The Southern Baptists held their annual convention on June 15, 2021 in Nashville, Tennessee, and produced several resolutions, among which was one that addressed critical race theory. This was part of a debate that has existed within the denomination – and within the country – for several years, pitting a side that sees some usefulness to it against one that totally rejects it.
Critical race theory is an academic approach for the study of the effects of racism. Such effects are seen as ingrained in U.S. institutions, so that white people benefit from them while colored people are held back. Many conservative Southern Baptists are adamantly opposed to the theory, calling it incompatible with Baptist beliefs. Others see its potential benefits in the pursuit of racial reconciliation, while urging caution in drawing conclusions from it.
The debate on critical race theory within SBC is not surprising given the history of the convention. The SBC was founded in 1845 by Baptists in the South who wanted to separate themselves from the antislavery activities of the Northern Baptists. It opposed the civil rights movement in the mid-twentieth century, and it wasn’t until 1995 that it repudiated its support of slavery, finally discovering the meaning of Galatians 3:28. To its credit, it has since made efforts to diversify, and its non-white membership has increased substantially. In 2012, it even elected a Black president. However, it has remained a very conservative denomination, and tensions with its Black leadership have been increasing lately, an expected outcome since SBC leadership is fiercely Republican and fully embraced the presidency of Donald Trump.
In March 2021, Beth Moore, a respected Bible Study teacher, who once said that SBC had saved her life, and was conservative enough to accept the idea that women cannot become pastors, told Religious News Service (RNS) that she was no longer a Southern Baptist. Her opposition to Trump and her denouncing of sexism and nationalism among evangelicals left her open to accusations of being “woke” and a “liberal.” According to Religious News Service, she said:
“I am still a Baptist, but I can no longer identify with Southern Baptists. I love so many Southern Baptist people, so many Southern Baptist churches, but I don’t identify with some of the things in our heritage that haven’t remained in the past.”
Russell Moore (no relation to Beth), the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), resigned in May 2021. Even though he was well-known for his criticism of Trump, he blamed the convention’s opposition to his efforts on race reconciliation and his push for investigation of sexual abuse. As reported by Religious News Service (RNS), he had previously complained about attacks against him:
“I have been attacked with the most vicious guerilla tactics on such matters and have been told to be quiet about this by others.”
In February 2021, the Executive Committee of SBC, through a Task Force, had presented a report which, according to RNS, “claimed the ERLC constituted a ‘significant distraction from the Great Commission work of Southern Baptists’ and blamed the ERLC for the loss of more than a million dollars in church donations to the Cooperative Program.”
The report blamed the loss of donations, among other things, on Moore’s opposition to Trump, his condemnation of attacks on the U.S. Capitol and a general “liberal drift” exemplified by the ERLC’s support for immigration reforms.
The accusation that the ERLC distracted from Great Commission work suggests a separation between Jesus’ Great Commission and his kingdom of God ethical teaching, which points to a serious misunderstanding of Matthew 28:18-20, where Jesus says:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Obviously, the baptizing is merely an initiation to discipleship, which consists in living according to Jesus’ ethical teaching. Perhaps that is why the Rev. Marshal Ausberry Sr., president of the National African American Fellowship of the SBC, said after Moore’s resignation, about his future successor:
“I think the person coming in can’t be another Russell Moore, but if they’re a person of good conscience and good moral character and a high view of Scripture, and not only the Great Commission but also the Great Commandment, that we love one another, they will, as God has wired them, they will fill the void.”
Rev. Ausberry understands that the Great Commission and the Great Commandment cannot be separated. Regarding Moore himself, he said:
“Dr. Moore has been a tremendous friend to the National African American Fellowship and on the forefront of race relations. He’s been a very positive force in the convention and sometimes even the conscience of the convention in the area of race relations.”
In his letter, Moore had also said that SBC leaders had been concerned about the ERLC promoting critical race theory, the academic work that sees racism in the United States as systemic, and the equality of the sexes in church and Christian life. Other concerns expressed against him included his hiring of Black staff at the ERLC and advocating for the convention to elect a Black president.
Opposition to critical race theory within SBC is the reason why Black pastor Charlie Dates, of Progressive Baptist Church in Chicago, left the convention. In an article published on December 18, 2020, the pastor describes what he calls the “final straw” as follows:
“On Dec. 1, all six of the SBC seminary presidents — without one Black president or counter opinion among them — told the world that a high view of Scripture necessarily required a corresponding and total rejection of critical race theory and intersectionality.
When did the theological architects of American slavery develop the moral character to tell the church how it should discuss and discern racism? When did those who have yet to hire multiple Black or brown faculty at their seminaries assume ethical authority on the subject of systemic injustice?”
At the 2021 Convention, the adopted resolution did not actually mention critical race theory. Instead, it was called Resolution on The Sufficiency of Scripture for Race and Racial Reconciliation. Critics of the theory expressed their disappointment that it was not named and unequivocally condemned. Some even, unsuccessfully, proposed alternate measures to replace it. According to an article in the Nashville Tennessean, Pastor James Merritt from Georgia, who chairs the committee that presented the resolution, strongly defended it:
“I want to say this bluntly and plainly: if some people were as passionate about the gospel as they were critical race theory, we’d win this world for Christ tomorrow.”
He also explained that the resolution was worded not to limit itself to just one theory, but to settle the issue “once and for all.”
A resolution on critical race theory and intersectionality was first adopted at the 2019 convention. That resolution is reproduced here in italics, and I have added comments representing my views on the assertions that are made.
SBC’s 2019 Resolution on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality
WHEREAS, Concerns have been raised by some evangelicals over the use of frameworks such as critical race theory and intersectionality; and
WHEREAS, Critical race theory is a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society, and intersectionality is the study of how different personal characteristics overlap and inform one’s experience; and
There is nothing wrong with using a “framework” or “analytical tools” to sort out data associated with a given situation or process. Such approaches merely help provide an understanding of the trends or causalities in the data. Why should a Christian seeking truth be afraid of them?
WHEREAS, Critical race theory and intersectionality have been appropriated by individuals with worldviews that are contrary to the Christian faith, resulting in ideologies and methods that contradict Scripture; and
As a Christian, am I expected to live in fear of any new information that might contradict my understanding of Scripture? What would that say about how secure I am in my faith? More to the point, are Southern Baptists afraid of revelations that prove them wrong? In 1995, they had to admit they were biblically wrong about slavery. What are they afraid of now? Since they have demonstrated their misunderstanding of Scripture in the past, why should I believe that they are, today, the authoritative guardians of Scripture?
WHEREAS, Evangelical scholars who affirm the authority and sufficiency of Scripture have employed selective insights from critical race theory and intersectionality to understand multifaceted social dynamics; and
I suppose this is a good thing!
WHEREAS, The Baptist Faith and Message states, “[A]ll Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried” (Article I); and
This is a meaningless, useless and even unbiblical statement. There is no consistent teaching throughout the Bible on human conduct. Some examples:
On dietary prescriptions, the Bible starts with a vegetarian diet. Then meat is allowed. Then Jesus says all foods are fine.
On violence, the Old Testament is full of it, and God is even said to order it. In the New Testament, no human violence is condoned. But Christians cannot even agree on the fact that God hates violence.
The Old Testament mostly promotes the idea of a chosen people loved by a God who doesn’t care about others. The New Testament promotes universal love. Many Christians, including evangelicals who tend to embrace Christian nationalism, truly believe they are God’s chosen people, a fact they proved on January 6. Many of those Christian nationalists are Southern Baptists.
The only way to use the Bible appropriately is to have Jesus and his teaching as the final word on human conduct. Historically, Christians have generally failed miserably at that.
WHEREAS, General revelation accounts for truthful insights found in human ideas that do not explicitly emerge from Scripture and reflects what some may term “common grace”; and
WHEREAS, Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify, which result from sin, yet these analytical tools can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences; and
So why not use them with caution?
WHEREAS, Scripture contains categories and principles by which to deal with racism, poverty, sexism, injustice, and abuse that are not rooted in secular ideologies; and
Scripture is useful in this regard only if the focus is on Christ. Christian nationalists who embrace the notion of a chosen people cannot, by definition, pursue justice for all. Also, the Southern Baptists had Scripture at the time they proclaimed that slavery was biblical.
WHEREAS, Humanity is primarily identified in Scripture as image bearers of God, even as biblical authors address various audiences according to characteristics such as male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and free; and
Another meaningless statement. In the Law of Moses, women are treated as property, even appearing in the 10th commandment along with property. Jews are told not to associate with Gentiles, and slavery is commonplace. Galatians 3:28 establishes equality between those categories. But even today, SBC does not have the decency to let women become pastors.
WHEREAS, The New Covenant further unites image bearers by creating a new humanity that will one day inhabit the new creation, and that the people of this new humanity, though descended from every nation, tribe, tongue, and people, are all one through the gospel of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:16; Revelation 21:1–4, 9–14); and
Jesus’ New Covenant was meant to establish this new creation here on earth. Those who hold on to the old covenant because of some notion of biblical inerrancy have impeded the progress of his kingdom of God.
WHEREAS, Christian citizenship is not based on our differences but instead on our common salvation in Christ—the source of our truest and ultimate identity; and
It seems that SBC found it difficult to reject white supremacy. Therefore SBC has not been a model in this respect.
WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention is committed to racial reconciliation built upon biblical presuppositions and is committed to seeking biblical justice through biblical means; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, June 11–12, 2019, affirm Scripture as the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to redress social ills, and we reject any conduct, creeds, and religious opinions which contradict Scripture; and be it further
Which Scripture must we not contradict? The one that says “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44) , or the one that says “You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you” (Deuteronomy 7:16)?
RESOLVED, That critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture—not as transcendent ideological frameworks; and be it further
This seems reasonable. So why reject them?
RESOLVED, That the gospel of Jesus Christ alone grants the power to change people and society because “he who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Philippians 1:6); and be it further
As pointed out in Hebrews 8:13, the new covenant makes the old one obsolete. How can people change according to the new covenant while also clinging to the old one because, supposedly, the entire Bible is God’s Inerrant Word?
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists will carefully analyze how the information gleaned from these tools are employed to address social dynamics; and be it further
This would be a reasonable thing to do. So why the push to reject them?
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptist churches and institutions repudiate the misuse of insights gained from critical race theory, intersectionality, and any unbiblical ideologies that can emerge from their use when absolutized as a worldview; and be it further
This also seems reasonable to me. But I do not take for granted SBC’s authority to determine what is unbiblical.
RESOLVED, That we deny any philosophy or theology that fundamentally defines individuals using categories identified as sinful in Scripture rather than the transcendent reality shared by every image bearer and divinely affirmed distinctions; and be it further
Again, the definition of “what is sinful” changes in the biblical narrative. The refusal to accept that fact has contributed to making Christians villains throughout history.
RESOLVED, That while we denounce the misuse of critical race theory and intersectionality, we do not deny that ethnic, gender, and cultural distinctions exist and are a gift from God that will give Him absolute glory when all humanity gathers around His throne in worship because of the redemption accomplished by our resurrected Lord; and be it finally
Here is my understanding of this statement: SBC refuses to use the tools – whether perfect or not –available to sort out the reality of the human condition to answer Jesus’ call to bring God’s rule to the world by making it a better place for all. SBC will use Jesus for personal salvation and let God resolve all other issues at the Second Coming.
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptist churches seek to exhibit this eschatological promise in our churches in the present by focusing on unity in Christ amid image bearers and rightly celebrate our differences as determined by God in the new creation.
Unity in Christ is only possible if there is an agreement on who Christ is and what his will is. There has to be an agreement on his supremacy over all, and the fact that he alone represents the fullness of God (John 1:17-18, 14:9; Philippians 1:19; Hebrews 1:3). SBC and other conservative interpreters of the Bible make such a focus on Christ impossible because the assumption of biblical inerrancy allows them to navigate back and forth between old and new covenants, using what is convenient to support their interests.
SBC’s 2021 Resolution on the Sufficiency of Scripture for Race and Racial Reconciliation
In June 2021, as previously mentioned, SBC adopted a Resolution on the Sufficiency of Scripture for Race and Racial Reconciliation. The “resolved” items are reproduced below in italics.
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, June 15–16, 2021, affirm the sufficiency of Scripture on race and racial reconciliation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we reaffirm our agreement with historic, biblically-faithful Southern Baptist condemnations of racism in all forms; and be it further
This is a reaffirmation of the rejection of racism and slavery that had previously been accepted as biblical by SBC. This is therefore a good thing.
RESOLVED, That we reject any theory or worldview that finds the ultimate identity of human beings in ethnicity or in any other group dynamic; and be it further
This is a rejection of critical race theory, even though it is not explicitly mentioned.
RESOLVED, That we reject any theory or worldview that sees the primary problem of humanity as anything other than sin against God and the ultimate solution as anything other than redemption found only in Christ; and be it further
This statement is saying that the only way to fix world problems is to baptize people. But Christians are expected to love everybody, including non-Christians. When Jesus told the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-29 to sell everything he owns and give the money to the poor, he was making it clear that the material needs of the poor must be dealt with. Even though the redemption only found in him is important, that is not what he was talking about. Similarly, in Matthew 25:31-46, he makes it clear that taking care of “the least of these,” right here on earth, is important to him. Justice on earth is important to him and he holds accountable those who pay no attention to it. Matthew 7:22-23 implies that Christians will be held accountable even though they may mistakenly see themselves as “saved.”
RESOLVED, We, therefore, reject any theory or worldview that denies that racism, oppression, or discrimination is rooted, ultimately, in anything other than sin; and be it further
Sin makes people do bad things. Those who are freed from sin help fix those bad things. Why would this be incompatible with using appropriate tools to identify a problem and its root cause, and suggest a solution?
RESOLVED, That, understanding we live in a fallen world, we reaffirm the 1995 Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention, which includes, “That we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27),” applying this disposition to every instance of racism; and be it finally
Those who truly repent also make every attempt to fix the problems they created.
RESOLVED, We affirm that our reconciliation in Christ gives us the opportunity and responsibility to pursue reconciliation with others so that we can display and share the hope of the gospel with the world.
In essence, conservative Christians who reject critical race theory do so because they fear it will reveal the effects of an unflattering history of oppression. Some fear it will point the finger at white America as racist and unjust. I would not expect any desire from such “Christians” to pursue reconciliation. For those, on the other hand, who truly want to pursue reconciliation, I fail to understand why they would categorically reject analytical tools that could help them understand the underlying problems better.
Stephen Gay
October 21, 2021 7:49 pmThanks for the article.
But I really struggled with it.
You used dismissive arguments rather than logical arguments.
What is it you are specifically trying to advocate?
Your sentence:
Critical race theory is an academic approach for the study of the effects of racism, which is seen as ingrained in U.S. institutions, so that white people benefit from it while colored people are held back.
is badly written.
What you have actually said is that critical race theory benefits white people.
However your later arguments do not support this sentence.
I think you mean to say:
Critical race theory is an academic approach for the study of the effects of racism. Racism is seen as ingrained in U.S. institutions, so that white people benefit from it while colored people are held back.
However if you avoided the latter sentence, it would have made more sense.
i.e. why did you simply not say:
Critical race theory is an academic approach for the study of the effects of racism.
However the study of the effects of racism is well-known in sociology. Are you seriously arguing that the studying the effects of racism only emerged in 1970s?
If so I think your understanding of the history of sociology is seriously flawed.
I don’t really understand what this has to do with Baptists anyway; and the main issue I see is that Baptists believe they should avoid racism.
Political discussions in a church environment can be quite destructive. So whilst it is certainly true that white people have historically been advantaged in USA, this is such an obvious statement that repeated harping on about it in a church environment will lead to divisiveness; and will then lead to racism against whites – particularly whites who are well-meaning as they are easier targets.
btw if you ever do get to read history you would be shocked on how most races seek advantages over other races; and surprise surprise even African tribes were racist against other tribes.
As far as I can tell ‘critical race theory’ is a psuedo-academic study that has a clear objective of focus on white dominance in the USA.
Anyway… all the best..
Francois Ntone
October 22, 2021 11:23 amThank you for your comment. I agree with you that my sentence defining critical race theory could have been written better, and your suggestions make sense. For more clarity, I will modify that sentence. However, when I say “an academic approach,” that does not mean “the only academic approach.” In other words, I am not making any claims about the history of sociology.
As for the Southern Baptists, like you, I can only notice that they have strong feelings about CRT. My article shows the resolutions they adopted against it. So I assume you’re not blaming me for their involvement in “political discussions.”
Regarding your comment about racism existing everywhere, I have no reason to deny that. But as a Christian, I believe Galatians 3:28 tells me not to accept it, no matter where I see it. On that point, the Southern Baptists agree with me since they pointed to this verse when they finally adopted a resolution rejecting slavery. As I have written before, I give them credit for that. I think churches should help improve the world by putting New Testament principles into practice. If CRT can provide tools to help understand the lingering effects of racism, that understanding can be used to improve conditions for many. Would that be a bad thing?
My wife and I were once, for 9 years, the only black couple in an all-white church. This eventually led to a partnership between an all-white church and a predominantly black church. So I can assure you I have no interest in promoting hate against “well-meaning” whites like you. I do not even promote hate against haters. The New Testament tells me not to do so. God Bless you my brother!
Paul Marks
May 28, 2022 7:16 amCritical Race Theory, like Critical Gender Theory and the rest of the agenda (note that the “Critical” family of theories, such as Critical Legal Theory, is never critical of socialist assumptions – which it just assumes to be automatically true), is a Marxist effort to promote hatred and division – not an effort to reduce it. Your claim that atheist Marxism, as in Critical Race Theory, is Christianity, is deeply offensive. As is your implied claim that people who reject Marxism support slavery, indeed the vast majority of slaves over the last century have been slaves of Marxist regimes (Marxist regimes that have also murdered tens of millions of human beings).
Critical Race Theory does not aim to change individual human hearts – it is not intended to lead to individuals treating other individuals better. It, like the rest of the family of theories associated with Frankfurt School Marxism, is aimed at destroying a certain “society” – this society being “capitalist” society. It does not aim at individual salvation – of getting individual human souls (after death) to Heaven by the Grace of God, it aims at creating a paradise here on Earth – with that paradise being defined as Marxist Collectivism.
Francois Ntone
May 28, 2022 10:41 amI am not sure you are responding to my post “The Southern Baptist Convention’s Resolutions on CRT.” In that post, I did not discuss Marxism at all. But I know that those who reject CRT make every effort to associate it with Marxism given the basic assumption made by many in the US that Marxism is evil. If you haven’t read my post “Is Critical Race Theory Really Opposed to Biblical Teaching?” perhaps you should. It reviews a book written to support the types of claims you are making and invalidates them on a biblical basis. Now I do not claim that CRT is Christianity, but I do claim that it is useful, as a tool, for the purpose of racial reconciliation. Even the Southern Baptists admitted that much in their 2019 resolution, even though they strangely changed their minds later. Regarding Marxism, I see it as an economic philosophy, not a religion, and I see myself as a Christian, not a Marxist. But if you try to tell me that capitalism is more compatible with Christianity, then I will refer you to the early church: “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had” (Acts 4:34). Even though I reject the totalitarian aspects of Marxism, I cannot in good conscience claim that capitalism, which appeals to human greed, is closer to Christianity than socialism based on the above verse.
CRT is just an analytical tool to help people understand the deep effects of a racist past in today’s society. It does not attempt to destroy any society. It merely attempts to make a better case for disadvantaged minorities. Therefore, it is not expected to deal with matters of individual salvation. That is the domain of religion. At the same time, you need to understand that when Jesus says “love your neighbor as yourself” or “blessed are the poor for they will inherit the earth” or “sell your stuff and give the money to the poor” or “take care of the least of these,” he is talking about the kingdom of God on earth: “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Similarly, descriptions on the kingdom of God in the Old Testament, such as Isaiah 11, are all about earthly matters. True Christianity is not just about individuals going to heaven. It is about doing God’s will on earth. I suggest you take a look at an article published today by a Christian pastor about a nation that wants to call itself Christian. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/christianity-seeks-mercy-not-power-a-true-christian-nation-is-not-about-nationalism/ar-AAXP2ms?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ff9c992121d243aba644b7dda29367c1
Stephen Gay
October 24, 2021 9:15 pmThanks again.
Now you have tightened up your definition I can comment further.
My point remains is that if you stick to your definition:
“Critical race theory is an academic approach for the study of the effects of racism. ”
I could not find a similar definition anywhere in the internet. Hence, if you want to stick to this definition you need to provide a reference. Furthermore you need to be sure that those who who are against “Critical Race Theory” agree with your definition, otherwise they are being misjudged.
i.e. Wikipedia:
“Critical race theory (CRT) is a body of legal scholarship and an academic movement of US civil-rights scholars and activists who seek to examine the intersection of race and US law and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice.”
As with many phrases it meaning changes over time.
However I tend to agree with comments that Critical Race Theory is a movement. I think it has had academic input, but is not a true academic study. There is no “International Journal of Critical Race Theory” (or similar).
Once a phrase lacks clear definition it is subject to variation; and hence confusion.
Therefore from a semantic viewpoint if I were a SB (and I am not) I would oppose CRT on the basis of lack of clear definition; and also involvement in a political movement.
Perhaps the main historical distinctions of Baptists are:
acceptance that people have different viewpoint
separation of church and state.
The latter means it is perfectly sensible that SB avoid being involved in political movements.
Part of the historical issue is that SB is considered to be initially pro-slavery and favoured white supremism. Therefore they can’t now just opt out of a social justice debate because to do so would implicitly support historical stands.
I liken this to the saying “he who rides the tiger cannot dismount.”
So I tend to think the critical race theory has put SB into a non-viable position. I therefore think the advocates of critical race theory should seek resolutions that are both meaningful and clear.
I think there needs to be some give and take. There needs to be opportunity for SB to escape its history, just as Germany has largely been able to disassociate from Nazism.
So I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that author – however I would like to give my personal viewpoint.
First I am white, but had no issues attending a dominant nonwhite church. Even now I am not even comfortable talking about white and black because I don’t think these terms are either well-defined or meaningful. However in this ‘nonwhite church’ noone went on about race; and by the way if they did I probably would go somewhere else. We could of course discuss people’s upbringings and joke around. In short it was a perfect church.
Anyway, I returned to Australia, and many Australians have now joined the promulticultural bandwagon. I found it irritating. Sermons started to give examples of white atrocities. Yes these were true – but it would be considered racist to give example of atrocities by nonwhite races. I voiced my concerns and was ignored. The church was also anti-male, and after a while our family decided we had had enough and we moved to different churches. All of my family go to churches (some white, some dominant nonwhite, who cares?) but where they attend the church doesn’t go on about race and (biased) histories.
To be frank, I don’t care less what race someone is. It is not something I think about it; and I hope I never will.
Put simple I reject churches talking too much about race. Jesus certainly didn’t go on about it either.
Francois Ntone
October 25, 2021 12:11 pmHello Stephen!
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and your experience. I have a better understanding of the perspective from which you view this CRT issue. I am flattered that I have a reader from Australia. May I ask how you found out about my website?
Don’t be too hung up on my definition of CRT, which I did not mean as authoritative. I’m ok with your definition from Wikipedia, which includes the terms “legal scholarship,” “academic movement” and “civil rights scholars.” I think it is fair to say that “liberal approaches to racial justice” can benefit from input from scholars who reflect the side that has suffered most from racism. I do not claim to be a CRT scholar, but here is a reference, since you asked for one: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506735.pdf. Other than that, I’m not sure I’m the right person to answer your more fundamental questions about CRT.
My article was about the SBC and its attitude towards CRT. Therefore, you can look at their own definition as given in their 2019 resolution:
“Critical race theory is a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society, and intersectionality is the study of how different personal characteristics overlap and inform one’s experience.”
So we are talking about “analytical tools.” Even though the resolution is suspicious of some “evangelical scholars” who have, supposedly, misused some insights from CRT, it only says the following of CRT itself:
“Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify, which result from sin, yet these analytical tools can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences.”
The 2021 resolution, on the other hand, is a complete rejection of CRT, in line with a radicalization of white evangelicals in the U.S. following their alignment with the Trump presidency. In my article, I mentioned the resignation of Russell Moore, a respected, white SBC leader who, among other things, happened to think CRT could be useful. If you think SBC wants to be apolitical, I’m afraid you are wrong about that. SBC leaders such as Jerry Falwell Sr started the so-called Moral Majority in the second half of the 20th century. This was a political movement with a huge impact on American politics.
I understand your point of view based on your experience. In a predominantly black church, I would expect the pastor to be sensitive to whites in the audience, and I would not stay if I feel that he/she takes every opportunity to preach against “evil white people.” But I would expect the pastor to speak against unjust policies that hurt certain minorities, for example. Of course, I would not want criticism to always be against whites, as if blacks can do no wrong.
Perhaps you and I do not quite agree on the topic of churches and politics. I think separation of state and religion is meant to keep a religion from monopolizing state power for its own benefit, at the detriment of other religions or interests. But I also think a religion such as Christianity is necessarily political because the Bible is very much about justice, which is political. That’s why Jim Wallis, for example, wrote his book God’s Politics. God’s politics is about the common good, and my last post highlights thoughts from Adam Russell Taylor to that effect. I do not criticize SBC because it is involved in politics, but because I disagree with its politics.
As for Jesus, his focus on the kingdom of God meant, among other things, that God wants us to care about the disadvantaged (justice). Jesus’ kingdom of God was an alternative to unjust earthly kingdoms, and the Roman Empire in particular. But in addition, in the world he lived in, there were ethnic problems: his own people, the Jews, frankly did not care much about Gentiles. He made a variety of statements indicating that despised Gentiles may, in fact, please God more than the Jews who believed God was their own. His parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, presents a Samaritan (despised by the Jews) as the one who does God’s will, while respectable Jews do not. Please notice: it’s not that the priest and the Levite did something. Instead, they failed to do something that would have greatly helped their neighbor.