You know how when you take a wrong turn, you need to go back and take the other turn?
I've decided I'm doing that with Critical Race Theory--I'm going back to before all the CRT hysteria and alarmism, back before the Anti-CRT Industry® took off, back before the book bans
"Contrary to certain evangelical Christians, critical race theorists and social scientists argue that racism is systemic, and is deeply ingrained in the structural fabric of the U.S"
Back to 2017 when @Jeff_Liou could put Bavinck in conversation with Critical Race Theory in the Journal of Reformed Theology
"Taking Up #blacklivesmatter: A Neo-Kuyperian Engagement with Critical Race Theory"
And then I'm going to pick up @Jeff_Liou and @ProfeChaoRomero __Christianity and Critical Race Theory: A Faithful and Constructive Conversation__ (2023)
In other words, I'm just not going to let alarmists hijack the discourse and conversation about Critical Race Theory.
I'm not going to let it be a "bad word" or a "radioactive topic." I'm not going to give them that ground. It's holding us back, and they never really earned it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Not going to lie, I did not expect to see @chuckswindoll open up his book on Elijah with a tribute to Confederate general Robert E. Lee, and a reference to the "fine volume"
on Lee by neo-confederate J. Steven Wilkins:
If you picked Joni Eareckson Tada's daily devotional back in 1998, on the second day--January 2--you'd get some Bill Gothard, and a reference to __Institute in Basic Live Principles__
an incredible artifact of an industry promoting quiverfull / patriarchy / stay-at-home-daughter / neo-confederacy / homeschooling / providential American history / warfare
The Assessment Report is public, so what are we —in the public—to make of these conflicting claims? What criteria should we use to evaluate them? And fundamentally, it raises the question of who is assessing the assessors, and how? Are there any checks and balances here?