,
12 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I'll write up my complete thoughts on the #SBC19 resolution on Critical Race Theory/Intersectionality tonight, but -for now- I wanted to make a quick comment to fellow conservatives who feel it doesn't go far enough in explicitly repudiating these fields. 1/
As @RealPatSawyer and I have said repeatedly in our writings, CRT does contain elements of truth. Therefore, it's unecessary and unwise to 'repudiate' it in its entirety. Do we want to repudiate CRT's insistence that "the historical concept of 'race' is a social construct"? 2/
People have commented that the language of CRT being 'appropriated' by people with unbiblical ideologies is incorrect. I agree. I think it's more accurate to say that CRT/intersectionality is a set of tools 'developed' within the framework of unbibilcal ideologies. 3/
Yet it is a set of tools and these tools can, if we're very careful, be disentangled from the underlying worldviews. Is this tricky? Yes. Does it take a lot of discernment? Yes. But it's possible. @RealPatSawyer's had to do this in his PhD dissertation with respect to CT. 4/
So would I like more explicit commentary on what precisely is wrong with the worldview/ideologies behind CRT/Intersectionality? Yes. Is that a deal-breaker for this resolution? No, IMO, here's the main reason why: 5/
The main conflict, which has been my focus in all of my talks, is whether Scripture will be *the* authority that adjudicates truth claims, whether Scripture is *sufficient* to adjudicate these claims, and whether we will *in practice* test all claims against Scripture. 6/
That's why all the language about testing the claims of CRT against Scripture is crucial, especially this line: "[We] affirm Scripture as the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to redress social ills." 7/
"No big deal, though," you might say, "The SBC is always going to pay lip service to the sufficiency of Scripture. What do you expect?" But note the context: we're specifically denying that *CRT* is necessary, even for *redressing social ills.* What does that mean? 8/
It means everyone has to subject his claims to Scripture, which is what nearly everyone who is worried about CRT (myself included) has desperately wanted the church to affirm and practice. This resolution is a clear affirmation of that demand and the motivation behind it. 9/
In conclusion, is this resolution a complete, comprehensive treatment of CRT or intersectionality? No. Could it have said more? Yes. But does it hit on the absolutely essential, crucial point? Yes. 10/
My hope is that this resolution will ensure that everyone having these conversations about race, or gender, or oppression, we will be expected to open up the Bible and put their finger on the verse(s) that supports their claims. 11/
If we hold everyone to this standard (and I hope we do), we'll indeed find some areas where CRT hits on truth. And we'll find others where it's deeply false. But we'll have anchored ourselves to Scripture, which is the only sure bulwark against false ideologies. 12/12
