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

[Josh]

Ah, but do you believe the children are indemnified because their parents were imperfect? That is, that they are no longer fully responsible for their actions?

They are responsible also.

Then this is an important distinction, because it means people who are members of "disadvantaged" groups are still responsible for their actions, and that indeed the way of the gospel is for them to individually stop engaging in sin, rather than blaming another group for it.

Okay, so if I go and break a window, is my dad responsible? Or my (deceased) grandfather? Or my deceased grandfather's estate?

If I inherited something my father stole...it seems I would have some obligation for restitution.[/quote]

You seem to be saying that all white people "inherited" something stolen. That seems like a rather absurd claim, particularly for white people who are poor and/or whose ancestors are poor.

I realise you do, but I'm not a racist. I don't judge people because of their race.

It seems to me that God and Jesus did speak to groups of people. The Egyptians, Israelites, and Laodiceans and Corinthians come to mind.

I don't believe I have called you a racist...so that defensiveness I don't understand.[/quote]

No, I'm actually calling out what I see as an obsession with race and skin colour as an explanation for basically all evils and injustice in the world, and then pinning all the blame on one particular group by skin colour. I think that's wrong.

And no, the Bible never calls out, nor did Jesus speak to, "all people with light skin colour". If you want to talk about a specific ethnic group, that would be a very different discussion.

[Josh]

So what is your explanation for the higher crime rate in Black communities and lower average school performance?

I don't categorise people and judge them based on race so I don't think the question is worth asking or answering.

Let's take another question. If we decide to carve up people by race, the rate of out of wedlock pregnancy is much higher amongst black people (around 85%) than white people (50%). Amongst Asians the percentage is much less (I don't have statistics handy for that).

Who is responsible?

The answer is that each father is responsible who chooses to father a child without marrying the mother first. There is no blame to be laid on "black people", "white pepole", or "Asian people". And to do so would be absurd.

The answer is for each individual to stop doing bad things and start choosing to do good things.

[RZehr]

She is saying that if you live in a society in which there is immense structural racism (in the example of To Kill a Mockingbird it was rural Alabama in the 1930s). Then it is not enough to simply go about your life being 'non-racist'. You have an obligation to actually OPPOSE the racism that permeates the society around you. That is the conclusion that Atticus Finch reached in the novel. That it was not enough to just mind your own business if you live in a racist society. You need to confront it. Do you disagree?

Is she using hyperbole? Yes. I don't think it is literally true that every single institution in the US has a connection to race. I don't think my mother's gardening club has much connection to race. But generally speaking when we are talking about large powerful institutions that affect people's lives I do think it is true.

What if you live in a society where there is immense structural sexual immorality? Is it enough to simply go about your life being 'non-pervert?' Or do You have an obligation to actually OPPOSE the sexual perversion that permeates the society around you?

I am not at all interested in being lectured on morality that is:
1. Outside the Biblical framework, and
2. Being dished out by people who preach that sin is good and good is sin. People who clearly do not know right from wrong. They have long ago lost their moral authority, in fact they are so far gone, that anything they say should rightfully be held with deep suspicion.

[Ken]

She is saying that if you live in a society in which there is immense structural racism (in the example of To Kill a Mockingbird it was rural Alabama in the 1930s). Then it is not enough to simply go about your life being 'non-racist'. You have an obligation to actually OPPOSE the racism that permeates the society around you. That is the conclusion that Atticus Finch reached in the novel. That it was not enough to just mind your own business if you live in a racist society. You need to confront it. Do you disagree?

Is she using hyperbole? Yes. I don't think it is literally true that every single institution in the US has a connection to race. I don't think my mother's gardening club has much connection to race. But generally speaking when we are talking about large powerful institutions that affect people's lives I do think it is true.

What if you live in a society where there is immense structural sexual immorality? Is it enough to simply go about your life being 'non-pervert?' Or do You have an obligation to actually OPPOSE the sexual perversion that permeates the society around you?

I am not at all interested in being lectured on morality that is:
1. Outside the Biblical framework, and
2. Being dished out by people who preach that sin is good and good is sin. People who clearly do not know right from wrong. They have long ago lost their moral authority, in fact they are so far gone, that anything they say should rightfully be held with deep suspicion.

You do what your conscience dictates. That's all any of us can do.

[Bootstrap]

She is saying that if you live in a society in which there is immense structural racism (in the example of To Kill a Mockingbird it was rural Alabama in the 1930s). Then it is not enough to simply go about your life being 'non-racist'. You have an obligation to actually OPPOSE the racism that permeates the society around you. That is the conclusion that Atticus Finch reached in the novel. That it was not enough to just mind your own business if you live in a racist society. You need to confront it. Do you disagree?

Is she using hyperbole? Yes. I don't think it is literally true that every single institution in the US has a connection to race. I don't think my mother's gardening club has much connection to race. But generally speaking when we are talking about large powerful institutions that affect people's lives I do think it is true.

What if you live in a society where there is immense structural sexual immorality? Is it enough to simply go about your life being 'non-pervert?' Or do You have an obligation to actually OPPOSE the sexual perversion that permeates the society around you?

I would treat racism and sexual immorality the same way here. And in both cases, I would use a biblical framework, assuming that we are strangers and aliens in this land, disciples to Jesus, using the Bible as our guide.

I am not at all interested in being lectured on morality that is:
1. Outside the Biblical framework, and
2. Being dished out by people who preach that sin is good and good is sin. People who clearly do not know right from wrong. They have long ago lost their moral authority, in fact they are so far gone, that anything they say should rightfully be held with deep suspicion.

Sure. And that includes some CRT people and some of their fiercest critics.

Can we all agree that police should not murder people? And that the juries decided this is murder? Can we agree that we are not the jury, not here on MN, not on partisan opinion sources, not on other social media? I don't understand why that is so hard. And if we can't get agreement on that, I'm not sure discussing Hegel is going to get us any closer to anything useful.

And can we agree that our Christian identity, as strangers and aliens in this land, should be our basic framework, as people who are not experts in the lives of everyone who becomes a controversy in the partisan warfare around us? Because I think most Christians these days are affected at least as strongly by these other factions as they are by anything in the Bible.

I used to think that Mennonites were a real exception to that. Across the political spectrum, I don't think we look like an exception online. Maybe we do in real life, I think my local congregation does. Maybe the exceptions aren't the loudest voices on Internet forums.

[Josh]

I would agree with RZehr that people who tolerate or promote immorality aren’t worthwhile to listen to in any moral issues - and this includes many people in both left and right political camps now.

The root problem according to James is sin, and specific kinds of sins. This is what leads to “injustice” or poverty.

To bring about redemption, the answer is for men everywhere to repent and turn away from sin. The answer is not to criticise groups of people for something their ancestors or non-ancestors who have a similar appearance to them might or might not have done in the past.

[Bootstrap]

To bring about redemption, the answer is for men everywhere to repent and turn away from sin. The answer is not to criticise groups of people for something their ancestors or non-ancestors who have a similar appearance to them might or might not have done in the past.

But on MN, most of the energy goes into criticizing groups of people. Often unfairly.

And I think that's a real obstacle for bringing about redemption.

[GaryK]

To bring about redemption, the answer is for men everywhere to repent and turn away from sin. The answer is not to criticise groups of people for something their ancestors or non-ancestors who have a similar appearance to them might or might not have done in the past.

But on MN, most of the energy goes into criticizing groups of people. Often unfairly.

What groups of people are criticized?

And I think that's a real obstacle for bringing about redemption.

If you are viewing MN as a tool to bring about any type of biblical redemption, then I can see why you get frustrated with the conversations.

[ohio jones]

To bring about redemption, the answer is for men everywhere to repent and turn away from sin. The answer is not to criticise groups of people for something their ancestors or non-ancestors who have a similar appearance to them might or might not have done in the past.

But on MN, most of the energy goes into criticizing groups of people. Often unfairly.

What groups of people are criticized?

People who post on MN....

[GaryK]

But on MN, most of the energy goes into criticizing groups of people. Often unfairly.

What groups of people are criticized?

People who post on MN....

...especially the group that isn't interested in having discussions based on facts.