Read on Twitter
Thread on Critical Theory/Critical Race Theory/Intersectionality (CRTI) since we don't already have enough of those.
Two questions:
1. Is CRTI a problem?
2. Is CRTI a problem in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
Let's get caught up.
Two questions:
1. Is CRTI a problem?
2. Is CRTI a problem in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
Let's get caught up.
1. Is CRTI a problem?
Someone mentioned to me that opposition to CRTI started prior to Resolution 9, which I said I was unaware of, but I was mistaken, I do remember that now. Christian apologists have been the most outspoken against CRTI for quite some time.
Someone mentioned to me that opposition to CRTI started prior to Resolution 9, which I said I was unaware of, but I was mistaken, I do remember that now. Christian apologists have been the most outspoken against CRTI for quite some time.
Here's a Sheologians episode on the topic from several years ago: https://www.sheologians.com/intro-intersectional-poison/
Here's famed apologist and scholar William Lane Craig warning about CRTI and social justice back in May of 2018: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-dangers-of-critical-theory/
Other apologetics organizations have picked up on the same themes, such as Greg Koukl's Stand to Reason:
https://www.str.org/w/critical-theory-vs-christianity#.XOa_UpNKg6g
https://www.str.org/w/critical-theory-vs-christianity#.XOa_UpNKg6g
Monergism has an entire page devoted to the topic:
https://www.monergism.com/topics/social-justice/critical-theory
https://www.monergism.com/topics/social-justice/critical-theory
Carl Ellis, Jr. has written some things here and there against CRTI as well:
https://drcarlellisjr.blogspot.com/2020/02/seven-points-of-clarification.html
https://drcarlellisjr.blogspot.com/2020/02/seven-points-of-clarification.html
These are all Christians outside of the SBC who are writing against CRTI and in some instances were writing against CRTI even before controversy erupted in the SBC. Here's another: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/?s=critical+theory
Outside of Christianity, you have James A. Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose who have been challenging critical theories by publishing fake articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
Pluckrose and Lindsay also co-authored Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identityâand Why This Harms Everybody. https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
So concerns about CRTI exist both inside and outside of the church, regardless of the finer points of theological or political agreement/disagreement. Now the list I provided isn't chronological, and it certainly isn't exhaustive either.
Some maintain these concerns about CRTI are overblown:
A. CRTI isn't problematic and - as a whole or in part - is consistent with Christianity.
B. CRTI is misunderstood by these apologists, who aren't experts in the field.
C. CRTI is used to avoid addressing racism (etc.).
A. CRTI isn't problematic and - as a whole or in part - is consistent with Christianity.
B. CRTI is misunderstood by these apologists, who aren't experts in the field.
C. CRTI is used to avoid addressing racism (etc.).
The real contention seems to surround A. Is CRTI consistent with Christianity, and if so, to what extent (and, does this question even make sense in the first place)?
Regarding B, a number of other questions are raised. What exactly qualifies someone as an expert in a field?
Regarding B, a number of other questions are raised. What exactly qualifies someone as an expert in a field?
For example, does getting multiple papers published in the literature qualify someone as an expert in the field? What about obtaining a PhD? What about writing a best selling book? Setting that difficulty aside, who says only experts can address a topic without misunderstanding?
B appears to call into question the ability of apologists to address virtually any view outside of their realm of expertise. While this counter is a fallacious argument from consequences, we're talking about significant negative implications, especially with popular apologists.
Regarding C, it may be that CRTI is or is not a concern, but above and beyond that, CRTI is either intentionally or unintentionally but actually causing the much greater concern of racism, sexism, misogyny, ableism, etc. to be overlooked. In reply, this is a false dichotomy.
One can address the aforementioned problems along with CRTI, insofar as one views CRTI or racism as problematic. Moreover, one's understanding of racism, sexism, misogyny, ableism, etc. are determined by the extent to which one incorporates CRTI into one's view of such things.
So, proponents of CRTI will use CRTI to defend CRTI. They might also accuse those opposed to CRTI of racism etc. by way of applying CRTI. Opposite that, those opposed to CRTI might accuse proponents of CRTI of racism etc. because of the way CRTI frames such discussions.
Two other issues I will mention but won't take up here are the conflation of race based discussions with CRTI, which is a significant misunderstanding and possibly widespread but not among those mentioned above, and the distinction between CRTI at the academic and popular levels.
2. Is CRTI a problem in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)?
I'm not sure exactly what prompted this question, except perhaps the apologetic discussion mentioned above that was already in play. Add to this discernment ministries started accusing SBC seminaries of bad teaching.
I'm not sure exactly what prompted this question, except perhaps the apologetic discussion mentioned above that was already in play. Add to this discernment ministries started accusing SBC seminaries of bad teaching.
Early on, those worried about CRTI in the SBC, or at all, were thus associated with discernment ministries, and their posture was generally perceived as one of opposition to SBC institutions. But that has changed, since SBC leaders are now addressing CRTI as well.
Southern Baptists who didn't believe CRTI was a problem were on the side of the institutions, and since those institutions are now openly opposing CRTI, those Southern Baptists who don't believe CRTI is a problem find themselves opposed to SBC institutions. This is significant.
In any event, Neil Shenvi is the number one Southern Baptist associated with concern about CRTI. He is a Christian apologist with the very best education and a co-author, Pat Sawyer, who holds a PhD in the areas under discussion. Here's his main site: https://shenviapologetics.com/
Here he is at The Gospel Coalition: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/incompatibility-critical-theory-christianity/
(This tweet completes part 1 of 2 in this thread. Please turn tape over.)
Here he is at Ratio Christi with Pat Sawyer (see earlier discussion about Christian apologists being on top of this topic): https://ratiochristi.org/engaging-critical-theory-and-the-social-justice-movement/
Here he is at Ratio Christi with Pat Sawyer (see earlier discussion about Christian apologists being on top of this topic): https://ratiochristi.org/engaging-critical-theory-and-the-social-justice-movement/
Here's Shenvi at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary: https://shenviapologetics.com/social-justice-critical-theory-and-christianity-are-they-compatible-part-1-2/
And here he is at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary: https://intersectproject.org/faith-and-culture/neil-shenvi-are-social-justice-critical-theory-and-christianity-compatible/
Here's Owen Strachan at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary writing against CRTI (part 1 of 4): https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2020/01/critical-race-theory-is-it-christian-first-principles-part-1/
And there's plenty from Al Mohler at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on this topic if you look at his work for the past year and more. Mohler claims expertise in this area. https://albertmohler.com/2020/09/02/critical-theory-and-the-cynical-transformation-of-society-a-conversation-with-james-lindsay
That's three SBC seminaries claiming CRTI is a problem, whether or not they consider it a problem within the SBC or not.
Some have associated Matthew Hall with CRTI at Southern Seminary, so he came out against it as well: https://equip.sbts.edu/article/peace-centrality-gospel-christ-racial-reconciliation/
Some have associated Matthew Hall with CRTI at Southern Seminary, so he came out against it as well: https://equip.sbts.edu/article/peace-centrality-gospel-christ-racial-reconciliation/
You have other guys at Southern who have done likewise. Jim Hamilton, Denny Burk...both seem to be on board with Mohler in opposition to CRTI. Some have questioned Jarvis Williams and Curtis Woods promoting CRTI. Articles by Williams on intersectionality have disappeared before.
Woods explicitly used CRT in his doctoral dissertation. He also chaired the SBC Resolutions Committee in 2019 and referred to CRTI as merely a set of "analytical tools," which Tom Ascol at the time said was not true, and Mohler later warned against: https://albertmohler.com/2019/06/14/briefing-6-14-19
And that of course brings us to people like Tom Ascol, or Tom Nettles, or Mark Coppenger, all of whom were involved in the Conservative Resurgence, are no strangers to controversy, and were warning about CRTI before it became popular among institutional insiders.
Ascol's cinedoc featured such speakers as Glenn Sunshine and Voddie Baucham, Jr. addressing the topic of CRTI. These folks aren't generally considered uneducated or uninformed about other important theological or cultural topics. You can find that here:
The parties just mentioned seem to think CRTI is a bigger problem specifically within the SBC than do the SBC leaders who were mentioned earlier. My point here isn't to make a case one way or another on either of these questions, but to outline for clarity and parry objections.
Of course, Resolution 9 opens another can of worms that I won't address here. Some saw that resolution as opposing CRTI, while others saw it as affirming CRTI, and that doesn't get us to the deeper questions with which I started this thread.
The SBC leadership does appear, at this point, to be saying the same thing regarding their answer to question 1. They view CRTI as inconsistent with Christianity, and hence, problematic. But those addressing CRTI do not appear united on the extent to which CRTI affects the SBC.
At any rate, I never thought I'd see SBC banter center on these discussions, but here we are.
End.
End.
