Read on Twitter
Y’all remember back in the day when we were all debating about the doctrines of Grace and there were DVD’s, books, videos etc constantly taking on debates re the issues.
I remember how frustrated all of us who hold to the Doctrines of Grace were by pastors who would preach sermons or those who would write articles critiquing it and they misrepresented it like crazy - they made characterizations and caricatures of it that weren’t true.
Their explanations of the doctrines of Grace - though filled with disparate quotes from Calvin, Spurgeon, Knox, Zwingli, etc - were usually not only caricature but a gross misunderstanding of what the doctrines of Grace meant and communicated/accomplished.
They didn’t see how it was connected to the larger truth of God’s sovereignty and all of its implications; It was also connected to God’s attributes, character, power, etc. There was also a whole theological and ecclesiastical history of this as well
That they did not understand nor seek to explain in their critique of the doctrines of Grace - in fact they didn’t seem to care to understand and explain it because they just wanted to deal with the doctrine as if it were in a vacuum and not connected to a whole.
The crazy thing is folks are doing the same exact thing as they seek to critique critical theory and critical race theory - the latter more especially. They are like those who wrote and preached all these pieces critiquing the DOG without understanding the connected whole
I don’t compare the veracity of this philosophy to scriptural truth but what I’m highlighting is the methods in which folks are using to critique.
They are like those who are pulling quotes from all of the church fathers, puritans, etc re doctrines of Grace and then characterizing them - even making them caricature(??) without actually speaking to or understanding the whole.
And because they quote the primary source it makes it seem like they are speaking to the whole - I mean after all they’re reading these people and quoting them word for word. But this doesn’t mean they understand the whole esp in light of proper context and goal.
How many folks did you see quote the reformers or the puritans in their critique and still didn’t get nor understand the DOG. They interpreted some things correctly but still drew caricatures and sometimes false conclusions and characterizations.
In the same way there are folks out here that critique CRT without dealing with or understanding the history of critical legal studies and why it was necessary to deal with the discrimination that still persisted despite color blind or anti-discriminatory language in law
And how folks in CLS sought to expose how this discrimination worked underneath the law and used the non-discriminatory language of law as cover for the discrimination to continue.
And then you can move to CRT seeking to show how the same still works it’s way out in society.
My gripe is not those who disagree with certain things in CRT - I do as well. My grip is those who don’t represent the WHOLE properly, those who don’t connect and root it in the true history of discrimination & show why folks thought the tool was necessary to excavate partiality
When folks mischaracterized the doctrines of Grace - even while they read the patristics and modern reformed theologians; I would notice they still didn’t understand this in context of God’s sovereignty (some didn’t even understand God’s sovereignty properly) amongst other things
When I would sit down and explain how this was connected to a whole, for some a lightbulb would go off! Some would embrace the DOG and some wouldn’t but their critique of it changed because they had much more of a proper understanding of it as a connected whole.
The continued critique of those who disagreed but had better understanding would move from “this is a doctrine meant to divide and deceive people - It’s harmful for the church, etc!” To “I don’t agree but folks can have different views”. For them it because less about warfare
And more about how we could all have different theological underpinnings which is ok as long as we still agree on the essentials of orthodoxy and then can discuss differences in love with civility without the drama of warfare.
I have found the same when I have talked to some folks in person or on the phone (even random twitter followers lol) and explained where I come from in re to justice and my views on CT/CRT and have seen dudes be like “Ooooh, I get it.”
And what I’m saying is that there is critical parts missing from those they learn from when it comes to these things and their critique of it. Them coming to understand those critical parts may not change their views but at least they will get it in full context.
Again, I’m not comparing CRT to the doctrines of Grace as if they deserve the same respect and acceptance. I’m comparing the methods, practices and sentiments around how folks frame their “opponents” view in a culture war.
If you didn’t like people misrepresenting the doctrines of Grace or pushing their own characterizations of it and those who hold to it then don’t do the same to others. If you didn’t like them making a caricature of it then don’t do it to others or approve of things that do.
Read all the evangelicals that critique CT/CRT and take it seriously but also take seriously reading other Christians who push back against their critique as well - isn’t that what it means to be integral when it comes to truth? Start with the links here https://alsoacarpenter.com/2020/08/18/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-4-alan-freeman-and-the-contribution-of-cls/?fbclid=IwAR3AynoQCePYuMhEuqIcXWi00cTAo4az19l8j-VNK43SXypA61yZf7gteDE
And I haven’t touched Marxism and Critical Theory but start here as well https://alsoacarpenter.com/2019/05/21/christianity-and-critical-theory-part-1-marx-and-frankfurt/
And please don’t just read Bradly. Read the primary sources for yourself.
Folks rather read short articles re CT/CRT because they’re being intellectually lazy. It’s much easier to embrace caricature that is oversimplified than it is to truly understand a complex and sophisticated philosophy but you are still responsible to be intellectually integral
