i.e. the Seneca Falls Conference) gets grouped in with 1st wave.

Frankly I don't see the actual point of trying to link all these disparate concrete issues into some master "theory of everything" unless you are trying to cleverly write an academic dissertation or something. Actual real problems have actual real causes and actual real solutions that aren't necessarily all part of some universal cause and effect.

I think theory can be helpful as a way of framing and understanding these issues and the dynamics behind them. I think theory can help people make sense of the why and how of their experiences. I don’t think CRT is a “universal theory of everything,” but it helpful to understand how systematic racism works.

To me theory us a bit like the theological lenses I studied in seminary. Interesting and helpful to understand, but limited when it comes to being a practitioner. For example, understanding the “Q” theory is helpful and interesting, but I would never have preached on it. Textual criticism does not make for relevant sermon material, but it was something as an MDiv I should at least have an awareness about.

[Szdfan]

Christian Century made a helpful point in an editorial:

https://www.christiancentury.org/articl ... f-82603491

[CRT] does not sit well alongside American individualism—and especially not alongside a theology that defines sin in terms of individual actions or beliefs. Only recently have we become accustomed to speaking about “institutional” and “systemic” racism. Americans, and especially White Americans, still commonly think of racism as an individual problem.

Thus when the SBC reaffirmed its position that all racism is rooted in sin, its primary objection to CRT, named obliquely, was that it locates the “ultimate identity of human beings in ethnicity” as a “group dynamic.” The very awkwardness of that wording suggests the discomfort that lies in grappling with systemic racism.

Treating CRT as a bogeyman allows its opponents to protect institutional and cultural power for themselves. But more broadly, many American Christians—across the political spectrum—lack a way of speaking about collective sin that is biblically rooted and socially transformative.

One of the characteristics of a great deal of American theology is an emphasis on individualism which means that many Christians do not have the language or capacity to address systematic sin, which is a concern of Scripture.

I think on one level, the demonization of CRT reflects the emphasis on individual sin and the inability to deal with or talk about systematic sin.

[Ken]

Third wave feminism is loosely defined as the feminist academic writing and activism since about 1990, which plays a greater emphasis on the experiences of non-white women. One of the criticisms of Second Wave feminism (i.e. Betty Frieden) is that it focused almost exclusively on the experiences of white women in the US and Western Europe. Third Wave is more global and inclusive in its focus.

So 1st-wave feminism was what? The early 20th Century suffragette movement?
2nd-wave feminism was the 1960s white housewife women's lib movement?
And 3rd-wave feminism is the modern multi-cultural and 3rd world stuff?

Got it.

Pretty much, though I think sometimes the early feminist movement in the late 19th century that emerged out of the abolition movement (i.e. the Seneca Falls Conference) gets grouped in with 1st wave.

Frankly I don't see the actual point of trying to link all these disparate concrete issues into some master "theory of everything" unless you are trying to cleverly write an academic dissertation or something. Actual real problems have actual real causes and actual real solutions that aren't necessarily all part of some universal cause and effect.

I think theory can be helpful as a way of framing and understanding these issues and the dynamics behind them. I think theory can help people make sense of the why and how of their experiences. I don’t think CRT is a “universal theory of everything,” but it helpful to understand how systematic racism works.

To me theory us a bit like the theological lenses I studied in seminary. Interesting and helpful to understand, but limited when it comes to being a practitioner. For example, understanding the “Q” theory is helpful and interesting, but I would never have preached on it. Textual criticism does not make for relevant sermon material, but it was something as an MDiv I should at least have an awareness about.

I'm not saying that theory has no place. It helps one understand the connections between issues. In science, for example, we can connect the rise and fall of the tides, the orbits of the earth and moon, the changing of the seasons, and the falling of an apple from a tree using Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

But when it comes to actual social problems and their solutions I tend to be more practical minded. And find these sorts of discussions like the one about CRT to be nothing more than a distraction from the real issues at hand. For example, one might be able to find threads of continuity between say housing discrimination in Atlanta and educational discrimination against girls in Nigeria. But that tells you nothing about how to solve either problem.

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is"

-- Yogi Berra

[Josh]

For the history of CRT I recommend the following article:
https://www.takimag.com/article/the-age-of-black-rage/ (By David Cole)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/takis-magazine/

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis.

Ah, I see Bootstrap is here again to tell us what we should think and to tell us which news sources are OK.