Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 17, 2021

 Nov 9

To R. Scott Clark and his citation of an article where a Christian businessman and minister could lose his realtor license because while collaborating with a local food bank in distributing, he ordered his church to opt out of distributing the lunches. As a result, ethics charges were brought against him and he could lose his realtor's license. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The cited article can be found at the link below:

    https://debrajsaunders.substack.com/p/are-realtors-even-allowed-to-be-pastors

The real issue here is whether Christians can understand their obligations in the public sector. That the Church can discriminate where society cannot, and thus the Church needs to be careful when working with those in the public sector.

That being said, this case is a bit different than other discrimination cases brought against Christian business people. What we have to realize is this, when long standing social injustices are being corrected, all-or-nothing thinking is employed by many who are seeking to correct those injustices. With that kind of thinking comes an inability or perhaps even a fear to make distinctions between what contributes to a given injustice and what doesn't. We shouldn't take this as persecution for our faith as much as a working out of what it means to correct centuries of marginalization of the LGBT community in society. And much of the blame for that marginalization lies at the feet of the Church.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his article that criticizes the 1619 Project to the extent of saying that it is totally flawed. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The debate about the 1619 Project isn't one about the facts as much as it is about the interpretation of the facts. For example, one of the most contested points about what the 1619 Project claims is that a major reason for the Revolutionary War was to protect slavery.  At this point, we need to ask, what are the facts that either support or challenge that contention?

We do know that the Somerset Case, with its judge's public pronouncement, played a major role in the interpretation that says protecting slavery was a main reason for fighting the Revolutionary War. And in dealing with the Somerset case, what one must consider is not just what the judge said, but how it was reported and interpreted by the general public in America as well as in England.

Now suppose slavery was not a major reason for why the Revolutionary War was fought. Does that mean that slavery wasn't a reason at all for the the war?

Another point of contention how to see The Constitution in the light of slavery and racism. Here, Wilentz disagreed with the degree to which the 1619 Project saw document. The reason why Wilentz had a more moderate view of The Constitution's take on slavery was not from what was actually written in the document, it had to do with the discomfort with slavery that The Constitution's contributors had themselves. So he wasn't in total disagreement with the Project on that issue.

Another claim by the Project questioned by Wilentz is whether racism is part of our nation's DNA. Here we should note it's not just the past that answers that question, it is the present and how one experiences the present. At this point, Wilentz is at a disadvantage compared to some of the writers of the 1619 Project in understanding history in light of the present.

Clark makes simple error when talking about history. He disagreed with the notion that history is not fixed. Here Clark makes a distinction between history and the study of history with the former being fixed and the latter being unfixed. But here we are probably talking about a double use of the word 'history.' While Clark uses that word to mean the actual events, history itself is a a study about the past.  And if history is a study about the past, then  it is not fixed.

But one thing can be said for sure, that despite its flaws, at least some of the professors who have criticized the 1619 Project have not claimed that it is fatally flawed as Clark does. In fact, in The Atlantic magazine, Wilentz wrote a list of corrections to be made to save the project from being discredited by its critics. Wilentz supports. the overall idea of the project.

In addition, Clark's singling out of Marxist attributes of the project begs the question of his own criticisms of the project since he implies, without giving reasons, that those Marxist attributes are bad. 

Truth be told, and this is an interpretation, Clark here demonstrates an authoritarian  approach to the 1619 Project. His cynicism of the project, his declaration of guilt by association when mentioning Marxist thought, and  his distinction between real and amateur historians shows an all-or-nothing thinking approach to the project. He goes beyond the criticisms of the some of the historians he cites in critiquing the Project. He fails to mention the measured support for the project by some of its critics whom he cites.

We should note that authoritarian approaches are often born out of fear and aim to totally discredit a given source. The fear here is that if the Project is not totally denounced, it will gain some credibility and that could be devastating to those who see a different America than what the Project describes. Then again, we should note that America can be experienced differently based on one's circumstances, such as one's own race. Perhaps that is the real fear. That America itself is not a monolith of overall good. That America can be a far different nation to some groups based on race and/or economic class than to other groups.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 11

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how CRT is being taught in our nation's schools. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Terms like 'progressive,' 'Critical Race Theory,' and 'Marxists' are being used like the words 'lions' and 'tigers' and 'bears' in the journey along the Yellow Brick Wall. So what is the actual fear here?

First, we are not dealing with Critical Race Theory (CRT) as much as how some of the ideas in CRT might apply education. After all, CRT is about how many, not all, Blacks have experienced and are still force to contend with racism in this nation. Is having students learn about racism in this nation what some are afraid of here? We need to distinguish between what is CRT from how some apply CRT to different areas like education.

Second, criticisms must be specific without the use of labels as pejoratives. I looked at the general description of how Math was to be taught in Seattle. The big difference in how it is to be taught there from other places is not the subtraction of Math concepts, but the addition of the history of Math and how Mathematics have been used as a context learning Math concepts. What is wrong with mixing Math history with teaching Math itself?

What would be a legitimate criticism that Clark could level at what so offends him here? One legitimate criticism could be how the one class was being  taught Angela Davis. They were being told to celebrate communism and chant 'jail Trump,' There is nothing wrong with teaching the kids about Angela Davis or the reasons why we should celebrate her. But the class that does that should also be encouraged to examine, disagree with, and find faults in what she did. So it wasn't the subject of Black Communism or Angela Davis as a person that was wrong, it was about part of how that subject was being taught that was wrong. Such would be a specific criticism.

Let's face it, all of the complaints about progressives, Marxism, and CRT amount to a hill of beans compared to the racism that many Blacks have been suffering through in America even to this day. And yet, some efforts that are overly corrective is what draws the attention here. What is ignored are conservative efforts to censor  the history and current status of racism in this nation.

Third, there is a certain fear-mongering being practiced by Clark. For there is no evidenced based discussion as to the pervasiveness and extent to which CRT and other conservative boogeymen ideas are taught in the schools. Rather, there are just a few anecdotes cited from  a highly conservative and antagonistic, to CRT, source. Clark certainly didn't engage in a systematic study of how CRT is in the education of our nation's schools. Instead, Clark uses a sources that uses innuendos about how much influence CRT is exerting in our nation's education. 

In addition, there is no discussion as to why teaching CRT is only negative, which is Clark's view. Rather, Clark's article here takes the same approach as the class that was taught to celebrate Black Communism. All of this points to is an irrational fear of, or even perhaps a phobic reaction to, CRT or other Black perceptions of racism which is being pushed on people, especially conservatives, by political conservatives like Clark.

The Real Objection To CRT: Outcome-Based Truth Systems

 The idea of an outcome-based truth system came to me as I was reading about Post Modernism. Post Modernism rejects the metanarratives, the overall way of understanding the world, of Pre Modernism and Modernism. The metanarrative for Pre Modernism is faith while the meta narrative for Modernism is the combination of science and reason. For the former metanarrative, adding a detail would be helpful. It isn't that Post Modernism opposes religion. Rather, Post Modernism opposes religions that make exclusive claims to knowing the truth.

Why has Post Modernism gone this way? The answer is history. History has shown the destructive results that certain ideologies and ways of understanding the world have produced. Whether we are talking about the belief in racial superiority as shown in the cousins of slavery, colonialism, and imperialism, or wars, or the oppression and exploitation of people, any metanarratives that produce such results cannot possibly be true according to Post Modernism.

Thus, we are talking about a backwards looking outcome-based truth system. That is once we look at the history of certain certain ways of understanding the world, we find those ways of understanding can't possibly be true There are also forward looking outcome-based truth systems. Certain rejections of CRT are also based on how we expect people will react if they believe CRT. Here we are talking about some, but not all, rejections of CRT.

The particular reaction to CRT which I am referring to here goes like this. Because CRT teaches people to hate America, it can't be true and thus we cannot teach it.

Such a criticism takes what CRT says quite seriously though I am not aware of any CRT writings that tell people to hate America. Rather, with how CRT describes the sufferings and travails of people of color in this nation, some critics of CRT understandably expect a hatred of America to be the response. That is because the description of racism in America that CRT teaches is incriminating. And that is a problem for many who highly value patriotism.

Thus, because the unwanted outcome of hating one's own nation could result if people read what CRT had to say, CRT cannot be taught. In fact, for them, CRT cannot even be true.

At this point it would be easy to severely criticize those who are so afraid of how people will react to CRT that they assume it is wrong. It would be easy but it would also be foolish. For whenever we rationalize our compromising of our moral standards or faith we hold to because of an unwanted outcome, we too have employed a outcome-based truth system. Thus the presence/absence of a negative outcome can have strange effects on what we are willing to believe is true.

Some who reject CRT employ an outcome-based truth system when rejecting it. And we should note here that CRT is not inerrant. But this rejection of and opposition to CRT because of the outcomes we expect that belief in the theory will produce are wrong actions to take. But lest we look down on such critics of CRT and judge them harshly, we have all, and still are, guilty of employing an outcome-based truth system when it is serves our own purposes. 

Would King Favor CRT Or Racial Color Blindness In Promoting Civil Rights

The color-blind approach to civil rights says that the race of a person should not be considered at all in viewing people. So, for example, when reporting a story about a police shooting of an apparently innocent victim, the race of neither the police officers involved nor that of the victim should be mentioned, let alone considered.

This color-blind approach, as far as I know, is a conservative ideological approach to civil rights. It is based on the claim that racial equality was achieved by the work of the Civil Rights Movement with the passing of laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That is because with the passing of Civil Rights legislation, we have equal treatment under the law And in answering their critics, promoters of the color-blind approach say that equal treatment under the law does not guarantee any specific outcomes.

Finally, because of his 'I Have A Dream Speech,'  those who promote the color-blind approach believe that it is consistent with Martin Luther King's Jr. approach to civil rights by virtue of his dream that society would become color-blind. And that belief is the concern of this article.

In contrast to the color-blind approach, we have Critical Race Theory (CRT). And CRT teaches that racism is more than just individual racial prejudice, it also involves racial oppression from our nation's institutions and the manifestation of social power. And because of that, and what we see in society, say advocates of CRT, shows that we have yet to achieve racial equality. CRT relies on multiple influences including Marx and, as it claims, the work and words of Martin Luther King Jr. and others. CRT is an outgrowth of Critical Legal Studies (CLS).

The question here is which approach to civil rights is most consistent with King's approach to civil rights. Rather than me trying to answer that question, below is a link to an interview with King which occurred 11 months before he was assassinated. In other words, these are the views of King late in his career of activism and leadership. This interview came around 2 to 3 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Here we get to hear how King viewed civil rights and what is needed to combat racism and achieve equality. So here the listener to the interview gets to, in a more informed way, determine for themselves whether it is the color-blind approach or the CRT approach to viewing and achieving civil rights that is most consistent with King's approach to civil rights. The link to the interview is below:

Click here for the interview with Martin Luther King Jr.

Lies, Lies Everywhere With Plenty For One To Use

Justin Giboney (click here for a brief bio) has written an article posted on the Gospel Coalition website about the lies we tell ourselves about racism. In that article, he has two groups he wants to target: those who deny or minimize racism in America's past and/or present and those overstate the case of racism in America as exemplified by theories such as Critical Race Theory (CRT). In particular, the ties that critical theories like Critical Theory and CRT have to Post Modernism and Marxism are highlighted, but perhaps not always as one might expect (Click here to read the article).

What Giboney has in mind is to draw attention to the lies that the above mentioned groups tell themselves and others about racism in America to serve their agenda. For the group that minimizes racism in America's past and/or present, lies include the following:

• Racism is plays a very minimal part in the story of America
• Racism was eradicated with events like the end of slavery or Jim Crow laws or with reconstruction, and I could add the Civil Rights Movement
• That those who bring up racism are Marxists
• That 'Marxist barbarians' are waiting in the wings to bring destruction

The lies that some progressives who are battling racism in America include:

• Whiteness is the cause of all sins and pathologies
• One's class or race can tell us about a given person's character

Though Giboney pays more attention to the lies of those who minimize racism in America, we should note the issue about CRT. It's issue is whether or not it overstates its case against racism in America. And here we should note that CRT's working definition of racism is different than that of most people. For while most people, especially conservatives, think of racism as to be confided to the attitudes and actions of a given individual, CRT says something different. CRT acknowledges that the racial prejudice of an individual is involved in racism; but it adds to that structural and social components to the definition of racism. As a result, racism in America can only be by White against people of color because whites much have more say in determining the structure and cultural aspects of society than any other group does. Thus, though CRT acknowledges that blacks can have personal prejudice against whites, because the structural and social components of society are, for the most part, controlled by and favor whites, there are no structural and social components in society that oppress whites and thus the personal prejudice that any black person might have against whites does not qualify as racism. And thus, in America, CRT states that racism can only be exercised by whites against people of color despite the fact that people of color can have racial prejudice against whites (click here and there).

That point might show the claim that all sin is due to whiteness, a view attributed to some progressives by Giboney, might not be a valid claim. Regardless of the validity of the claim, Giboney failure to draw attention to the different working definition of racism by CRT is a serious flaw in his article.

What we might want to do here is to apply the same test to Giboney as he applies to those who minimize racism in America and those who hold to the critical theories. That is does Giboney hold to lies that bolster his views of the world. And here, we might want to check his view on Marxism because he makes several negative references to it.

Why would lying to himself about Marxism serve his interests? If we look at his associations with the And Campaign (see his bio and click here) and the Gospel Coalition, there seems to be a consistent denouncing of Marxism in the critical theories and an implied warning that one doesn't need to read Marxist materials to learn from them. That is because some from the Gospel Coalition, and possibly the And Campaign, have claimed that any good that Marxism has said social justice has already been said better by certain Christians and so there is no need to read it. 

I would invite people to read what Martin Luther King Jr. said about Marxism to see if it has anything valid for us to learn. Now here we should first note that King merged Marxism with the Communism practiced in the Soviet Union, something that many Marxists or those leaning toward Marx disagree with. Examples of those who disagree with that conflation would include Mikhail Gorbachev would object to regarding Stalin and his successors as socialists and Noam Chomsky would object to regarding Lenin as having ruled as a Marxist. 

Anyway, King regarded Marxism/Communism as evil. And yet, he acknowledged that it attempted to speak for justice. In fact, King believed that truth could not be found in neither Capitalism nor Communism, but that we need the best elements of both ideologies in order to better arrive at truth (click here, King's comments on Marxism begin on pg 92). We don't see Giboney treat Marxism as King did though his treatment of Marxism is certainly not as bad as others have treated it. So perhaps when Giboney describes Marxism as a 'real threat to truth and moral order,' Giboney is holding to at least a partial lie so that he can direct people to read from Christian sources only. Also, Giboney claims that Marxism tells lies to strengthen its position. But what lies is he referring to? 

The final point I would like to make here is that Giboney is too easily prone to call flaws in reasoning 'lies.' Such does not ask us to look for rational explanations for why an ideology or movement takes the approach it does. 

Here we should note that it is not uncommon for people who are reacting to longterm social injustices to respond to those injustices with a phobic reaction. By that I mean that in order not just to undo longterm social injustices, but to also try to prevent those injustices from occurring again respond phonically  And thus there is a fear in being able to distinguish between factors and variables that are coincidentally associated with a given injustice from those factors and variables that contribute to the injustice being addressed. The phobic reaction here is like the irrational fear a person who has been bitten by a dog might have to all dogs. Rather than learning to distinguish a dangerous dog from a dog that is not, those who have a phobic reaction to dogs fear all dogs and thus avoid taking chances on distinguishing threatening dogs from friendly dogs. 

Such an explanation for why ideologies and movements believe what Giboney might call lies gives those ideologies and movements some benefit of the doubt without having to agree with questionable beliefs.

Giboney has several valid points to make here and is worth reading. But it doesn't really provide an accurate description of CRT before examining whatever lies it might hold to. And that is a significant flaw in Giboney's article.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 19, 2021

 May 17

To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for the citation about CRT Clark uses from Trueman's article about how we can learn more from the Psalms than from CRT for our current problems. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Trueman, like other Reformed Theology commentators on Critical Race Theory (CRT), are exhibiting a phobic reaction to it. What is key to a phobic reaction is the fear that one cannot distinguish between a what is potentially harmful and dangerous from that which is not potentially harmful or dangerous.  In this case, anything associate with CRT must be avoided because even though there is the recognition that CRT can point out some problems with the Western world, we can't afford to get those points from CRT because there are Trojan Horse viruses that come with its valid points. In addition, there is no need to go to CRT because the valid points it makes can be gleaned elsewhere. Thus, we must avoid all of CRT even when it makes valid points. And that is a phobic reaction.

Certainly CRT does employ some all-or-nothing thinking and thus sometimes overstates its case and needs to be modified. But that is true with most perspectives or movements that attempt to undo longstanding social injustices. And so the solution is not to imitate those perspectives or movements by employing one's own all-or-nothing thinking.  That amounts to nothing more than becoming the pot after calling the kettle black. Rather, the solution is to take the tenets and claims of CRT on a case by case basis and show not whether they are right or wrong, but to what degree can one assess that each tenet is right or wrong.

My own theory as to why  CRT and related viewpoints like Critical Theory have stirred the ire of Reformed Theology commentators is because these theories have challenged the legitimacy of Western Civilization that has been heavily influenced by Christianity. Here we should note that being influenced by Christianity can mean that something is influenced by Christians or influenced by what Christianity is suppose to teach. I believe that the former applies here to what heavily influenced Western Civilization. And because Western Civilization is being thoroughly examined and found wanting, Christianity, because of its influence on Western Civilization, is also receiving some closer examination and found wanting. This is why it is important to distinguish the influence of Christianity where Christianity refers to the influence of Christians vs the influence of what Christianity is suppose to teach. 

In the end, Christianity can lose some of its credibility because it is being deemed guilty by association with Western Civilization. And if Christianity loses some of its credibility, then so too  does its current teachers, like those following Reformed Theology. And in authoritarian cultures, like ones that exists in religiously conservative Christian circles, that which challenges the credentials of its teachers becomes kryptonite to those those teachers and their circles.

Finally, what needs to be addressed right here is whether the oppressed know more about their suffering than others do. I would take that to be generally true. Why? It is like what the late Chilean economist Manfred Max-Kneef discovered about poverty. He was teaching economics at a prestigious university and realized that the language used to describe an economy meant nothing to the poor. So he left teaching and eventually joined the ranks of the poor and learned first hand what poverty was like. Who knows more what it is like to suffer from poverty than the poor? So too, who knows more about what it is like to suffer from racial, gender, or religious discrimination than those who suffer from it? Or, to use the example Max-Kneef has used to illustrate this principle, what does one who has never fallen in love know what it is like to fall in love?

As an extension of the religiously conservative Christian initiated culture war, its constant haranguing  of CRT is not just a phobic reaction, it also bears the marks of a turf war over who gets to authoritatively interpret reality. And rather than recognize that we have more to learn from CRT than we may want to admit, these religiously conservative Christian teachers are fighting tooth and nail to persuade their audiences that they alone have a monopoly on what can be learned about the suffering and oppression that was perpetrated by Western Civilization over the centuries?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 18

To Nate Hochman and his blogpost that claims that America has, generally speaking, always pursued a policy of pursuing liberal principles of freedom and democracy. He used Bush's invasion of Iraq as an example. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The great error made in the above article is to assume that the stated purpose for a Presidential policy is also the actual purpose. And that especially applies to Bush's stated reason for invading Iraq. We should note that bringing democracy to the Middle East was not the initial stated purpose for the invasion;  the elimination of WMDs was. And it was only when Bush could no longer operate under the pretense of eliminating WMDs in Iraq that he said bringing democracy was the reason for the invasion.

When we go back in a time from the Iraq War, we find that the US has a sufficient history of replacing democratic regimes brutal dictatorships because the US did not care for the economic direction being pursued by certain governments. And when we look at the fact that full equality has yet to set foot on American soil, we find that like Bush's sequel stated purpose for invading Iraq,  the above essay that claims that America is dedicated to liberal principles of democracy is nothing more than camouflage for reasons not so honorable as to bring freedom to the oppressed. Even our own behavior in Iraq has shown that.

Finally since the fatal flaw for conservatives is to rely too heavily on the past to understand and try to solve the problems of the present, Hochman should consider adding the Russell-Einstein Manifesto to his use of the Just War Theory to ascertain which interventions are acceptable. He should be relieved to know that though it is more recent than Just War Theory, that the Russell-Einstein Manifesto is also old enough to be regarded as being from the past.

Perhaps Theologians Should Have Term Limits Too

Growing up in my family, I saw that there was a partial equivalence made between the Republican Party and our conservative Christian faith. Thus when I developed Marxist political and economic leanings, one of my parents started to question my faith. That was because that parent saw an attack on the Republican Party as an attack on their faith. Sad to say that what I experienced was not unique to my family.

For others, the partial equating of certain American subcultures with Christianity caused a similar reaction to those believers who didn't buy into any significant level of American patriotism. For such people, any accusation against America, especially against its glorified past, is an attack against Christianity.

Both partial equations are often seen in conservative common folks and certain conservative ministers whose theological education is limited.  However, there are groups of more highfalutin conservative Christian theologians, educators, and even ministers whose partner in crime with Christianity is neither a given political party or a nation, but a civilization, in particular the one they grew up in. For they partially equate certain parts of Western Civilization with Christianity to the extent that criticisms of those parts of Western Civilization are seen as attacks on Christianity. And it is with that that we should begin to discuss Carl Trueman's (click here for a short description) article in the First Things website about Christianity and Critical Race Theory (click here for the article and click there for a list of definitions and terms used in Critical Race Theory). 

As with Critical Theory, Intersectionality, Postmodernism, and Marxism, Trueman doesn't like Critical Race Theory(CRT) though he is more friendly with it than he is with the other approaches listed

Trueman is writing about CRT because it is making significant inroads into the Conservative Christian Church such as in the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, he believes that some religiously conservative Christians are presented with CRT in all-or-nothing terms and thus are pressured into accepting the CRT perspective lest they be seen as supporting racism. Also, he believes that  CRT provides a false perception of reality.

Why the latter? It is because of one of Trueman's 2 main objections to CRT: it has its roots in criticisms of Western Civilization such as is found in Marxism. Where Trueman disagrees with such criticisms is that it revolves around its focus on oppression with oppressors on one hand and the oppressed on the other and what follows that thinking.

Trueman attempts to discredit CRT out of existence by  associating it with Marxism. He does that by citing Mao and then he asks the reader to substitute the word 'race' for 'class' and 'white' for 'bourgoisie.' Trueman's basic description is that oppressors have rigged the system so that they benefit from the status quo. And part of that status quo is the oppression of certain groups of people. But he seems, and hopefully I am wrong in saying this, to say that in a tone that casts disbelief on the possibility of that happening for he goes on to say that this approach is provides the pressure on people to either accept it all of CRT by 'deligitimizing' any challenges.

He then associates CRT with what he sees as the modern therapeutic approach of the age which says that all one needs to solve a problem like racism is for the right people to reallocate enough resources into solving the problem.

Trueman tries to cast more doubt onto CRT by claiming that CRT portrays life as a 'zero-sum' gain where one person's gain in power is another person's loss. Thus, you not only have the 'haves' and 'have nots,' you have a comprehensive way of describing the ills that so permeate our world. That our problems are due to those who have seized power so that there is always someone else to blame for the evils we see. All of that goes into the reasons why we must stand with the oppressed and against the oppressors.

Trueman's second objection to CRT is in how it is presented to people, and this has already been touched on. It is presented in such an all-or-nothing manner that it rules out any dialogue or discussion. Again, any disagreement is equated with standing with the oppressors, and in this case that is standing with the racists. 

Trueman uses the writings of Jemar Tisby and Edward Copeland to help make his case. Trueman cites from Tisby's book, The Color Of Compromise, as well as his NY Times review of the book,  White Too Long: The Legacy Of White Supremacy In American Christianity by Robert P. Jones. The short of it is that Trueman believes that they are saying that racism has so invaded Western Christianity that it cannot properly called Christianity. Thus, Tisby, Copeland and others have overstated their case so as to say that White's cannot be real Christians.

Trueman then, again, uses deduction to argue against the idea that racism is systemic. According to Trueman, such a claim 'flatten's evil and allows us to blame the system for racism's existence. By flattening evil, Trueman seems to be saying that there is no gradation of evil, and that includes racism in terms of what CRT is battling. Thus, even words can be described as violence. None of the above implies that Trueman believes that there are no problems with what CRT describes as racial prejudice, he believes that there are significant problems there.

Trueman goes on to say that some attempted discussions on the subject devolve into the pejorative use of labels such as 'cultural Marxism' as a way of arguing against CRT and 'white privilege' as a way of countering objections to CRT. And such is a good observation by Trueman.

Trueman sees a ray of hope in a new collection of essays by the Acton Institute.. But the Acton Institute doesn't have the influence that the NY Times has. The above is an attempt to summarize what Trueman is trying to say.

How can one respond to Trueman? We first should note that there are two main problems with Trueman's approach. The first problem is that of logic. Trueman sees problems that really don't exist whether they be the flattening of evil or he attempts to define things out of existence including when his descriptions are not precise enough. 

There is no reason to believe that recognizing systemic evil must mean that there is a flattening of evil. Tim Keller, former pastor of Redeemer Church, shows why the Trueman's implication that systemic evil flattens the curve is false when discussing the corporate evil that existed in the Nazi era in Germany (click here for the video). Keller describes the different levels of responsibility Germans had during that time period. Those with the most responsibility for the Nazi atrocities were those who gave the orders. After them comes those who carried out the orders. Then comes those who knew about what was going on but did nothing. And finally those who didn't really know about the atrocities and chose to remain ignorant.

There is another problem with the implications Trueman associates with believing that CRT calls racism systemic. That problem is that CRT calling racism system does not imply that only the system is responsible for racism. Please note the CRT definition of racism below (click here for the source):

Racism = race prejudice + social and institutional power

 and the definition of prejudice:

An attitude based on limited information, often on stereotypes. Prejudice is usually, but not always, negative. Positive and negative prejudices alike, especially when directed toward oppressed people, are damaging because they deny the individuality of the person. In some cases, the prejudices of oppressed people (“you can’t trust the police”) are necessary for survival. No one is free of prejudice.

 In the first cited definition, racism just doesn't consist of what the system does, it includes with how the system is set up the individual's attitudes toward a given race. So the system is not responsible for all of racism. The second definition defines prejudice and asserts that everybody has prejudices--that is each individual has prejudices.

Then again, there is another approach to examining whether racism can be systemic. That approach is an inductive approach where we look to see if a given racial group is suffering from systemic racism. Now while Trueman looks at the possible existence of systemic racism from focusing on the oppressor, perhaps we should use the perspective of the alleged oppressed to see if there is systemic racism. 

So we might ask Trueman whether  there was systemic racism here during America's early days, even those days after the Civil War and up until the end of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Such as when Native Americans could be ethnically cleansed from the land they lived on, was there systemic racism? Such as when Blacks could be regarded as property and have their families divided so that they could be sold as slaves, was there systemic racism? Such as when The Constitution explicitly stated that each white person counted as 3/5ths of a Black person, was there systemic racism? Such as when after slavery ended and Reconstruction ended, was there systemic racism during the Jim Crow era? And such as after Jim Crow, when there is disparity in how law enforcement and the judicial system in the races are treated, when there are renewed attempts to reduce the ability to vote based on race, when employers show preferential treatment to perspective employees based on whether an applicant's name sounded more White than Black, is it possible that we have systemic racism today?

And if there has been and/or is systemic racism, does it matter how much that concept borrows from Marx's model that divides the world into oppressors and the oppressed?

To be clear, Trueman does not deny the existence of racial prejudice and its horrible effects. Nor does he deny a lot of the Church's ugly past involvement with racism. But he seems to balk at whether there is systemic racism. But doesn't an inductive study tell us it exists?

Trueman does make an important point: one must not approach what CRT teaches using all-or-nothing thinking so that we are compelled to either accept or reject all of it. Trueman is right in saying that such thinking blocks legitimate discussions and prevents meaningful dialogues between people with varying viewpoints. But doesn't Trueman use that same all-or-nothing viewpoint when he warns us about CRT's reliance on Marxism and other critiques of Western Civilization? For he seems to view Marxism in all-or-nothing terms.  And though all of life cannot be reduced to the battle between oppressors and the oppressed, isn't that conflict descriptive of a significant part of our lives?

And finally, given Western Civilization's own history of internal wars, external imperialism and imperial wars, colonialism, slave trade, anti-Semitism, and alike, shouldn't we be more open to substantial criticisms of Western Civilization than what Trueman and others are open to? 

For resistance to broad and substantial criticisms to Western Civilization by older and more traditional theologians, like Trueman, is a serious problem. And perhaps it is the combination of age and traditionalism that prevents some from accepting necessary changes to Western Civilization that the tenets of theories like CRT call for. The combination of age and traditionalism along with a long personal history of living in Western Civilization that give many such theologians a very strong conflict of interest in doing so in evaluating Western Civilization.

Quite often, what the combination of age with traditionalism does is that it puts its people in box of rely too heavily on the past to both understand the present as well as try to solve some of its problems. Note that not relying too much on the past should not be confused with totally disregarding the past.  

Trueman's overall evaluation of CRT is a mixed bag that has more drawbacks than contributions to make. But that does not imply that his contributions should be ignored. We can't afford to react to CRT in all-or-nothing terms. But many of Trueman's negative responses CRT must be challenged. For they are due more to tribalism and the call for change both in how we see our current reality and how we respond to it.

 

 

 

Too Team Oriented To See The Big Picture

 America is currently sharply divided so much that there seems to be no common ground between the sides. In the conservative corner, we have a tag team of Republicans and Trumpublicans. And there is a growing division between the two since the latter group is looked on as being a personality cult according to arch conservative George Will.

In the non-conservative corner, there are liberals, progressives, and leftists. And there is a division between leftists and the other 2 non-conservative groups.

But the sharpest division is between Trumpublicans and the coalition of those Republicans and non-conservatives who oppose Trump. And the division so great that some of those from the coalition have compromised their political standards to vote Trump out of office.

Nothing has illustrated the division between the two main groups more than the post-election actions. Many who support Trump sincerely believe that the election was stolen from their hero. Then again, for months before the Presidential elections in both 2016 and 2020, Trump claimed that the only way he could lose was if the elections were rigged against him. And Trump's claims were enough for many of his followers to employ the basic motto that says: Trump said it, I believe it, That settles it. Then again, conspiracy theories about the Democrats have also been circulating around conservative websites for a while before those elections which has furthered our nation's great divide.

Thus, it is in the spirit of that division, that blog writer Gene Veith (click here for a short bio) has recently written a recent article on how he expects minorities to come around and support the conservative cause. Citing an article by Musa al-Ghabri, a sociologist from Columbia, Veith makes the claim that because most people from minority groups are religious while the Democratic Party seems to be fleeing from religion, that that political party will lose its support from minority members. That movements like Identity Politics, Critical Race Theory, and other non-conservative social stands violate the conservative religious values of many who belong to minority groups in America. Thus, eventually these people will find their way to the conservative corner--Veith does not distinguish between Republicans and Trumpublicans (click here for the article).

Veith would be more than happy if these claims become true because Veith wants to advance the conservative cause. And having more minority members jump the Democratic Party ship to join the conservative cause would give that cause more political power.

Now we could analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the claims made by Veith and al-Gabri, but in the light of the polarization of America, that seems to be a less important issue. What is important here is how diametrically opposed that the sides mentioned are. We have the conservative cause, the Democratic Party, Identity Politics, and Critical Race Theory. And it seems that Veith and al-Gharbi believe that followers of the conservative cause and those who are into Identity Politics and Critical Race Theory are disjoint groups of people. Such a division, as well as how Veith and al-Ghabri write about these movements, is the problem in an America that is suffering greatly from polarization.

So while Veith and al Ghabri write as if the rise of the conservative cause and the, what is hopefully for them, the demise of Identity Politics and Critical Race Theory are good things. In essence, at least Veith is writing as a team player for the conservative cause and looks at what is happening solely in terms of what will help his team, the conservative cause, become stronger.

But it is Veith's team and competitive approach that makes it difficult for him to see the problems that his partisanship is causing. Such a team approach and partisanship further divides America. But not only that, a team approach and strong partisanship can blind us from seeing what each  movement can contribute. And if we were to look at these movements as being mixtures of good and bad, perhaps we would not become so partisan because we would recognize the strengths each movement possesses. 

While Veith is not only a political conservative, but a religiously conservative Christian as well, it might help here if we looked at the example set by another very religious leader: Martin Luther King Jr.

When King compared what he saw as Communism-Marxism and Capitalism, he failed to exhibit the team approach and partisanship that Veith has for conservative cause. Rather, King looked at the strengths and weaknesses of both  ideologies/groups in order to create a hybrid between them. While King believes that Communism forgets that life is individual and Capitalism forgets that life is social, he also looks to combine the strengths of each movement despite the fact that he shared the opinion of William Temple, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, on Communism. For Temple described Communism as being a 'Christian heresy' in that it combined both real Christian concerns with beliefs that were totally against Christianity (click here for a writing by King on this and start with pg 92). 

The point being here that instead of looking to advance one's own team or favorite ideology over and against the other teams and ideologies, perhaps we need to take King's approach. Perhaps we need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the conservative cause, Identity Politics, and Critical Race Theory and seek to create our own hybrids of these different ways of thinking. For if we did that, rather than viewing people's political views and ideologies with whom we disagree as having nothing positive to contribute, perhaps, just perhaps, we can regain a sense of real unity while having sincere disagreements. At least, one could hope that that would happen.

 

 

Why Many Conservative Christians Oppose Critical Race Theory.

 There are not too many religiously conservative Reformed Christian leaders who take a shining to Critical Race Theory (CRT). This article will review one such assessment of CRT from Pastor Joe Griffo (click here), a minister of an independent Reformed church. Such a church can seem to be an oxymoron to many of us who have Reformed roots because to be reformed often means to be in a church in which there is denominational oversight. But such has nothing to do with Griffo's analysis of CRT.

 In a previous article, Griffo accused CRT of being a religion because it shared some characteristics especially with religious practices (click here for that article). I understand the confusion. But since most religions contain beliefs,  any given religion is, at least in part, an ideology just as CRT is an ideology. But such does not make CRT a religion.

Why isn't CRT a religion, especially in the western sense of the word? CRT is not concerned with supernatural beings or the spiritual universe. It is neither concerned with making any systematic statements about God nor about the relationship between God and man. So CRT is not concerned about the vertical relationship between God and man. Rather, CRT is speaking to society, not the followers of any given religion, about part of the horizontal relationship people have with each other. 

In addition, CRT is speaking to a specific, gravely immoral problem that has plagued America since its beginning: racism. To use the word 'gravely' is not hyperbole since many people have been murdered because of this problem. And thus it seems that while Griffo notes similarities between CRT and religion, he fails to pay adequate attention to the differences between them.

The article being reviewed today discusses CRT in relation to sin (click here for the article). The problem I see in Griffo's article is one of concepts. Because Griffo sees CRT as a religion, he assumes that CRT is discussing sin in when it discusses racism. And while racism is and/or does contain sin, CRT is not concerned with neither sin in general nor how should we approach God about the sin of racism. Why? It is because CRT is only addressing the horizontal relationship between people.

Another CRT concept that Griffo struggles with is that of racism. Griffo complains that CRT has redefined racism with the implication that the redefinition is wrong. Griffo complains that the definition of racism that involves how one sees and reacts to someone who is different has been replaced with the concept of racism as power as exhibited in a society's systems. What Griffo does not realize is that in its redefinition of racism, CRT does not replace racial prejudice, what Griffo would call racism, with power, it adds to it. So, according to CRT, racism consists of both racial prejudice and social and institutional power. 

To quote from a CRT document that tries to define racism (click here for that document):

• Racism = race prejudice + social and institutional power
• Racism = a system of advantage based on race 
• Racism = a system of oppression based on race 
• Racism = a white supremacy system 

So while Griffo complains about how CRT completely redefines racism by taking out the individual's reaction to people from other races,  the first of the above 4 statements contradicts his claim. For CRT says that race or racial prejudice is:

'An attitude based on limited information, often on stereotypes. Prejudice is usually, but not always, negative. Positive and negative prejudices alike, especially when directed toward oppressed people, are damaging because they deny the individuality of the person. In some cases, the prejudices of oppressed people (“you can’t trust the police”) are necessary for survival. No one is free of prejudice.'

Thus we see that CRT states that there are two parts to racism: an individual's part and a structural component. So we can conclude that CRT does not completely redefine racism nor does it completely replace individual sin with power issues.

Another point we should make about the above CRT statements about racism is that they are speaking from the perspective of the American experience in general, and from the experiences of marginalized, oppressed people in particular. Can Griffo say that his view is includes the experiences and perspectives of the marginalized and oppressed?

One final point we should make about the above statements on racism is that it is understandable to see why CRT states that only whites can be guilty of racism. Here we should again note that CRT is not saying that only whites can be racially prejudiced. Rather, it is saying that because  the power structures of society favor the white race along with its definition of racism, only whites can be guilty of racism. Again, that is not claiming that only whites can be racially prejudiced.

From here, one can see that one of Griffo's main objections to CRT becomes the concept of corporate guilt. Corporate guilt would be a state that people have after being involved in corporate sin. And corporate sin is sin that is committed via social and institutional power. Thus, corporate sin is sins created by groups regardless of their size. And in the case of racism, corporate sin is committed by the state and society. Such a concept is sometimes difficult for Protestants, especially religiously conservative Protestants to understand because of Protestantism's emphasis on the individual accountability. For many religiously conservative Protestants question how could God legitimately hold someone accountable for the sins of another? Thus it is sometimes deduced that corporate guilt, with its cause being corporate sin, cannot exist in God's eyes. 

And yet, doesn't experience teach us about the reality of corporate sin? Didn't the Jim Crow culture and laws as well as slavery in this nation teach us about the existence of corporate sin? Didn't the Nazi atrocities in Germany teach us about the existence of corporate sin? And again, doesn't corporate guilt follow corporate sin?

But even if we were to go to the Scriptures about corporate guilt, doesn't Paul in his letter to the Romans, tell us that we have been, and are, punished for the sin of one man and blessed because of the righteousness of Christ (Romans 5:16-17). Doesn't the story of Achan in Joshua 7 tell us about Achan's family being punished for Achan's sin? Doesn't Daniel lament over the sins of Israel's ancestors as well as the sins of his contemporaries? And don't the Old Testament prophets sometimes denounce the corporate sins of both Israel and its neighbors?

Finally, Griffo's characterization about CRT being about vengeance and coveting misses the mark because there is no context provided for what CRT wants to accomplish. Is it envy and covetous to desire the basic necessities of life that others have? Is it vengeance to demand that those who have been oppressing one's own group receive justice for that oppression?

I am not sure if Griffo is aware that part of CRT is based on Martin Luther King's struggles and reactions. What Griffo seems to be inadequately aware of are the struggles that many marginalized people must face on a daily basis. 

And though certainly not perfect in its depiction and analysis of racism, CRT does provide some fresh insights as to what many marginalized people regularly experience. To battle racism, we not only must confront the views and prejudices held onto by individuals, we must change society's systems and culture from one that has employed a race-based hierarchy of people to one that recognizes and guards the equality of each person. And that unless we start to identify and seek to change those systems, our battle against racism will be wholly inadequate even though we seek to change the views of each individual. For speaking to the personal views of individuals alone only deals with overt racism. It isn't until we change our systems that we start to address racism that is hidden from our own eyes.