If @MBTS is determined to give Owen a platform for his pronouncements on institutional ethics, its administration might consider granting him a teaching reduction that would afford him leisure to familiarize himself with the basic contours of the subject.
Here, once again, Owen conflates the concept of ‘systemic racism’ with Critical Race Theory (CRT).
In point of fact, the concept of systemic racism is used across a number of disciplines to describe a variety of 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.
Culture warriors like Owen talk as though the concept of systemic racism owes its existence to CRT; and they define CRT strictly in terms of theorizing about racist attitudes.
Consequently, the notion of systemic racism appears to be a contrivance of critical race theorists who wish to assert the ubiquity of racial prejudice among white Americans—an assertion that rings false to white evangelicals who reflect on their own attitudes and think:
“Well I’m not a racist, so systemic racism can’t be real.”
Finally, culture warriors like Owen point out that CRT is vaguely related, in ways that they can’t quite explain, to Marxism.
The Gestalt that emerges from all this noise is that systemic racism is a myth—perhaps even a conspiracy—originating in the minds of godless Marxists who say defamatory things about white people and America.
The desired reaction is achieved without a single word on the subject of systemic racism qua institutional injustice—which has nothing to do with CRT, 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, allowing culture warriors to dismiss all claims of systemic racism qua 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 wrought all manner of chronic social infirmity—from school segregation to disparities in wealth and income, incarceration, etc.—tangible echoes of injustice in the day-to-day lives of millions of Americans, many of whom are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
A lot of the same culture warriors who reject the notion of systemic racism 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 let’s set that to one side.
The God that I read about in Scripture will have nothing whatsoever to do with people who store up harvests sown with the seeds of injustice.
In fact, God detests the supplications of such people (cf. Amos 5:18-24; Isaiah 1:15-17).
So, culture warriors: as long as you persist in denying that systemic racism is a problem, you needn't worry about whether the government permits you to go to church, with or without a mask. Don't worry about what kind of music you sing or whether you sing at all.
None of that matters, as long as you refuse to address systemic injustice and willingly continue to benefit from it.
According to God’s Word, he 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
One of the culture war’s more absurd mantras is the threat of evangelical leaders capitulating to worldly demands for justice out of an appetite for popular esteem.
In fact the opposite is true: those who give any thought to popular opinion relish every opportunity to shock unbelievers with their abrasive rhetoric—thereby inviting backlash, which serves as a pretext for claims of persecution.
Under guise of combating “wokeness”—a vacuous notion contrived to provoke illiterate fear—men with evangelical platforms make unlearned and outrageous pronouncements on subjects ranging from political economy to public health.
A myth says what is false in order to reveal truth.
A lie says what is false in order to obscure truth.
The myth at the core of our nation is that America provides liberty and justice for all in equal measure.
The truth underlying the myth is that equality before the law is a worthy aspiration.
We lie to ourselves when we act as though this myth reflects the reality of our present existence: we obscure the truth when we tell ourselves that the aspiration has been realized, or realized enough.
The reason that our nation is disintegrating before our eyes is that we, as a society, lack a shared conception of justice--a common understanding of what people deserve and what we owe to each other.
So although Americans share a patch of earth, we do not share a horizon: we've degenerated into a collection of special interest groups--our highest political aspiration is to secure benefits for ourselves and those like us.
Both books are excellent and I commend them to anyone interested in the interplay of politics and religion in the context of American evangelicalism.
Regarding any formal connection between Mohler's official role at Southern Seminary (or within the SBC broadly) and his enthusiasm for broadcasting personal political views that are unrelated to his expertise in theology:
It is beyond ludicrous for a prince of the SBC's Conservative Resurgence to express concern over censorship among Catholics. Conservative Catholics can say just about anything they please, without fear of any reprisal whatsoever.
Censorship is the calling card of conservative Protestants who insist on ideological conformity.
Now it would be one thing if this insistence on conformity were strictly or even primarily theological.
But the worst-kept secret of the Conservative Resurgence is that the reforms of the '80s and '90s were motivated as much by devotion to cultural and political conservatism as a commitment to God's Word.
As a conservative Protestant who has spent much of his professional life at Catholic institutions, I can say that this statement from Mohler shows especially poor judgment on his part.
Pope Francis’s full statement—consistent with his other statements on the subject—is supportive of civil unions *instead of* same-sex marriage, where the relevant alternatives include ‘marriage’ and ‘civil union’.
Here’s a detailed treatment of Francis’s statement in context: