Recent discussion of CRT in conservative evangelical circles is, I think, largely if not entirely a distraction from substantive issues. It’s a transparent attempt to delegitimize the demand for institutional justice without any substantive engagement on real issues.
In point of fact, the concept of systemic racism is used across a number of disciplines to describe a variety of different phenomena. Two general fields of application stand out. One has to do with psychology—racist attitudes and so forth. The other has to do with institutions.
A lot of political and cultural conservatives (some of them evangelicals) identify all claims about systemic racism with CRT, and then define CRT strictly in terms of psychological theorizing about racist attitudes.
They then point out that CRT is vaguely related, in ways that they can’t quite explain, to Marxism. It leaves conservative Christians with the impression that all talk of ‘systemic racism’ originates with Marxists who say mean things about white people and American consumerism.
And they’ve managed to elicit this reaction without saying a single word about institutional injustice—which has nothing to do with CRT, really, except insofar as some critical race theorists happen to comment on the racial inflection of institutional injustice in the U.S.
It’s a remarkable sleight of hand. It allows white evangelicals to dismiss all claims to do with institutional injustice without saying the first thing about, e.g., the federal government’s discriminatory housing policies that remained officially in force until 1968:
policies that produced all sorts of toxic problems—from school segregation to racial disparities in wealth and income, incarceration, etc.—real things that now impact the day-to-day lives of millions of Americans, many of whom happen to be our brothers and sisters in Christ.
A lot of the same white evangelicals who reject the notion of systemic injustice also claim they’re praying for some sort of national revival. I’m not sure whether a modern nation-state is the sort of thing that’s eligible for a spiritual revival. But set that to one side.
The God that I read about in the Bible will have nothing whatsoever to do with a people who store up harvests sown with the seeds of injustice.
In fact, God detests the supplications of such people.
So as long as you persist in denying that systemic racism is a problem, don’t worry about whether the government permits you to go to church, with or without a mask. Don’t worry what kind of music you sing there, or whether you sing at all. Because none of it matters.
As long as you refuse to address systemic injustice, and willingly continue to benefit from it, God doesn’t want to hear from you. Your church is just a building where you meet up with your friends.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
With the unwavering support of the religious right for roughly five decades, conservative politicians in the US have engineered staggering levels of economic inequality—eroding democratic institutions and inviting the rise of authoritarian populism.
1/
Reagan leveraged racial resentment to give middle- and working-class (white) voters the false impression that their economic interests are served by cuts to government programs that benefit undeserving (Black) welfare recipients.
2/
(The politics of racial resentment hardly began with Reagan—he was merely the first modern conservative to successfully couch the argument for economic austerity within the politics of racial resentment.)
3/
Ralph Reed is former executive director of the Christian Coalition, and an old school evangelical grifter.
He garnered fame for leveraging his Christian Coalition connections to lobby for stricter casino regulations *on behalf of the casino industry* in the 90s and early 00s 🧵
Specifically, by his own admission, Reed accepted payments of no less than $1.23 million from a consortium of casino operations. (In 2006, a bipartisan Senate investigation found that Reed had accepted payments in excess of $5.3 million.)
In return, Reed unleashed scores of evangelical ministers and political activists to lobby for new casino regulations.
Two hours ago, as an experiment, I posted this direct, verbatim quote from W.A. Criswell (SBC president, 1968-70, pastor of First Baptist Dallas for five decades, founder and namesake of Criswell College):
Aspiring SBC luminaries @William_E_Wolfe and @colinsmo , among others, have declared the author a Democratic operative, a heretic, and an unbeliever who denies the divinity of Christ.
This tells me three things.
1. They aren’t in the habit of reading carefully: given how much they engage with my tweets, they should’ve known immediately that I didn’t write this.
So, assuming the happy couple is meant to be homeowners, their mortgage would be subsidized by federal programs—which programs were funded by a steeply progressive income tax (top marginal tax rate in the 90% range).
1/
The equity that accrues in that home—purchased with the benefit of government wealth redistribution—will be the single largest (and in all likelihood the only) source of whatever wealth these people pass to the children pictured.
2/
Is *that* the sort of politics envisioned by the trads who adore this imagery? Of course not.
Because the vast majority of these people don’t study history, or philosophy, or economics, or political theory, they regard such arrangements as “Marxist.”
3/
It’s commonly supposed that the problem with religious fundamentalism is that its moral commitments are too rigid. In fact the opposite is true: morality based in religious fundamentalism is infinitely flexible.
In the hands of ecclesial authorities who’ve insulated themselves from expert critique, sacred texts become a vehicle for legitimizing all manner of ungodliness, injustice, and abuse, in the name of an Authority that is transcendent and therefore unavailable for interrogation.
So the moral and intellectual intransigence of the fundamentalist is a product, not of immutable principles, but a technique of knowledge furnishes an unassailable pretext for maintaining social practices and habits of mind that are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
The creation science industry has come to inhabit a kind of intellectual no-man's-land in which creation scientists advance ostensibly biblical and scientific claims while avoiding substantive engagement with either biblical scholarship or legitimate science.
Over time, this intellectual no-man's-land has proven to be a hospitable base of operation for enterprising theologians and ambitious ministers who exercise social control by framing their opposition to "secular" expertise as the definitive "biblical view"—
of gender, race, parenting, politics, public school curricula, Walt Disney, progressive income tax, financial capitalism, international relations, and so on and so forth.