We don't need to be afraid of CRT

[GaryK]

That's a pretty typical way to try to discount what a person has to say on a given subject, especially if their view on the subject counters the one being promoted.

The pieces are connected. His theology and hermeneutic drive his understanding of the work of Jesus and the Kingdom of God, that is salvation. They are not merely other unrelated ideas with which I disagree. I think we can agree on that.

The same can be said of CRT and Marxism, yet you seem to be okay with separating the "good" from the "bad". Why the difference with Voddie? Is it because he has a pretty convincing, biblical message on racial issues?

He came to being justice and righteousness. Every valley will be exalted. Every mountain made low. The crooked straight and the rough places plain. Not to simply replace one oppressor with another. I agree with you.

Where is this justice and righteousness lived out? Did He come to change worldly societies and governments into right and just societies and governments or did He come to call people and leaders out of that into a truly just and righteous Kingdom with a government unlike worldly ones?

This reckoning is not brought with violence or coercion like worldly kingdoms, but with the more powerful suffering love. Or what was once termed soul force. But it is a reckoning. A refining fire if you will.

Yet you seem to be okay with embracing part of an ideology of which the practical and stated solution is to use violence to force change. To use your words, "the pieces are connected".

[Falco Underhill]

Jesus established his Kingdom. It is come and coming. And yes it goes beyond merely the personal salvation.

Okay I think my criticism will draw on the second letter of John.

And this is love:(J) that we walk in obedience to his commands.(K) As you have heard from the beginning,(L) his command is that you walk in love.

]7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ(M) as coming in the flesh,(N) have gone out into the world.(O) Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.(P) 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we[a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.(Q) 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ(R) does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.(S) 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.(T) 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares(U) in their wicked work.

1. The Church is primarily about Jesus Christ and salvation from sin. Whatever else you want to say about CRT, it claims to be neutral with regard to that.

Therefore, CRT does not "acknowledge Jesus Christ" and "does not bring this teaching." On that basis alone, the Bible says they should not be welcomed into the Church. (Verse 10)

2. "Going beyond" personal salvation to something more holistic suggested by CRT (who doesn't "bring this doctrine") doesn't sound that wise to me. It sounds to me more like a "running ahead" with a strange doctrine (verse 9).

[Bootstrap]

1. The Church is primarily about Jesus Christ and salvation from sin. Whatever else you want to say about CRT, it claims to be neutral with regard to that.

Therefore, CRT does not "acknowledge Jesus Christ"and "does not bring this teaching." On that basis alone, the Bible says they should not be welcomed into the Church. (Verse 10)

2. "Going beyond" personal salvation to something more holistic suggested by CRT (who doesn't "bring this doctrine") doesn't sound that wise to me. It sounds to me more like a "running ahead" with a strange doctrine (verse 9).

This is one place we disagree. I don't think Jesus came primarily so that individuals could be saved from their personal sin. To his contemporaries, it was plain that Jesus was a prophet, John the Baptist was called the equivalent of Elijah, the Parables tell the story of the coming Kingdom and what is going to happen to the current caretakers of the vineyard. When Jesus says the axe is laid at the root of the tree, he is speaking to the leaders of Israel and Jerusalem.

The Parable of the VIneyard is remarkably similar to an Old Testament parable found in Isaiah:

Isaiah 5:1-6

Let me sing now for my well-beloved
A song of my beloved concerning his vineyard.
My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill.
He dug it all around, removed its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
And he built a tower in the middle of it
And also hewed out a wine vat in it;
Then he expected it to produce good grapes,
But it produced only worthless ones.
“And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge between me and my vineyard.
What more was there to do for my vineyard that I have not done in it?
Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?
So now let me tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard:
I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed;
I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground.
I will lay it waste;
It will not be pruned or hoed,
But briars and thorns will come up.
I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it.”

And we can't leave out the punchline of that parable:

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.

The Gospels frequently call Jesus and John prophets. They spoke to Israel in the same way as other prophets. This is important for understanding the Kingdom of God. Justice, mercy, and the weightier matters of the law are not about what each person does individually.

[Bootstrap]

Yet you seem to be okay with embracing part of an ideology of which the practical and stated solution is to use violence to force change. To use your words, "the pieces are connected".

Is there anyone here who does not embrace "part of an ideology" that uses violence to force change? Don't people do that across the political spectrum? Of course, violence is never the part we can embrace.

Doesn't Romans 13 tell us to embrace "part of an ideology" that uses violence to force change, at least the part that involves civil order and obedience?

[Falco Underhill]

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.

[joshuabgood]

The same can be said of CRT and Marxism, yet you seem to be okay with separating the "good" from the "bad". Why the difference with Voddie? Is it because he has a pretty convincing, biblical message on racial issues?

Arguing about Voddie seems somewhat beside the point. At issue though is Voddie names the name of Jesus but doesn't actually follow literally his example and teachings as he lived and taught. Salvation for Voddie's theology is escaping the pent up anger of God through PSA and then an eschatological utopia in the great hereafter. This misses a crucial part , even the main part, of the good news of Jesus that we are discussing. In one sense it isn't even the good news but is a result of the gospel, which is that Jesus is King and his Kingdom is come. The problem of social systemic sin, liberation theology identifies. CRT points to this also but Marxist style violent revolution are not the answer.

No, I don't find Voddies theology around salvation and racism especially compelling because of the reformed perspective. Not Kingdom theology. That is why it is connected. It is not a red herring.

Where is this justice and righteousness lived out? Did He come to change worldly societies and governments into right and just societies and governments or did He come to call people and leaders out of that into a truly just and righteous Kingdom with a government unlike worldly ones?

What did Jesus say? On earth as also in heaven. Yes. He came to change worldly societies and kingdoms. However the tools are not a geopolitical state with borders violence and coercion. It is however a real and present reality on earth and it is in competition with the kingdoms of this world. When it strengthens the other kingdoms weaken. Herod was rightly fearful of the King of the Jews.

Yet you seem to be okay with embracing part of an ideology of which the practical and stated solution is to use violence to force change. To use your words, "the pieces are connected".

I am willing, like Paul at Mars Hill to acknowledge the truth that is present in pagan systems where it is present while pointing them to the real solutions, not Marxist violent revolutions. Within the church, I am not afraid to challenge people to embrace the good news of Jesus and his present Kingdom and to challenge them to actually live out his witness and teachings. Hence the pushing on the reformed theology that creates an ethicless kingdomless gospel where for example, Cotton Mather and J Edwards can name the name of Jesus but kill American Indians, buy and sell slaves, torture Quakers, burn witches, etc etc.

Hopefully that clears it up for you:)

[GaryK]

Yet you seem to be okay with embracing part of an ideology of which the practical and stated solution is to use violence to force change. To use your words, "the pieces are connected".

Is there anyone here who does not embrace "part of an ideology" that uses violence to force change? Don't people do that across the political spectrum? Of course, violence is never the part we can embrace.

Doesn't Romans 13 tell us to embrace "part of an ideology" that uses violence to force change, at least the part that involves civil order and obedience?

To be clear, not once did I think about politics in my conversation with JBG.

I respect and try to obey earthly governments but do not embrace it as something followers of Jesus should be involved in.

[Robert]

Liberation theology represented some useful correctives to "personal salvation" and "pie in the sky" distortions. That said, liberation theology itself, by itself, is a distortion.

These issues that LT identifies can and has been identified in other places in other ways without the negative parts of LT. I see no use for it.

[GaryK]

No, I don't find Voddies theology around salvation and racism especially compelling because of the reformed perspective. Not Kingdom theology. That is why it is connected. It is not a red herring.

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?

Where is this justice and righteousness lived out? Did He come to change worldly societies and governments into right and just societies and governments or did He come to call people and leaders out of that into a truly just and righteous Kingdom with a government unlike worldly ones?

What did Jesus say? On earth as also in heaven. Yes. He came to change worldly societies and kingdoms. However the tools are not a geopolitical state with borders violence and coercion. It is however a real and present reality on earth and it is in competition with the kingdoms of this world. When it strengthens the other kingdoms weaken. Herod was rightly fearful of the King of the Jews.

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.

Yet you seem to be okay with embracing part of an ideology of which the practical and stated solution is to use violence to force change. To use your words, "the pieces are connected".

I am willing, like Paul at Mars Hill to acknowledge the truth that is present in pagan systems where it is present while pointing them to the real solutions, not Marxist violent revolutions. Within the church, I am not afraid to challenge people to embrace the good news of Jesus and his present Kingdom and to challenge them to actually live out his witness and teachings. Hence the pushing on the reformed theology that creates an ethicless kingdomless gospel where for example, Cotton Mather and J Edwards can name the name of Jesus but kill American Indians, buy and sell slaves, torture Quakers, burn witches, etc etc.

Hopefully that clears it up for you:)

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.

[Neto]

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.