2/ pernicious influence of CRT. In reality, this folks have just become aware of the racism in the church and denomination, have pressed back on it, and ultimately leave after no change. Now, the folks who are still there think, "why are these people going on about racism? I'm
3/ not a racist, my church is not racist, and I don't even know any real racists." Upon investigation, they realize that this brothers and sisters leaving don't define or understand racism as they do--as personal hatred toward someone because of their skin color. So, where did
4/ they get this "new" definition of racism? Some more shoddy investigation gives them what they think is the answer: CRITICAL RACE THEORY! They still have no idea what it is, but it's new and they say crazy stuff about White people. This must be where it's coming from. Of
5/ course, though, they know nothing of the abolitionist and civil rights history. They haven't really read Douglass, Du Bois, Cox, Malcom, or really even nay King beyond their nursery rhyme version, so maybe the understanding of "racism" they're hearing from people of color
6/ leaving their churches IS new to them. But it's not what they learned in their middle class White upbringing, so it's just wrong. Probably even anti-gospel. So they go down this long path of demonization of what they think to be this wild alien ideology polluting the minds of
7/ people everywhere and driving people out of the church. To be honest, some of this is even understandable at this point in their game. But then dozens of people tall them, "hey, you don't know what you are talking about, you aren't familiar with the traditional Black
8/ understanding of racism, and most of us don't know much about CRT anyhow." But it's too late, they've dug in, their platforms and their identities depend on continuing the smear. They read book after book to find statements that can be used to defend their further and further
9/ intrenched misunderstandings and characterizations. Now its' part of their identity. Now it's part of the gospel itself. Now its a struggle between good and evil, God and the Devil, the Gospel and the world, the Christian politics vs. all manner of perversions and even Black
10/10 ... Supremacy.
And here we are.
Just thinking.....
So many typos. Sorry, working at the same time.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ It is important to me that no article written on race was accepted by any of the journals, and no journals focused on race or Critical Race Theory accepted any articles.
Second, of the articles accepted, the majority claimed to contain independent research, which would
3/ rightly be of interest to any academic field no matter how silly the attendant conclusions. But more important to our purposes, why was the discovery of this “hoax” such an embarrassment to the journals who bit?
a. We do not know the exact character of this “slavery.”
b. The actions of the saints recorded are not prima facie normative.
c. God often allowed for actions and institutions which were contrary to His own moral Law and natural law, though ...
... He regulated them with the end to (1) diminish their abuses, then (2) eliminate the practices altogether (see marriage/divorce in OT vs. Jesus in NT; “because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses allowed it…”).
But seriously, there's a bazillion issues that are considered systemic by (what I know as) the Right, and NO ONE on the Left (as I know it) claims all inequalities are systemic.
But I guess if this makes the apologetics easy, have at it.
2/ Further - specifically when it comes to racism (which is what this is really about, we know) - what I believe is dangerously lacking in many such "Left vs. Right" analyses is recognition of racism as a specific, historical, contingent, social problem that exists in its own
3/ right, as an evil to be addressed uniquely, not as a specie of some wider, neutral, philosophical divide.
Attempts to fold it into a wider philosophical analysis like “structuralism” vs. “individualism,” “universalism” vs. “particularism,” even general “neutral” and
It's wild seeing so-called "Calvinists" condemning people as heretics, even saying they are not Christians, simply for believing women may preach.
Have they even read Calvin?
In his Institutes, Calvin discusses constitutions of the Church which are matters of “decency and 1/
2/ good order” (1 Cor 14:40), matters of tradition that are conducive to “common order and concord.”
He includes two classes of ordinances under this heading: (1) rituals and ceremonies which lead to Christ, and (2) those that pertain to “order and peace.”
3/ In the group of tradition ordinances meant for peace and order, Calvin includes such things as
“hours set apart for public prayer, sermon, and solemn services; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places, singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s
Tried to post in the comments there a couple times, but they never appeared. Quickly deleted? IDK. So this is take 3:
I truly think that conflating the Frankfurt school with CRT is a basic mistake that many make. They are very different ideologies, with different purposes, 1/
2/ and different histories. I try to make this clearer in my series response to Dr. Trueman:
While both projects are "critical," again, they are very different and this should be very clear to anyone familiar with both. But I don't think either Pruitt or Trueman are. It's such an obvious error.