A Turf War Attack On CRT

 It is as if religiously conservative Christianity was the Titanic and Critical Theories, in this case Critical Race Theory, were an iceberg. The Titanic has struck the iceberg and the captain and crew of the Titanic are trying to cut their losses, but the water keeps pouring in. In the end of the, in this case, podcast, rather than an article, what was a discussion that had positive contributions to make turned into a sinking ship.

On the April 21st Mortification of Spin podcast (click here), Carl Trueman (click here for a bio) and Todd Pruitt (click here for a bio) talk with Gerry McDermott (click here for a bio) about his new book, Race And Covenant (click here for link to the book).

Initially, their discussion concerns this book, which consists of a compilation of essays by some impressive scholars and others of different races about race and God's relationships with nations in general. Spoiler alert here, though the credentials of many of the contributors are impressive and they should be read, most if not all of the contributors have conservative roots and thus the book does not present a balanced approach to the issues of race and racism.

The basic tenet of McDermott's book is that God has a kind of covenant relationship with nations where He will reward those that do well and punish those that do evil. McDermott claims that God does not just interact with people as individuals, He interacts with collectives of people called nations.

That covenant relationship, however, is not like the relationship that God had with Old Testament Israel in that there is no formal written pact between God and any given nation. Rather, the covenant relationship that McDermott is referring to consists of the general principles that God rewards and punishes nations according to their works. And that God will hold every nation accountable.

In the Reformed world, such a concept is consistent with the Transformationalists who believe that the Church should be working to transform the world, including its cultures and its political structures, but not so much with those holding to 2 Kingdom Theology because they tend to believe that the Church, as an institution, should only be involved with preaching the Gospel and disciplining its members.

 An implication, which is explicitly stated in the podcast, that comes with McDermott's premise is that Christians should be aspiring to loftier goals for their nation than what unbelievers aspire to because God has these national covenant relationships with nations. In their discussion, they agreed that such aspirations do not imply the desire to install Theonomy with the kind of expectation that we are then safe from Christian political overreach. 

 If only that was the case. We don't live in a Black-White world where the only way Christians can try too hard to control government is to have the government respond to their concerns is with theonomy. Jeff Halper has provided insights on a helpful distinction between an ethnocracy and a democracy (click here). Though the term 'democracy' is not included in the link, Halper has defined it in terms of a state of being in his book, An Israeli In Palestine. He defines democracy there as where a given nation belongs to all of its citizens equally. An ethnocracy is where a given nation belongs to one particular group more than any other group despite the use of democratic processes in choosing leaders.

Thus, Christians do not have to force Theonomy on a nation for the nation to belong to them more than to any other group. And thus by denouncing Theonomy, those in the podcasts did nothing alleviate fears that Christians would not seek too much power in our nation.

At this point, the podcast went ok. We should recognize that conservatives have a significant amount to bring to the table regarding race. And thus one should not dismiss McDermott's book. Rather, one should read it to see the perspectives the writers in his book bring to the discussion on race.

However, things took a wrong turn when McDermott was asked about Critical Race Theory (CRT). There, the graciousness that McDermott rightfully demands for the conservative contributors to his book was not shown to CRT. Whatever good McDermott said was in CRT was also in the Gospel. And since McDermott saw CRT as being destructive and offering nothing else that has not been offered in other places, McDermott and the podcast hosts of Trueman and Pruitt denounced CRT as being a false religion that is toxic to the discussion on racism.

It might be helpful to read this link and that link to compare what the 3 of them said that CRT teaches. What they said included:

1. Racism is ordinary and systemic
2. Race is and is not an artificial construct
3. There is a unique voice of color that must be assumed not only that it is competent, but that it is superior to the voices of whites
4. That the liberal order, which includes enlightenment principles, neutral principles of law, and merit, is oppressive
5. That the color blindness taught by Martin Luther King Jr is oppressive
6. White privilege is a reality and is at the heart of systemic oppression
7. Minorities should not be expected to fit into American society
   

 Now realize that the above list is not just a list that they claim CRT teaches, it is a list of teachings that they are critical of. 

The issue in the first item in the list is whether they are disagreeing with whether racism is systemic. For it seems that that claim should be based on observation and whether racism can be seen in at least some of the different systems relied on by society. Here, all we need to do is see if racism is systemic is whether racial prejudice is exercised by law enforcement, the judicial system, the economic system, and in voting. For it seems obvious that we see racial discrimination exercised in those areas if not in other systems our society depends on. An if that is the case, where is the complaint' that CRT has really nothing to offer on the discussion on racism?

Here we should note that McDermott does not deny that racism has been and still is a significant problem here. In fact, McDermott sees our nation being punished by God for our nation practicing slavery and Jim Crow. But the question is whether racism in our nation is still systemic.

The issue regarding the second item is whether CRT teaches that the concept of race is both is and is not a biological concept. McDermott claims that CRT is inconsistent on this point.

The issue regarding the third item is to what extent is the unique voice of color so much more informative than the voices of whites regarding racism and its solutions.

The issue regarding the fourth issue is not just how accurate is the claim that the liberal order is oppressive, but why is such a claim being made. Is it being made by observation? If so, how accurate is that observation? Here, we might want to listen to the unique voice of color since they are experiencing oppression. They might be seeing harmful things in what we have taken for granted.

The issues in the fifth item do McDermott et. al. rightly understand Martin Luther King Jr. when he talked about color blindness? Is not mentioning the race of those who oppress and those who are oppressed what MLK meant when talking about color blindness? In addition, do McDermott  et. al. understand that MLK stated that racism is part of a triplet of evil that included economic exploitation and militarism? Do McDermott and friends understand the continuity that exists between CRT and what MLK both spoke about and experienced? After all, MLK worked for justice during Jim Crow with its laws and culture. MLK was working not just to change people's hearts, but also to peacefully overthrow oppressive systems and laws.

The issue with the sixth item is whether McDermott and other conservative allies deny that white privilege exists. I wonder because I finally began to understand what white privilege is by listening to a religiously and politically Black conservative  talk about where he sees white privilege in his teaching profession.

The issue with the seventh item is whether minorities feel like they can fit into American society. Here, we should expect various statements that both agree with and disagree with that claim.

McDermott and the others then go on to claim how CRT is a religion that preaches a false Gospel. And the question here is whether any nonChristian ideology presents itself as a religion given the approach that McDermott, Trueman, and Pruitt take to CRT.

My own take on CRT is that like other approaches to undoing social injustices it promotes a phobic approach. Yes, it has a lot to contribute to the discussion on racism if not the redefinition of racism. For CRT teaches that racism is the combining of racial prejudice, which CRT states that everyone has, along with social and institutional power that is oppressive against people of color. To see how social power can be oppressive, one should listen to James Baldwin's argument while debating William F. Buckley (click here for the debate and go to the 14:02 mark of the YouTube video). Granted that Baldwin's argument is based on his life experiences during Jim Crow, the issue is whether all of what he has experienced has been eliminated with the dismantling of Jim Crow.

In saying that CRT promotes a phobic approach is not to disagree with all that CRT. It is asking whether some of the approaches to undoing racial oppression is based on all-or-nothing thinking that prevents us from making distinctions between those factors that are accidentally associated with the racial oppression people of color have faced from those factors that are contributors to that same racial oppression. In other words, does CRT throw out the baby with the bathwater in its approach to racial oppression? If it does, then aren't McDermott, Trueman, and Pruitt are taking the same throw the baby out with the bathwater approach to CRT that CRT is taking to the status quo.

In the end, by taking their all-or-nothing analysis of CRT, it seems that McDermott and some other conservatives see themselves in a turf war over the narrative of racism with CRT. After all, McDerott, Trueman, and Pruitt are very disturbed over the number of Christians who believe that CRT has much to contribute to understanding and dismantling racism And the problem with that approach is that it tries to compel us to either accept what conservatives like McDermott have to say about racism or what CRT has to say  take a hybrid approach. With the hybrid approach, we would think for ourselves by trying to take the best insights from both groups. McDermott and friends do not want any person, believer or non-believer, to see CRT as having anything significant to say about racism in this nation and how to provide at least a partial solution to it.