Today's data from the CRT/I polling I did earlier: Let's look at the people who said "I endorse (and perhaps even teach) Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality."
These are self-identified proponents of CRT/I. What can we learn about them?
94% of the self-identified proponents of CRT/I also DENIED that "every white person is a racist, just by virtue of being white," (although I've heard many friends say that this is a core teaching of CRT/I).
59% of the pro-CRT respondents DENIED that "when it comes to the topic of racism, we should listen to what black people have to say and not listen to what white people have to say." Again, many friends have suggested that this is a core teaching of CRT/I.
Some drill-down into the survey I ran several weeks ago about CRT/I opinions in the SBC. I'll try to release some factoid daily until I run out. Here's a link to the question-by-question results again. forms.office.com/Pages/Analysis…
Today's tweet correlates how people felt about Resolution 9 (Question 34 on the survey) with how people felt about the helpfulness of CRT/I (Question 28).
Some people responded that "Everything anyone says using these theories is wrong." This is the utter rejection of the idea that even a broken clock is right twice a day. CRT/I, according to this group, isn't even ever ACCIDENTALLY right about ANYTHING. 94 respondents agreed.
I don't know whether you guys have already read or listened to this story from @WIRED, but it is fascinating. It's about COVID, and it explains a lot of why we've heard the recommendations we have, but it's also relevant elsewhere wired.com/story/the-teen…
In particular, I find it worth sharing at the beginning of the academic year in order to underscore why citation of sources is so important in academic work (as opposed to your letter to Mom or other kinds of writing).
Often attribution of sources is framed in terms of giving proper credit to other authors...a matter of personal integrity. But there's another aspect to this that is often more important and that is specific to academic writing.
I appreciated my conversation with @bobsmietana today as a part of his research for this story. From one angle, it is interesting as a part of the conflict over race in American Evangelicalism. religionnews.com/2021/07/20/dav…
From another angle, the polity issues here highlight issues that more than one church is facing. Most normative-sized churches can manage issues over who may and may not vote just by looking around. The members know who the members are, and non-member voting becomes apparent.
That aspect of congregationalism becomes more difficult as churches scale up in size. Having multiple sites only increases that difficulty.
Here's what I think I am: I am a Southern Baptist who (a) is pretty strict about everything in the BF&M as well as some other things, but who (b) waits until someone publicly teaches or acts contrary to the BF&M before concluding that he or she differs with it,…
…and then, (c) tries to deal lovingly, respectfully, and redemptively with that person at that time rather than dismissively or pejoratively.
So, like, with regard to Complementarianism, I'm a strict Complementarian, and I'm not ashamed to say so. Also, I think that limiting the office of pastor (there is no biblical office of "senior pastor") to men is the SBC position, and I'm not ashamed or reluctant to defend it.
Today the Electoral College will confirm what we learned in November: @JoeBiden is the legitimate President-Elect of the United States. @realDonaldTrump lost. I lost (ie, voted for the loser).
This is worth pointing out because learning how to react when God doesn’t give you what you want is a major element of Christian discipleship. It’s the element of discipleship most avoided by the Prosperity Gospel heresy that has taken the lead in claiming Trump won.
Paula White has been at the forefront of this movement. @ericmetaxas has said that he knows President Trump won because somebody he trusts “prophesied” it (prophecy is real, but this hogwash deserves scare quotes).
I applaud @JoeBiden’s call for greater unity and civility in American politics. For many topics, this should reasonably be within reach.
Immigration: there is no reason whatsoever for Republicans to oppose LEGAL immigration, as the Trump administration has done. Our economy thrives when we have healthy immigration policies, and the election results show clearly that many immigrants vote GOP.
Middle East: There is no reason for Democrats to dismantle President Trump’s very successful pro-Israel policy in the Middle East. Eschatology does not require a pro-Israel posture, but common sense does.
In the experience of the Babylonian Captivity in the Old Testament, God chose, with no hesitation that I can detect, to reduce an entire nation and a house dedicated to Him to rubble in order to purify His people.
I'm a New Testament believer, not an Old Testament Israelite, and I'm not claiming that this set of historical events tells us anything about me or about us, but certainly it tells us this much about God: That His priorities are ordered in a fashion that undergirds that choice.
I didn't vote for President-Elect Biden—couldn't do so if given the opportunity in a hundred million elections—but I'm not convinced that this is the downfall of American civilization that way that some of my politically minded pastor-friends seem to think today.
They have done this because they have identified a subcategory of people who keep testing positive after they are no longer sick and no longer contagious—so-called “permanent positives.” These may test positive for as long as 90 days after recovery.
I believe that God often uses dissent in the SBC, and I think that some of the responses to @BaptistNetwork may represent some measure of a rush to judgment or an overreaction. But with that having been said…
I see two major differences between this group and the Conservative Resurgence.
First, with regard to the Conservative Resurgence, the identified problems were well documented. Southern Baptist professors did not believe in biblical inerrancy. Their published writings and recorded lectures said so. Their own statements said so, doublespeak notwithstanding.
This week @KSPrior announced her intention to vote third party in November. I completely understand. I did that in 2016. And I believe that she is 100% right to resist the accusation that she is "throwing away her vote" by doing so. That's a thin, thoughtless argument.
But I'm not where I was in 2016, and I thought perhaps it would be worthwhile to offer some public accounting for my change in thinking.
First, I reached a point of being glad that the candidate who received my vote was not elected. Third-party candidates simply aren't vetted the way that major-party candidates are. That's not a reason never to vote for one; it's a reason to discount enthusiasm for them.
@joelascol "This may be the most critical vote the SBC has taken on the race issue."
I don't think I agree with @pastordmack here, because other votes have been important. But this is a judgment call. I don't think this sentence is "stupid."
@joelascol@pastordmack "This vote will send a strong signal that Black leadership and Black professors aren't allowed to lead."
This would be an unprecedented action (we didn't even rescind resolutions that the liberals enacted before the CR) taken against the act of Curtis Woods and others.
@joelascol@pastordmack A lot of the associated rhetoric over the past several months has involved combing through the statements of people like @w_strickland and taking pains to interpret them in the worst sense possible and to select only the snippets vulnerable to such misconstrual.
Here goes a Twitter feed in which I’m going to say two or three things that are all highly inappropriate.
First, people who’ve achieved any level of fame (notoriety?) ought never to admit it or speak about it. But I will. Even though it’s only SBC-famous, I’ve gotten to know a lot of new friends in my denominational family over the past decade.
That means that I got a LOT of birthday greetings today from a lot of people who know me. I’m grateful for that. It’s been a privilege to get to know you all, and you make me optimistic about our future.
@AlanLCross I find it a little odd that I would disagree both with @PeteButtigieg and @MattWalshBlog. I've never—not one time—played the Jesus-was-a-refugee card simply because that's not even in the tiniest bit the point of the Matthew account. It's anachronistic politicizing (IMHO).
@AlanLCross@PeteButtigieg@MattWalshBlog That's the part of liberal Christianity-related thinking that I most strongly disagree with: The transformation of the word of God to a cookbook from which one can pick and choose his own ingredients to cook up the stew that suits him best.
@AlanLCross@PeteButtigieg@MattWalshBlog And yet, it's an unavoidable fact that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fled the domain of a ruler trying to find and kill them. Refugees? Of course they were. Was that the point? Not at all. The point was that they fulfilled a prophecy in Hosea.
I'm an ultra-conservative. I'm a hard-right-winger.
By that, I mean this: I'm a thoroughgoing biblical inerrantist. When I say that I'm an ultra-conservative, I'm describing my THEOLOGY, not my POLITICS.
Now, I'm also, as things presently lie in American politics, generally speaking, a conservative. But I'm not committed to that at all; my commitment lies with conservative theology.
It's an important distinction, because the Bible never changes, but what it means to be a political conservative changes all the time. Under Ronald Reagan, it meant one thing. Under Donald Trump, it seems to mean something else. Who knows what it will mean in 10 years?
I haven't yet watched the #ByWhatStandard@FoundersMin film. I've seen enough of the promotional material to know that the CRT/I discussion plays a significant role. Let me reiterate something I've chosen to do personally that, if we all would do it, would improve the SBC:
I have determined from this point forward to vote against any SBC resolution for which I do not fully understand it and have a strong, pre-existing opinion that agrees with the resolution.
Resolutions that are the opinion of a committee rather than the opinion of the messengers (a) make a mockery of the process and (b) have proven to be divisive.