1. Here is a thread containing every post thus far in the series, “What Is & Isn’t Being Said.” The goal is to clarify, to the best of my understanding, the argument for Racial Reconciliation from a Biblical perspective, including history and sociology as well. (So I can pin it.)
2. The first post tries to answer what exactly “race” is. Is it biological? Is it a social construction? Is it “real”? And what do we learn from the Scripture on the topic?
4. Over time, it became clear to me that my own biases had led me to treat “whiteness” as a given in the above post, as normative; I sought later to remedy this in these three posts, offered as clarifications to the part 2:
5. After demonstrating the movement from disparate laboring people groups to the category “Christian,” in this post I work from “Christian” to the category “white men and women,” previously unheard of.
6. Last in this clarification series, I follow the transition from so-called “racial biology” to the entrenchment of “white supremacy,” as properly defined, in American law and society.
7. Moving back to the original progress of the series, I next move on to the notion of “white privilege,” what it does and doesn’t mean, using the Scripture and our own history as guides.
8. Smith and Emerson, authors of Divided by Faith, were kind enough to allow me to publish a parable from their book, hoping to grant further clarity to the idea of white privilege.
9. I next moved on to what some have called “color-blind theology.” I argue that the Scripture is not color-blind, but rather seeks to build lived unity out of eschatological unity by acknowledging the actual history of people groups.
10. Having shown that color-blindness is not a Biblical ethic, I next show how color-blindness operates to maintain racialized societies and segregated churches.
11. Two claims kept coming up over and over in response to the articles in this series. The first is that “racism isn’t the problem, sin is the problem.” I offer a clarification in reply to this claim here:
12. Next, many also seemed confused as to the connection between the NT Jew/Gentile conflict and modern racial conflict, thinking there is no connection or, alternatively, a perfectly one-to-one connection. I clarify here:
14. Having promised in Part 7 to give examples of systemic racism, to help clarify the category, I chose to use the “Narrow” Spirituality of the Church as a historic and continuing example. In the first part, I cover the proponents.
15. In the second part, I cover the African American tradition in regard to the Spirituality of the Church as well bring the discussion into the present, demonstrating the continued power of systemic racism in the Church.
1/3 The bar for folks like @NeilShenvi is quite simple:
1. Accurately define and/or describe CRT according to its creators and practitioners.
2. By 1 (and that is key), either (a) demonstrate that it is "complete" in the mathematical sense, viz., that use of any part entails
2/3 the whole, or (b) demonstrate that every component of CRT is unique to CRT, and therefore the component's use implicates the whole.
3. Finally, by 1 and 2 (again, that is key), demonstrate that CRT NECESSARILY (not could, might, sometimes, can be used to, is associated with,
3/3 or as so construed) entails and/or logically requires a belief or beliefs which logically contradict the Gospel.
Anything short of this is fallacious: straw man, guilt by association, the fallacy of composition, hasty generalization, and/or affirming the consequent.
In light of the Evangelical Illiterati's continued attacks on @JemarTisby, I would like to encourage you to purchase and read his honest and God honoring books, if you haven't already.
Unfortunately, this tweet will be taken by far to many White Americans as confirmation of their belief that the difficulties and disparities confronting African Americans is a familial pathology within their own culture.
This "explanation" was largely popularized by Nathan 1/
I can think of little that is more divisive than spending 5 years daily telling Christians that every form of antiracism, except that which is acceptable to White conservatives, is incompatible with the Gospel, especially after 400 years legal, economic, & social White supremacy.
The spark of desire throughout our nation to achieve racial justice could've been embraced by White evangelicals as a cause dear to the heart of Jesus, but instead it was attacked on the very same terms that enslavers & segregationists used to oppose abolitionism and integration.
Throughout my writing, I happily treat the Scripture as free of error, yet culturally embodied, subject to my own misinterpretation, & containing many statements & ideas that SEEM weird, difficult, & even wrong that cause me to say, "here is truth, but I don't yet get it." 1/
2/ But when I think, "okay, this just seems wrong," it's not because I believe it is, but because I'm trying to apply the analogy of faith, seeking to see how it fits with the Scripture's overarching presentation of God in all His love, purity, compassion, and generosity.
3/ As a result, there are many passages I have come to understand by listening to others who are very different from me, outside of my own tradition and social location, allowing them to peel away assumptions I did not know I had.
I am among those who eschew "worldview" talk, and always have. Inasmuch as it means something like "the way you generally see things" or even "belief system," I think it's pretty straightforward. But it is often used by apologists to be some sort of totalized system of ideas, 1/
2/ answering all "basic" (doing a lot of work here!) questions, and I dare say every truth in the set is treated as a theorem. As such, contradicting one piece contradicts the whole, and accepting one piece requires acceptance of the whole.
3/ To me, this is just some strange Josiah Roycian idealistic nonsense. Nothing like this exists for flesh and blood humans. And I'd argue further that whatever we do have that is closest to this idealistic nonsense is something that we literally ALL ALREADY SHARE.