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

[HondurasKeiser]

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Higher than China and over 6-times higher than say Canada. It also has more total prisoners than any other nation in the world including China. Black people are also incarcerated at far higher rates and for longer sentences than White people in the US for the same crimes. A lot of this is due to things like "gang enhancements" cited above.

Is it your estimation that the old way of doing things were going just fine? How many more people need to be locked up before we "solve" crime? How many more trillions of dollars are you willing to spend to turn our society into a police and prison state?

I'm not any particular supporter of Boudin. I haven't followed that issue closely enough to have a specific opinion. But I expect there were a lot of people with entrenched vested interests in the old way of doing business.

What is the Christian approach to criminal justice? Do we make room for rehabilitation and redemption? Our current system for the most part does not. When we make it impossible for former felons to find employment, find housing, go to college, and even participate in society in normal ways such as voting then we basically point them right back to a life of crime with predictable consequences.

You seem to be doing that which you like to ding Josh for: ascribing motivations or ideas to me that I did not write or even imply.

I recognize the problems inherent in the American criminal-justice system and what's more I don't need a critical line of inquiry to see those problems. I have no vested interest in keeping it from being reformed. My point in throwing up the example of Soros-backed prosecutors and the disastrous effects they're having on their cities, and specifically minority communities, is that CRT-influenced solutions, inasmuch as they cannot allow for nuanced solutions because such nuance implies that there's more to a problem than simply group power and group injustice, necessarily end in immiseration.

In point of fact, I agree with Bowles from her piece when she writes:

Of course there is good in what Boudin was trying to do. No one wants people incarcerated for unfair lengths of time. No one wants immigrants’ relatives to be killed by MS-13. Few of Boudin’s policy ideas—individually, and sometimes with reasonable limitations—are indefensible. (Ending cash bail for truly minor offenses, for instance, protects people from losing their job and more while in jail.) But as with homelessness, the city’s overall take on criminal-justice reform moved well past the point of common sense. Last month a man who had been convicted of 15 burglary and theft-related felonies from 2002 to 2019 was rearrested on 16 new counts of burglary and theft; most of those charges were dismissed and he was released on probation. It really didn’t inspire confidence that the city was taking any of this seriously.

Boudin’s defenders liked to dismiss his critics as whiny tech bros or rich right-wingers. One pro-Boudin flyer said stop the right-wing agenda. But the drumbeat of complaints came from plenty of good liberals, and so did the votes against him. If it were only the rich, well, the rich can hire private security, or move to the suburbs. And many do. They’re not the only people who live here, and they’re not the only ones who got angry.

You are the one who brought up Boudin and claimed he was a disaster.

We had a nationwide crime wave due in large part to the pandemic that swept across both urban and rural America in the past two years. Has the crime rate increase in San Francisco been worse than in other cities that don't have reformist DA? I have no idea. Do you?

Criminal justice isn't my particular area of expertise so I don't have good answers. But my instinct is that the American approach to punishment and incarceration isn't working and we should be exploring other ideas and looking to the examples of other nations that have had much more success. I do think our current system actually tends to direct people into a life of crime by closing off all other alternatives. That seems counterproductive. Changes definitely won't be cheap but neither is our current police state and infrastructure that incarcerates over 2 million of our fellow citizens.

I mentioned him as an example of Critical Theory-influenced policy that leads to immiseration - my objection to your previous post was your Manichean insinuation that if I reject Boudin-esque tactics I must ipso facto be for the "old way of doing things, locking more people up, spending trillions more dollars...". I am not and inasmuch as I can hold more than two competing ideas in my head at the same time; I both recognize the need for reform of the current criminal justice system and reject Soros/Boudin et al. policy that leads to further breakdown in civic order.

As for life in SF - inasmuch as some my wife's family lives there, we try and visit twice a year. There are many parts of the city, the Tenderloin for instance, that we will not go or only during the day (Haight-Ashbury) - my experience and that of my in-laws that live there is only anecdotal and thus easily dismissible but since 2017 when I began visiting regularly, crime, vagrancy, and the general feeling of un-safety has seemed to increase. This past Christmas, someone broke into my sister-in-law's very old jeep to shoot drugs and defecate, for example. They tell me that 10 years ago nothing like that would ever have happened - the homeless were just nice, kindly left-over hippies back then. Nellie Bowles' piece was good for documenting the ways in which SF has demonstrably declined and from a left-leaning perspective that clearly loves the city. A similar posture is taken by writer and aspiring gubernatorial candidate Michael Shellenberger (not a Mennonite as far as I can tell).
Scott Alexander's review of Shellenberger's book: "San Fransicko"

"Slow-Motion Suicide in San Francisco: The city is carrying out a bizarre medical experiment in which they are helping homeless drug addicts use drugs. ‘It’s handing a loaded gun to a suicidal person.’"

[Ken]

You seem to be doing that which you like to ding Josh for: ascribing motivations or ideas to me that I did not write or even imply.

I recognize the problems inherent in the American criminal-justice system and what's more I don't need a critical line of inquiry to see those problems. I have no vested interest in keeping it from being reformed. My point in throwing up the example of Soros-backed prosecutors and the disastrous effects they're having on their cities, and specifically minority communities, is that CRT-influenced solutions, inasmuch as they cannot allow for nuanced solutions because such nuance implies that there's more to a problem than simply group power and group injustice, necessarily end in immiseration.

In point of fact, I agree with Bowles from her piece when she writes:

You are the one who brought up Boudin and claimed he was a disaster.

We had a nationwide crime wave due in large part to the pandemic that swept across both urban and rural America in the past two years. Has the crime rate increase in San Francisco been worse than in other cities that don't have reformist DA? I have no idea. Do you?

Criminal justice isn't my particular area of expertise so I don't have good answers. But my instinct is that the American approach to punishment and incarceration isn't working and we should be exploring other ideas and looking to the examples of other nations that have had much more success. I do think our current system actually tends to direct people into a life of crime by closing off all other alternatives. That seems counterproductive. Changes definitely won't be cheap but neither is our current police state and infrastructure that incarcerates over 2 million of our fellow citizens.

I mentioned him as an example of Critical Theory-influenced policy that leads to immiseration - my objection to your previous post was your Manichean insinuation that if I reject Boudin-esque tactics I must ipso facto be for the "old way of doing things, locking more people up, spending trillions more dollars...". I am not and inasmuch as I can hold more than two competing ideas in my head at the same time; I both recognize the need for reform of the current criminal justice system and reject Soros/Boudin et al. policy that leads to further breakdown in civic order.

As for life in SF - inasmuch as some my wife's family lives there, we try and visit twice a year. There are many parts of the city, the Tenderloin for instance, that we will not go or only during the day (Haight-Ashbury) - my experience and that of my in-laws that live there is only anecdotal and thus easily dismissible but since 2017 when I began visiting regularly, crime, vagrancy, and the general feeling of un-safety has seemed to increase. This past Christmas, someone broke into my sister-in-law's very old jeep to shoot drugs and defecate, for example. They tell me that 10 years ago nothing like that would ever have happened - the homeless were just nice, kindly left-over hippies back then. Nellie Bowles' piece was good for documenting the ways in which SF has demonstrably declined and from a left-leaning perspective that clearly loves the city. A similar posture is taken by writer and aspiring gubernatorial candidate Michael Shellenberger (not a Mennonite as far as I can tell).
Scott Alexander's review of Shellenberger's book: "San Fransicko"

"Slow-Motion Suicide in San Francisco: The city is carrying out a bizarre medical experiment in which they are helping homeless drug addicts use drugs. ‘It’s handing a loaded gun to a suicidal person.’"

I've been visiting San Francisco over the years since the late 1980s as it isn't far and I have a variety of college friends who live there.

I will agree 100% that the city is a mess and that it is due in part to liberal policies. But I don't think they have much of anything to do with critical race theory.

The biggest problem in San Francisco is rampant NIMBYism which has made the place utterly unaffordable to all but the most wealthy due to the squelching of most every type of housing development in SF and the nearby other Bay Area cities. This has been made infinitely worse by CA environmental laws which allow obstructionists to endlessly delay any sort of housing or commercial development in court on specious environmental grounds. Even an institution as powerful as UC Berkeley can't manage to even navigate the NIMBY gauntlet to build much-needed dorms and student housing.

The second problem was the destruction and conversion of large swaths of SRO housing in SF (and other west coast cities like LA, Portland and Seattle) into lofts and offices in the name of urban renewal. SF in the 1960s and 1970s had massive numbers of cheap single room occupancy (SRO) hotels that could absorb most if not all of the near indigent population. Sure they were rat-infested and crummy and there was drug dealing and prostitution happening inside at times. But tearing them all down or converting them in the name of urban renewal didn't disappear the people who lived in them, it just put them onto the streets with no ability to afford any alternative housing. So instead of junkies shooting up in the privacy of their 8th floor flop house room they are now doing it on the street.

The third problem is the inability of any of these cities to build remotely enough shelter housing for their homeless. And courts have said that if you do not provide alternative housing (or alternative camping locations) you can't evict homeless from public spaces. The message is clear, build adequate shelter. But that circles back to problem #1 which is NIMBY-ism and the politics that make it impossible.

The fourth problem is the revolving door of substance abuse. The criminal justice system isn't the appropriate place to deal with petty drug abuse. We should have social programs, rehab, etc. to deal with most of that. But we don't so police and prosecutors are asked to do a job that they shouldn't really be doing. As for your point about feeding addictions? I have a college friend who worked as a public defender in CA for about 20 years. In Sacramento not SF but basically the same thing. He once told me that probably 90% of the crimes he defends are substance related. Either drug offenses, petty crime by people trying to earn money to feed their drug habits (shoplifting, car theft, burglary, etc.) Or substance-fueled violence. He also told me that if he could wave his magic wand and make 50% of the drugs in CA disappear all that would happen is that crime and violence would double because the prices of every drug would double. So solutions are complex and not always obvious.

None of those things have anything to do with critical theory and a single DA has very little ability to affect any of the larger forces that affect a city like SF. It is so much bigger than that.

By contrast when I visited NYC last summer I saw very little homeless on the streets. Turns out NYC was still running a COVID-era program in which they housed all the homeless in hotels and other shelter facilities which enabled them to do nightly sweeps and clean out all the riff raff and homeless debris that affects west coast cities.

The solution I think is to spend the billions of dollars necessary for minimally adequate housing and then get draconian about cleaning up the streets once people actually have a place to go. Refugees in Somalia have better housing than homeless on the streets in America. And if druggies are still shooting up and defecating, at least they aren't doing it on the streets in a pile of garbage. These are $1250 refugee shelters designed by IKEA being used in a Somali refugee camp. Here is more info: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... f-the-year By contrast, by the time homeless shelters are built in a city like SF they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per bed due to all the process, NIMBY-ism, zoning, etc.

Compare this African refugee camp to the homeless messes you see on American streets.

[HondurasKeiser]

You wondered aloud about the culpability and liability of we modern-White Christians for events that occurred 50 years ago. Who determines my culpability/liability?

Not quite. I noted the conservative white church in the 60s was largely silent regarding racism. And as recently George Ws presidency , IFB folks openly and formally had racist policies regarding inter racial dating at their colleges, see BJU.

I further noted that in all contexts, including the modern one, one can make a case that Biblically and empirically society is as a whole to some extent liable for their members actions. And I explained it. I'd like to know if you accept the idea that a society/family to some extent does bear culpability as a whole...or do you see it purely from an individualistic sense and the individual is in no way morally connected to his family, tribe, upbringing, or society?

You made neither case as far as I can tell:

Empirically you fell short: The Jewish man seems to make a category error; Society is an abstraction, it can no more frown on "sin" than it can sneeze. Society, cultures and families are nothing more than collections of individuals that are similarly acculturated and exhibit some similar traits. Some of those traits and aspects of culture are helpful and useful and maybe even morally good while some of those traits are destructive, and morally evil. Nevertheless, individuals within each society/culture/family have agency and can choose to embrace and live in to those traits or reject them. It would be absurd to admire the Honduran cultural trait of openness and generosity in a miserly, curmudgeonly Honduran. Likewise, it makes little sense to saddle a New Guinean that rejects cannibalism and actively works against it with the guilt of his neighbors' cannibalism. Indeed, to your own example of adultery...are you complicit or liable in the fact that so many people in the U.S. engage in it? Are you tolerating adultery more than cannibalism?

You made an assertion about a highly debatable proposition, namely, that "Germany as a whole bears some complicity for Hitler's Third Reich." I am not sure if you're referring to Nazi-era Germany or Germany of the present-day as well. Either way I would disagree.
1. It's non-sensical to hold someone that resisted Nazism at every turn, liable for the actions of the people he was resisting.
2. To hold modern-day Germans liable for the actions of their great grandparents is not unlike the pagan tribes of ancient Europe that would exact blood vengeance down the generations for the murder of a relative or clan member.
3. I'm not suggesting that Israel wants blood vengeance for the Holocaust but in this situation for example, who decides who is guilty of what and when that guilt has been assuaged? Why should Germany care?
4. What earthly good is accomplished by holding groups culpable and liable down through the generations?

I would add one caveat. I think individuals that see evil at work in their family, clan, tribe or nation are complicit and share in the guilt if they wash their hands of it, neither committing the evil act nor trying to stop it. Americans that hated slavery but did nothing about the slave system would fall into this category. Same goes for those that recognize the evil of abortion but nevertheless are fine with "safe, legal and rare" because "it's a women's issue".

To your biblical references:
1. In the OT, as far as I can tell, God is condemning or holding to account groups of people that are actively engaged in deep evil e.g. the Amalekites. Even there though, individual Amalekites, exercising agency, had two outs:
a. They could depart with the fleeing Kenites
b. Or, assuming the Israelites fought as they were instructed to in Deuteronomy, individual Amalekites had the opportunity to repent and flee:

When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword… (Deut 20:10-13)

2. What I don't see in your references is God holding grudges against people groups down through the generations when those later generations are no longer engaged in the sin of their forbears...I could be wrong though and am open to correction.

3. As for the NT references of Jesus calling out Jews or the Pharisees:
a. Again, these were groups of people engaged in specific sins. Not the great grandchildren of the Pharisees who had long given up being pharisaical.
b. Nevertheless, there's no scriptural evidence that Jesus was calling out the good Pharisees for being 'vipers' or the disciples for being the 'children of Satan'.

All that to say, I don't believe that by simple dint of the fact that I share some physical and cultural attributes with people that were largely silent about racism 60 years ago; I am in some way culpable or liable for their actions. The Bible doesn't teach that and societies that function on such primitive notions of justice tend to be nasty, brutish and short.

[HondurasKeiser]

A few thoughts since this thread invites sharing.

1. The actual samples I have seen of CRT in action, such as the anecdotes graciously provided by HK, generally do not bother me since I take them as being written in an exaggerated, prophetic style a little like the actual prophets in the Bible who said things like "Israel is a rebellious heifer" when calling out collective sin.

2. It seems strange to me that fundamental Christians should object to the idea of societies harboring sinful behaviors or attitudes. From the earliest nation states in Genesis through the prophet's judgements, from the New Testament sweeping condemnation of contemporary society, through to the apocalyptic judgment of every nation on earth, the Bible does not shy away from collective sin. Neither did believers in the past who worked to oppose cultural practices like alcoholism, slavery, infanticide, binding infant feet, burning widows in funeral pyers ect... And neither do most Christians today if the target is an area of culture they find distant like Hollywood or higher education.

I fully agree that societies can harbor sinful behaviors and attitudes but that the sinful behavior is being exhibited in individual lives, and it's only when enough individuals reach a critical mass that we say something like, 'the U.S. is a materialistic culture' or 'the French are deeply rude people'. What I reject completely is the notion that members of that group that reject that sinful behavior and work against it, are in some way still guilty or liable for it.

3. The scale of the objection seems unusually high. The level of passion for denouncing CRT is substantially greater than the resistance to other doctrinal errors that seem more wide spread and more damaging like prosperity gospel or patriotic nationalism idolatry (PNI). This observation does not include HK, easily the most rational defender I have encountered, nor most on Mennonet.

I appreciate the kind words, I do. For me at least, and I'd think that for most of the people that I read and many that I interact with - we would view your sota voce suggestion, that we've gone out with passion and fervor looking to slay Critical Race Theory, as an ungenerous characterization. We didn't go looking for some obscure academic theory to take down just for fun; the theorists and their acolytes decided to school us all on ideas about whiteness, color-blindness, systemic racism, racism = hate + power, privilege, white fragility, Black vs. white, etc. It's unfair to be bombarded with these ideas for years beginning in about 2014, and then to be accused of us excessive passion when we pushback forcefully. Nevertheless, I do try and argue dispassionately for my ideas though I know I fail at that from time to time. I recognize in you, Barnhart, a kind and generous soul with whom I am not always in agreement about subjects here and there but with whom I am in communion in Christ.

4. I'm suspicious of the inclination to spiritualize social reality to the point that the only possible remedy is immaterial. Or to put it another way, material action is categorically eliminated by framing the issue as a spiritual problem. This is like the antebellum Christians telling the people they hold in bondage that we are brothers in God's kingdom so the conditions of this world are not important.

CRT, to my understanding makes the opposite pitfall...there are only material solutions because to admit spiritual realities would bring them to bear on the out-group as well as the in-group. What's more, and once again, one does not need a Critical lens to appreciate the material disparities at work and to search for material ways to alleviate those disparities.

5. The last time Marxism was raised as an impending threat was around the Civil rights movements of the 60's. It should give pause that when black voices are raised, the majority church equates that with Marxism. The best spin I can put on that is the majority church sees minority voices as acceptable expenditures in the fight against communism.

I don't think anyone I know thinks they're fighting communism by pointing out the incompatibility of Critical Theory with the Gospel. CRT is not the minority church and certainly many Black people reject CRT - why can't I reject it and still be considered as for minority voices?

[Szdfan]

I don't think anyone I know thinks they're fighting communism by pointing out the incompatibility of Critical Theory with the Gospel. CRT is not the minority church and certainly many Black people reject CRT - why can't I reject it and still be considered as for minority voices?

Would you mind clarifying this clause? I'm not sure what you mean by it:

why can't I reject it and still be considered as for minority voices?

[joshuabgood]

The Jewish man seems to make a category error; Society is an abstraction, it can no more frown on "sin" than it can sneeze. Society, cultures and families are nothing more than collections of individuals that are similarly acculturated and exhibit some similar traits.

Wouldn't you agree that societies values/actions do impact individual's values/actions? A micro-scale is of course the immediate family's impact on the children. Common sense seems to indicate that values/actions of the parents impact the children. That same principle applies at a larger social scale in concentric circles to some extent methinks. We are individualists in the west because we are born in a society that values individualism.

You made an assertion about a highly debatable proposition, namely, that "Germany as a whole bears some complicity for Hitler's Third Reich." I am not sure if you're referring to Nazi-era Germany or Germany of the present-day as well. Either way I would disagree.

You really don't think that Germany as a whole, bore some complicity for supporting (democratically initially) and then simply going along with "orders" in other cases...but of course in probably most cases willingly coming out to the parades and shouting "Heil Hitler", bear any culpability for what the Third Reich became? It seems common sense to me that they do. If the German society had refused to go along with the fascist state it would not have been enabled.

I would add one caveat. I think individuals that see evil at work in their family, clan, tribe or nation are complicit and share in the guilt if they wash their hands of it, neither committing the evil act nor trying to stop it.

We are getting closer. This is what I am saying in essence. Society is culpable, because as our brothers keepers we bear some degree of responsibility. Mennonites in the 1950-60s bear some degree of culpability for not speaking out more prophetically against racism, bans on inter-racial marriage as being unscriptural (which they purported at the highest levels), etc. A society that thinks adultery is no big deal, or all teens have sex...will reflect that. And vice versa, a society that values chastity and fidelity with reflect that. Sure...there will be some aberrations, but they will be just that, aberrations. Another way of saying this in a way some folks might find more palatable, is a society that normalizes LGBTQ+ will therefore generate more said instances. This phenom has been staggering in the transgender world as Bill Maher aptly pokes fun at.

The whole, I would say kindly, western ideal (myth even) of pure autonomous individualism, is just that, Western wishful thinking and essentially humanism. The reason Mennonites are Mennonites is mostly because they are born into a Mennonite society. And if pure autonomy as individuals isn't "how things are" then by necessity society at large bears some culpability. (I keep saying the word some as opposed to most.)

In the OT, as far as I can tell, God is condemning or holding to account groups of people that are actively engaged in deep evil e.g. the Amalekites. Even there though, individual Amalekites, exercising agency, had two outs:

It feels to me like you are dismissing too quickly...many Biblical narratives. Take for instance that by the sin of one man, Adam, sin and death and judgement entered the entire world down across generations. Take for another instance the sin of one man, Achan, his whole family was killed and all of Israel was punished for the "sin in the camp" (by the way which is the example that my Rabbi friend used specifically). And there are numerous other Biblical examples...of judgement on societies.

ETA by the work of one man, righteousness was ascribed to all.

I would end by noting again I used the words "some" and "to some extent." Those are intended to convey nuance and the fact that not everyone is guilty evenly for everything.

[Josh]

jbg, could you clarify for us exactly what “Germany” is since you think it was due some kind of collective punishment?

Would it include France and the Netherlands? Saarland? Austria-Hungary? Poland?

And exactly what makes you think it was “democratic”, as if people are somehow more responsible in a democracy? Are people who vote against something not responsible? Are we responsible for how our parents or grandparents voted?

To hop on your hobby horse of race, can we excuse ourselves from responsibility if our ancestors fought for the Union in the Civil War? Or if they voted for LBJ?

[HondurasKeiser]

I don't think anyone I know thinks they're fighting communism by pointing out the incompatibility of Critical Theory with the Gospel. CRT is not the minority church and certainly many Black people reject CRT - why can't I reject it and still be considered as for minority voices?

Would you mind clarifying this clause? I'm not sure what you mean by it:

why can't I reject it and still be considered as for minority voices?

Sorry, it was late and I think my ability to write clearly was starting to slip.

Barnhart wrote:

The last time Marxism was raised as an impending threat was around the Civil rights movements of the 60's. It should give pause that when black voices are raised, the majority church equates that with Marxism. The best spin I can put on that is the majority church sees minority voices as acceptable expenditures in the fight against communism.

Yes there's a clear line that can be drawn between Marxism and Critical Theory but most of the people I read and interact with don't think they're fighting communism by raising concerns about CRT and its incompatibility with the Gospel.

What's more, Critical Race Theory and the minority church don't map perfectly as there are plenty of minority Christians that reject CRT.

One can be opposed to Critical Theory of any type and still value the voices of minority Christians.

[joshuabgood]

jbg, could you clarify for us exactly what “Germany” is since you think it was due some kind of collective punishment?

Would it include France and the Netherlands? Saarland? Austria-Hungary? Poland?

And exactly what makes you think it was “democratic”, as if people are somehow more responsible in a democracy? Are people who vote against something not responsible? Are we responsible for how our parents or grandparents voted?

To hop on your hobby horse of race, can we excuse ourselves from responsibility if our ancestors fought for the Union in the Civil War? Or if they voted for LBJ?

I am not interested in collective retribution, or as you say punishment...I am interested in collective reconciliation.

We don't have to keep discussing it as I think the key difference is I see social culpability, being "a thing" for logical, empirical, and Biblical reasons that make sense to me (though not to you). The other key difference is I don't really totally embrace pure autonomous individualism as being the ultimate bedrock for the human condition. I think those that went before, most basically Adam, have tainted things for the rest and story of salvation is a story of reconciliation and redemption for society (or humanity), not merely personal salvation.

[Josh]

In order to claim there should be “collective reconciliation”, first you must adjudicate “collective guilt”, so that’s why I’m asking you exactly who is guilty - that is, who belongs to this “collective” you claim exists.

In particular, you claimed such responsibility only exists in the case of a democracy, which is particularly interesting - democracies as we understand them didn’t exist in NT times. So how exactly do you support your views based on scripture?