Russ Douthat on Critical Race Theory

[Ken]

Exodus 34:12 -- Be careful not to make a treaty with the inhabitants of the land you are entering, lest they become a snare in your midst.

So the Israelites committed genocide and slaughtered the Canaanites instead. Is that the model of race relations that you are advocating? Slaughter every last man, woman, and child? Others have tried that approach. In Europe in the 20th Century. in Rwanda. Today in Myanmar and Ethiopia. How is it working?

[Falco Underhill]

Exodus 34:12 -- Be careful not to make a treaty with the inhabitants of the land you are entering, lest they become a snare in your midst.

So the Israelites committed genocide and slaughtered the Canaanites instead. Is that the model of race relations that you are advocating? Slaughter every last man, woman, and child? Others have tried that approach. In Europe in the 20th Century. in Rwanda. Today in Myanmar and Ethiopia. How is it working?

Wow. The New Testament instructs us to read the Old Testament spiritually rather than carnally. I'm reading this as a spiritual principle concerning making agreements with nonbelievers.

Ephesians 2

13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace…

My comment had nothing to do with race, but I'm pretty sure the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus has freed us from the law (in the carnal sense) and broken down the wall separating people from one another (that was indeed established by the Old Covenant). We Christians are under a New Covenant, a new dispensation.

Haven't you ever heard of this, Ken?

[Ken]

My comment wasn't intended to have anything to do with race, but I'm pretty sure the New Testament makes clear it that Jesus has freed us from the law in the carnal sense and broke down the wall separating people from one another (that was indeed established by the Old Covenant). We Christians are under a New Covenant, a new dispensation. Are you not familiar with this, Ken?

You are the one citing Exodus. The context of the Bible verse you cited was God's commandment to destroy the Canaanites through a genocidal war rather than seeking peaceful co-existence. It was made more explicit in Deuteronomy. And yes, I agree that much of the Old Testament teachings were made obsolete or superseded by the New Testament. Which is why I was curious why you would be citing such Old Testament calls to war and violence.

[Bootstrap]

I think the larger problem is that while YOU and perhaps Douthat might be seeking some sort of intellectual synthesis that seeks to find the truth in our historical record. I don't believe that is what a majority of people engaging in this wider cultural debate are seeking. Quite the opposite. It is about waging a wider culture war and winning votes, viewers, and dollars, not truth seeking.

I agree that's what's happening. But I think it's sad. Culture wars make us ugly and stupid.

History is all about looking at things from many sides, experiencing the story from many perspectives. But too many people want to turn it into a holy war that explains why their side represents the real America.

America is a rather diverse place. Always has been.

[Bootstrap]

Exodus 34:12 -- Be careful not to make a treaty with the inhabitants of the land you are entering, lest they become a snare in your midst.

Falco, what did you mean to imply by that?

[Falco Underhill]

My comment wasn't intended to have anything to do with race, but I'm pretty sure the New Testament makes clear it that Jesus has freed us from the law in the carnal sense and broke down the wall separating people from one another (that was indeed established by the Old Covenant). We Christians are under a New Covenant, a new dispensation. Are you not familiar with this, Ken?

You are the one citing Exodus. The context of the Bible verse you cited was God's commandment to destroy the Canaanites through a genocidal war rather than seeking peaceful co-existence. It was made more explicit in Deuteronomy. And yes, I agree that much of the Old Testament teachings were made obsolete or superseded by the New Testament. Which is why I was curious why you would be citing such Old Testament calls to war and violence.

Here's the context:

EXODUS 34

Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.[a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Here's how I'm reading that through a New Testament lense: First of all, the context says God will do the driving out, not me. The Hittites, Canaanites, etc, can be understood figuratively as different sorts of unbelievers I may encounter in life, maybe some non-believing bullies I'm dealing with at work.

It says not to worship their gods nor make covenants with them, and neither of those things requires violence on my part, does it?

(A covenant relationship was a family-like relationship in which each side agreed to come to the other's aid, even in battle. This clearly implies not to enter into a covenant-like relationship with persons who are clearly ruled by the flesh. You can see where as a believer that might get you into trouble.)

Then, of course, Jesus taught us how to deal with such things according to the New Testament -- we have to love and pray for our enemies, etc. (Jesus gave us this new commandment.) We therefor have to love and pray for those "Hittites, Canaanites, etc" ...

So as I read this passage in light of the New Covenant, it means loving and praying for hostile unbelievers (remembering that God loved us even when we were the same) yet the principles of not worshipping their gods (the 'god of this world'), not acting like them (retaliating hatred for hatred, for example), and avoiding any covenants with them, remain applicable to us believers today.

And if I'm understanding Paul correctly, these principles are not exactly "laws" to us (we are not "under the law") yet Christian love is still supposed to fulfill those laws (or those principles contained therein.)

Anyways, you see I see don't see the Old Testament as a call to genocide and racism (like you do, apparently) because I read it in the light of the New Testament.

Maybe you should try it sometime, Ken

[Ken]

Here's how I'm reading that through a New Testament lense: First of all, the context says God will do the driving out, not me. The Hittites, Canaanites, etc, can be understood figuratively as different sorts of unbelievers I may encounter in life, maybe some non-believing bullies I'm dealing with at work.

It says not to worship their gods nor make covenants with them, and neither of those things requires violence on my part, does it?

Here is more context from Deuteronomy 7, referencing the same commandment and events. It is pretty explicit about WHO is to do the "driving out"

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

And Deuteronomy 9:

But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God.

Seems pretty explicit to me.

I'm always amused when folks claim that various Old Testament verses are not intended to be read literally, but rather should be understood figuratively. But other similar versus such as the Genesis creation story or Noah's flood are intended to be understood 100% literally and not at all figuratively.

[nett]

Here's how I'm reading that through a New Testament lense: First of all, the context says God will do the driving out, not me. The Hittites, Canaanites, etc, can be understood figuratively as different sorts of unbelievers I may encounter in life, maybe some non-believing bullies I'm dealing with at work.

It says not to worship their gods nor make covenants with them, and neither of those things requires violence on my part, does it?

Here is more context from Deuteronomy 7, referencing the same commandment and events. It is pretty explicit about WHO is to do the "driving out"

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

And Deuteronomy 9:

But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God.

Seems pretty explicit to me.

I'm always amused when folks claim that various Old Testament verses are not intended to be read literally, but rather should be understood figuratively. But other similar versus such as the Genesis creation story or Noah's flood are intended to be understood 100% literally and not at all figuratively.

The same people people have never argued what you're suggesting. I don't agree with biblical fundamentalism, but you're misrepresenting the position.

[Falco Underhill]

Seems pretty explicit to me.

Yes, but that was the Old Covenant, Ken. The New Covenant is pretty explicit that our weapons are not carnal weapons, but spiritual.

2 Corinthians 10:4

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.

Ephesians 6

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

We have to read the Old Testament in light of New Testament principles. At least that's how I see it.

I'm always amused when folks claim that various Old Testament verses are not intended to be read literally, but rather should be understood figuratively. But other similar versus such as the Genesis creation story or Noah's flood are intended to be understood 100% literally and not at all figuratively.

Well, it depends on whose doing the reading, Ken. St. Augustine wouldn't totally rule out a Noah's Ark, yet he thought some parts at least were allegorical.

[Ken]

The same people people have never argued what you're suggesting. I don't agree with biblical fundamentalism, but you're misrepresenting the position.

Falco Underhill is reading Exodus not as a historical document, but rather figuratively (his words) in terms of instructions for how we are to deal with present day conflicts with "unbelievers" and other cultures.

How is that different from someone who reads Genesis not as a historical or scientific document, but rather "figuratively" as a lesson on how God's hand is involved in creation through evolution, geological time, and other methods consistent with modern science?