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

[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.

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

Robert started quoting from this source. I think it's helpful.

Let me point out a few more facts you can learn from that source.

Founded on February 5, 2007, Taki’s Magazine is an extreme right-wing online magazine of politics and culture published by journalist Taki Theodoracopulos. According to a Guardian article entitled “The way of the Jackal”, Taki Theodoracopulos has racist views.

Taki’s Magazine’s former Executive Editor was Richard Spencer, who is an American white supremacist that coined the term Alternative Right. Gavin McInnes, who is a regular on Fox News also was a contributor until August 2017. His last column was entitled “So Long, Taki!” He has been described in media reports as a major figure within the alt-right movement. Gavin McInnes has also been featured in Hatewatch articles by the Southern Poverty Law Center, that can be found here and here.

This site is associated with Richard Spencer, one of the organizers of the Charlottesville riots.

Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978) is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist who is known for his activism on behalf of the alt-right movement in 2016 and 2017. Spencer calls for the reconstitution of the European Union into a white racial empire, which he believes will replace the diverse European ethnic identities with one homogeneous "white identity".

So if people are concerned about the ideological purity of the Church, should they be concerned about these things? If they want accurate information on race, is this the place to turn?

[Falco Underhill]

>>Your goal is clearly to criticize CRT. Can you start with a commonly accepted definition of what it is?

Absolutely not. (I'm not too good at definitions.)

Please provide one for us. What is the commonly accepted definition of CRT?

[Bootstrap]

>>Your goal is clearly to criticize CRT. Can you start with a commonly accepted definition of what it is?

Absolutely not. (I'm not too good at definitions.)

Please provide one for us. What is the commonly accepted definition of CRT?

I didn't start the discussion of CRT, I have had a really hard time finding one common set of approaches or definitions, it seems to be pretty vaguely defined. If nobody can define CRT, we may have some difficulty reaching clarity about it.

And that's one of the problems I see with many of these articles - they find one particularly objectionable writer, then say everyone is the same. They aren't. And many people learn some things from CRT but reject others. Different groups have different definitions. This is not some weird religious cult where everyone memorizes and agrees to the same set of beliefs, it is an academic field of study where there is a lot of variety.

Most schools have this much in common: They say that black Americans are not doing as well as white Americans, that systems like the public school system and the police and prisons may have something to do with this, that there may be generalized feelings among some groups that black Americans are somehow not as good as white Americans or deserve less sympathy even though they do not acknowledge it, and that we should think about whether there are things to do about it.

In general, I think the better question is this: if we take the New Testament account of church and ethnicity, the example of Jesus, the Old Testament prophets, and the laws of Deuteronomy into account, how should we be working toward racial reconciliation as a church? And a related question: if we agree that black Americans are generally not doing as well as white Americans, and many of our black brothers and sisters are saying there are things we should be doing to help, how do we respond to that?

Vince Bacote does not identify with CRT, though he is also not hostile to those who do. I think this is right on target:

While facing the truth will likely lead to sadness and guilt, the more important aspect is the cultivation of a willingness to cultivate and craft approaches to theology and church life that facilitate genuine community and mission among Bible-believing Christians of different ethnic backgrounds in general and between whites and African-Americans in particular. To do this in the current climate is a tremendous challenge when there is a significant contingent of Christians who regard attention to these matters as distractions from the gospel and the intrusion of a purported cultural Marxism.

Again, Bacote is neither a Marxist nor a proponent of CRT, but the whole CRT smokescreen is just another part of the whole shouting match that comes up any time we try to empathize with black brothers and sisters on a wide variety of issues.

I admit a tremendous frustration every time I see someone use the language of cultural Marxism as a reason to be wary of efforts to engage questions of race and life in the church. As I look back over the last 30 years and think about the different reasons some Bible-believing Christians have avoided, neglected or resisted questions of race, I find it peculiar that this campaign against cultural Marxism has emerged fairly recently (maybe as early as 2001) as a central reason to have hesitation about pursuits of justice.

In all honestly, if the people who express these concerns about cultural Marxism had lots of examples of congregations that have an allergy to critical race theory but are leading the way in cultivating and practicing a faith that addresses the past and present challenges of race, I would be more inclined to take their warnings seriously. As far as I can tell, these people are not leading the way toward cultivating a gospel unity. Instead, I see the act of using the label “cultural Marxism” as a smokescreen or diversionary tactic that forestalls both the reckoning required to contend with theological-ethical failures on race and the subsequent work to pursue new paths of Christian discipleship. These are paths taken where life together means truly living out the implications of a gospel that compels us to love our neighbors as ourselves in ways interpersonal and public/political. This does not mean loyalty to any political party but a true submission to the Lordship of Christ. This Lordship means we are seeking to have our various commitments always subject to examination by the Holy Spirit, and a willingness to respond to what is exposed.

One of the greatest things in need of exposure is the ways extra-biblical commitments function in the world and life view of Christians hesitant to acknowledge the ongoing challenges of race (or even among those who acknowledge it but do not see much that can be done besides have heated disagreements – hence an unfortunate conspiracy of silence in these cases).

Seriously, instead of investing our time in trying to define and debate CRT, an unending task, we might be better off asking how we can be more willing to empathize with our black brothers and sisters, serve with them, witness with them, help plant churches and build schools in the inner city, etc.

But first we have to listen. And empathize. And pray. And search our hearts before God.

[Falco Underhill]

Well, if you really want a definition of CRT here's one from the UCLA School of Public Affairs:

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color. CRT also rejects the traditions of liberalism and meritocracy. Legal discourse says that the law is neutral and colorblind, however, CRT challenges this legal “truth” by examining liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege. CRT also recognizes that liberalism and meritocracy are often stories heard from those with wealth, power, and privilege.

Source https://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is-cr ... ory/#_ftn1

That should be good enough for us to work with, imo.

[Bootstrap]

Well, if you really want a definition of CRT here's one from the UCLA School of Public Affairs:

OK, and I will translate this as I understand it. I am mostly translating from an academic vocabulary I dislike to a more concrete vocabulary that makes more sense to me.

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures.

This says that systems can be racist, even if individuals are not overtly racist. The school system may discriminate against blacks. The justice system may discriminate against blacks. Social media may treat blacks differently than whites. A huge percent of black people believe this is true, a huge percent of whites are unwilling to take that seriously. So CRT looks at the power structures themselves to see if they operate in ways that are unfair to blacks.

CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.

Whites run the dominant power systems in the United States. We generally run the educational systems, the medical systems, the government, the Internet, and social media. In general, you get ahead by knowing people - it's not what you know, it's who you know - and the whites who are in power create opportunities for other white people they know. In general, you are more sympathetic to people like you, and guess who is running all the systems?

FWIW, I think the terms "white privilege" and "white supremacy" are not helpful terms for communicating this, they tend to turn most whites off, but I think it makes sense as I translated it above. To me, it makes more sense to think of the ways blacks miss out on things we would want for everyone, things that whites tend not to miss out on, partly due to the way our systems work.

CRT also rejects the traditions of liberalism and meritocracy. Legal discourse says that the law is neutral and colorblind, however, CRT challenges this legal “truth” by examining liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege. CRT also recognizes that liberalism and meritocracy are often stories heard from those with wealth, power, and privilege.

As I understand it, they see "liberalism" as preaching color blindness, and they don't believe that exists. They believe most claims to be color blind are rooted in denial. They also want to be seen, in their full selves, and they see their skin color and culture and communities as part of who they are.

And they see "meritocracy" as the belief that virtue is always rewarded, fairly, so that the best people get the best things. They believe that the system is a lot less fair than that, that most people who get ahead had help, and that this help is not evenly distributed.

They also believe that these systems will not be changed unless it is in the interest of the dominant culture, not just the interest of those who are most oppressed.

I'm overgeneralizing, "they" is a pretty diverse lot of people. But this is the way I understand a largish chunk of people who say they believe in CRT.

My personal take: many Bible-believing black churches say there is a problem and we need to listen, we should take them seriously. Some of them use the vocabulary of CRT, others do not, all secular reasoning needs to be weighed against Scripture. But we do need to listen and wrestle with what they are saying.

[Ken]

Well, if you really want a definition of CRT here's one from the UCLA School of Public Affairs:

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color. CRT also rejects the traditions of liberalism and meritocracy. Legal discourse says that the law is neutral and colorblind, however, CRT challenges this legal “truth” by examining liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege. CRT also recognizes that liberalism and meritocracy are often stories heard from those with wealth, power, and privilege.

Source https://spacrs.wordpress.com/what-is-cr ... ory/#_ftn1

That should be good enough for us to work with, imo.

I'm not sure what is controversial about this. As a teacher I could take actual concrete examples from the public school system and show how every single one of these things are true.

[Falco Underhill]

That's would be the most culturally acceptable narrative, i think.

Voddie Baucham takes a closer look at their fundamental principles and lists these four features of the CRT worldview:

1. Racism is normative. (everywhere, unavoidable)

2. Convergence theory. (or Interest Convergence)

This means white people are incapable of righteous acts with respect to oppressed minorities unless it converges with their own interests. (This is borrowed from a law theory, I think.)

3. Antiliberalism

A rejection of Enlightenment thinking, of the idea that objective knowledge is preferable or even possible.

4. Knowledge is culturally constructed.

Rooted in Gramsci. What we have is not cultural truth but cultural hegemony. They not only speak about "White normativity but of "Christian normativity." Check your white privilege. Check your Christian privilege. (Coming soon.)

This is also where the topic of narratives become important - since there is no objective truth but knowledge is a cultural construct, and cultural constructions are a product of stories or narratives.

The only truth comes only through the stories of the marginalized.

These fundamental principles might be considered controversial by the Church.

[Josh]

Likewise, “heteronormative”, and the idea that goes along with that that heterosexual people are inherently oppressors and can’t understand reality - we have to listen to homosexuals to understand their “lived reality”.

[Szdfan]

Likewise, “heteronormative”, and the idea that goes along with that that heterosexual people are inherently oppressors and can’t understand reality - we have to listen to homosexuals to understand their “lived reality”.

I’m looking forward to Josh explaining what life as a gay man is like.

[temporal1]

That's would be the most culturally acceptable narrative, i think.

Voddie Baucham takes a closer look at their fundamental principles and lists these four features of the CRT worldview:

1. Racism is normative. (everywhere, unavoidable)

2. Convergence theory. (or Interest Convergence)

This means white people are incapable of righteous acts with respect to oppressed minorities unless it converges with their own interests. (This is borrowed from a law theory, I think.)

3. Antiliberalism

A rejection of Enlightenment thinking, of the idea that objective knowledge is preferable or even possible.

4. Knowledge is culturally constructed.

Rooted in Gramsci. What we have is not cultural truth but cultural hegemony. They not only speak about "White normativity but of "Christian normativity." Check your white privilege. Check your Christian privilege. (Coming soon.)

This is also where the topic of narratives become important - since there is no objective truth but knowledge is a cultural construct, and cultural constructions are a product of stories or narratives.

The only truth comes only through the stories of the marginalized.

These fundamental principles might be considered controversial by the Church.

Jesus Christ brought Truth to earth: all lives matter. VB accepts Jesus Christ. Truth to live by. ^^^
Law to love
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3251&p=126348#p126348

boot:
.. But we do need to listen and wrestle with what they are saying.

i’m not exactly sure how words like these aren’t recognized as some of the most efficiently elitist and even racist words out there.
“we” (the great ones) need to listen to “them” (the lesser ones). come on.
really. this kind of thing just slays me. it strikes me as (well intended) but tone deaf.

i believe Josh has touched on this somewhere. he can probably speak to it better than i. i mostly wince.

Jesus Christ does not talk this way. Neither does Voddie Baucham, who clearly listens closely to Jesus Christ.
VB is not alone. On any continent. Those who read scriptures, who believe, and are blessed by the Holy Spirit with some measure of understanding, thrive on earth in all cultures, under all circumstances. Truth endures.