Sadly, this is pretty representative of reactions within the SBC—bullet points with vague suggestions, insinuating everything and nothing all at once.
Point-by-point:
Point-by-point:
1. I’m confident that on Josh’s (aberrant) anti-intellectualist conception of Sola Scriptura, most academic disciplines somehow entail a denial of Scripture’s sufficiency—including much of what goes on in the field of theology.
This is hardly a problem for CRT.
This is hardly a problem for CRT.
2. Victimology and theology aren’t mutually exclusive so this is just a false dichotomy.
3. See point 1.
4a. Empirical claim offered without evidence.
4b. Truth is often divisive. What’s his point?
4c. CRT describes racial disparities created by the very institutions that CRT critiques.
4d. Describing ≠ promoting.
4b. Truth is often divisive. What’s his point?
4c. CRT describes racial disparities created by the very institutions that CRT critiques.
4d. Describing ≠ promoting.
5. That depends, of course, on how one defines ‘racism’. Josh has demonstrated racist attitudes time and time again on this website; and racists are famous for defining racism in ways that make their racist attitudes non-racist. So, no—Josh doesn’t get to define ‘racism’.
6a. See point 1.
6b. Josh’s appeals to Scripture are instructive: his approach disqualifies any hermeneutic that interrogates the extra-biblical assumptions which allow Josh to cloak his own license in the language of liberty.
6b. Josh’s appeals to Scripture are instructive: his approach disqualifies any hermeneutic that interrogates the extra-biblical assumptions which allow Josh to cloak his own license in the language of liberty.
7. Justice is an objective standard for what people deserve and what we owe to each other; and justice is achieved when that objective standard is met.
I’m not a moral relativist; so I reject @JoshBuice ‘s assumption that “biblical justice” differs from justice as such.
I’m not a moral relativist; so I reject @JoshBuice ‘s assumption that “biblical justice” differs from justice as such.
8. Either this is a figurative use of the term ‘religion’—in which case this proposition is irrelevant to Josh’s point—or the proposition is obviously false: CRT is not, in any established sense of the term, a ‘religion’.
And finally, Josh’s closing expression of anxiety about power reveals the abundance of his heart. Nothing I might add would illuminate his ambitions with greater clarity than his own words.
***To clarify: I take Josh’s statements to be fairly representative of reactions from outspoken critics of CRT in the SBC. I have no idea how prevalent these views are across the SBC generally or with respect to any cross-section outside of vocal critics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
