Racism IS material heresy, and ought to be acknowledged as formal heresy (as the Eastern Church has). It strikes at the basic assumptions of the creedal Christian faith.
A brief outline: [Thread]
1. Jesus Christ bore the nature of a specific "race."
2. In bearing the nature of a specific race, Jesus Christ bore complete and full human nature (substance) as such.
3. To say that races can differ by superiority or inferiority necessarily implies that they differ in nature (substance).
4. Therefore, if race can differ by superiority or inferiority, thereby differing in nature (substance), then Christ did not bear the nature (substance) of all men, for he bore the human nature (substance) by bearing the nature of a specific race.
5. This contradicts the Creed: “I believe in…one Lord Jesus Christ…Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man” (Nicene Creed).
For proof of each claim, based entirely on creedal assumptions, see:
I am among those who eschew "worldview" talk, and always have. Inasmuch as it means something like "the way you generally see things" or even "belief system," I think it's pretty straightforward. But it is often used by apologists to be some sort of totalized system of ideas, 1/
2/ answering all "basic" (doing a lot of work here!) questions, and I dare say every truth in the set is treated as a theorem. As such, contradicting one piece contradicts the whole, and accepting one piece requires acceptance of the whole.
3/ To me, this is just some strange Josiah Roycian idealistic nonsense. Nothing like this exists for flesh and blood humans. And I'd argue further that whatever we do have that is closest to this idealistic nonsense is something that we literally ALL ALREADY SHARE.
2/ intertwined with Christianity in White American consciousness that the two are nearly indistinguishable.
Every age must do this self-critical work to avoid the ever present, and wildly toxic, age hubris from which we all suffer to varying degrees.
3/ (I mean, the SBC, for example, was created to defend the institution of racial slavery, and I'm glad many have since located the broad social philosophies that lived parasitically within that "Christianity" since. The forces of stasis, as we are seeing today, relentlessly
Here @sandylocks locates a central problem with the universalism and "interchangeability" of liberalism, as often expressed in "color-blindness"; very important points. (Note: there is no rejection of liberalism's egalitarian goals as such. The goal is shared; the means are not.)
This accords with Gary Peller's explanation of where Critical scholars diverge from traditional liberalism:
And, again, I don't think this is too far from Dr. King as well:
1. The basic scientific fact of Critical Race Theory is that “race” is a biological fiction and an socio-historical construction.
2. The basic historical fact of Critical Race Theory is that “race” was created and legislated for specific and demonstrable purposes.
3. The basic sociological fact of Critical Race Theory is that the creation of “race” was subordinating & has created a human social hierarchy which has affected, even structured, our most basic social systems, including law, citizenship, labor, human geography, and institutions.