Thread by @msgwrites

THREAD on the recent SBC Statement on BFM and Incompatibility of CRT (you can read the full statement from the link)

baptistpress.com/resource-libra…

Before I go any further a few caveats:

1. I have a deep admiration and appreciation for the men who wrote this statement and firmly believe both their Gospel commitments and that they had the best intentions

2. I am not in the SBC but this statement will impact my ability to pastor and will shape the ongoing conversation

3. I am aware that brevity of such statements often hurts the ability to create the nuance and clarity that this thread is encouraging

4. I am aware that collaborative statements often involve compromise on all parts and this too hurts nuance and clarity but if it does so fatally maybe a different format should be in view

End caveats and onto the thread:

1. It is unclear to me the extent that the authors of this statement have interacted with primary source material from advocates of CRT as they vary quite widely and internally disagree, sometimes rather sharply

2. Without clearly defining CRT (or CRTI) it is unclear exactly what we are saying is incompatible with the BFM and/or the Bible/Gospel

3. Good cultural exegesis/analysis involves three key components - comprehension then commendation and and then critique

A. Comprehension - a deep and clear summary of a group or ideology such that the adherents of such would say that you’ve accurately characterized them

B. Commendation - establishing where a particular group or ideology shares or borrows from the Christian faith/worldview in its ideology or practices

C. Critique - providing criticism where a particular group or ideology is discordant with the Christian faith/worldview

4. There are plenty of things worth critiquing regarding CRT but this statement primarily aims at critique while lacking needed clarity on comprehension and commendation

5. I would like to see efforts in statements like this to explore dangerous ideologies on the same topic, especially ones that are likely more entrenched already in their churches.

5 continued - SBC members and churches are likely more in danger to threats of the secular right (ethno-nationalism, Christian nationalism... etc) than the secular left.

Ie. There are likely more people in the SBC in danger of joining the ranks of the alt-right than antifa.

6. The SBC has an opportunity to promote a gospel centric third way between the secular left and the secular right but this statement still leaves vulnerable to the secular right - which probably presents a greater internal danger than the secular left

7. I am most concerned HOW this statement will be utilized

A. I am concerned that it will likely embolden those who would further weaponize the label of CRT and have it be inappropriately applied to those who are not adherents of CRT

7B. I am concerned that it will further continue to get the conversation about race and justice off topic. We can and should evaluate things like BLM and CRT but this isn't what the national conversation is or should be about.

7C. The national conversation should be about the nature and extent of the maligning and assailing of the image of God in our society AND what God's Word encourages us as Christians as what to do about that.

HOPE:

My hope is that the SBC would further expand and elaborate on the dangers of both the secular left and the secular right with clarity and precision.

We have a Scylla and Charybdis to navigate through in this cultural moment and I hope we can better hit the mark.