Watched or listened to the whole Founders movie, almost two hours. I’m retired and free to waste time as I see fit. There’s no grass growing right now that needs watching and, not being all that energetic, there’s no drying paint to gaze upon.
There are some interesting things in this and some points that I would join but the film is mostly a lot of old white guys talking mostly about matters of race; long-in-the-tooth white men talking about what women should do,movies we’ve seen for a long time. And someone tally up the minutes of the film that puts African-Americans front and center as the source of objectionable stuff. Well, there’s Voddie Baucham, balance I suppose.
Tom Nettles makes some good points in the film. Is he gravely intoning for the film while sitting in front of a portrait of John Calvin? Subliminal message, perhaps. The Founders needs a boost no doubt.
Josh Buice says, “…if we ask women to do something spiritually that God did not intend her to do, that’s abuse.” This (and Buice states that he is happy to go on record with it) comes in the current context of the abuse scandal in the SBC which happens to be the biggest story of the year. We’ve been exposed to a steady stream of abuse stories in SBC churches with SBC clergy or lay perps where children are abused, teen girls are forced to have sex with their male church youth ministers, and women by the hundreds are physically abused by SBC clergy. That plus learning that the perps have been quietly passed along to another church to continue their ministry while the victims deal with decades of consequences of their abuse. Buice cavalierly and casually devalues and trivializes the the suffering of all these women. The absurdity of this should be self-evident no matter where one falls in regard to the role of women in the church. Tom Ascol joins him, “Great point” he says. The SBC pastor who invites a woman to fill his pulpit on Mother’s Day is abusing her, according to Buice and Ascol. The pastor who forces sex on a female counselee is abusing her. It’s outrageous to make the statement that both are “abuse.” Buice should walk this back and clean this up. It was a mistake for Ascol to feature him with this comment. There are unintended consequences to this. I predict that we will see them.
Disappointed to see Ascol label a black man, Dwight McKissick, as “dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful”:
When Pastor McKissick made his statement that Southern Baptists actually do send women overseas to preach to men, that statement was dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful and it’s sad to see people use these types of dishonest narratives in order to push an agenda that is contrary to the Word of God. (16:53)
It would be hard not to consider McKissick’s point a historical fact even if it is rather soft. He uses Lotte Moon as an example. Even some hard core comps have made points about how Lottie shouldn’t have had to expose the Gospel to men in her day. The SBC, one observes and Ascol notes, officially abjures women leading churches overseas or planting churches but there are women and always have been women in situations where they (ahem!) ‘share’ the Good News with men. If McKissick’s point is soft and requires some context, then why go nuclear by calling him “dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful?” McKissick asked that Founders not use the footage with him in it. They probably should have acceded to that request. This will bite them, I think.
Ascol says that the Baptist Faith and Message limits the “role of pastor” to qualified men. It does not so state. The BFM says that the “office” of pastor is limited to men. (I am aware that there is an entire industry built on interpreting the BFM and adding to it as believed necessary. Ascol’s language is consistent with one approach to reading the BFM and it is typical to presume your view is the correct view and tailor language accordingly.) But is Ascol dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful for that statement? Yes, by the standards he uses in the discussion with McKissick. Both men use some finesse and also some brusqueness in their discussion with each other. Why not allow a charitable reading for both that does not lead to the labels. McKissick generalizes without pointedly labeling his Christian brother as sinful. Ascol is not so restrained. This is troubling. “Dishonest narrative” sayeth Ascol, whose own dishonest narrative, the disastrous trailer for this documentary that was released last summer, seems to have been forgotten. We can do better as brothers in Christ, I believe.
For the record both men make decent points. I don’t see the need to use the labels.
I’d agree with Ascol on the resolution process being flawed and that the notorious Resolution #9 was handled in an “unwise” manner. I’d call the whole resolution process and concept ridiculous, a pail of tepid expectoration. Not sure why our Grand Old Convention can’t get its act together on resolutions.
And, all that time the movie gives Glenn Sunshine on CRT and Marx – what denomination is he, anyway?
I may be the most likely of the main contributors here to find some agreement with the movie but I’m not inclined to look favorably on the Founders group. I wish them well and, based on their actions of late, I wish for increasing obscurity for them. Maybe they get a dead cat bounce out of the movie. Someone spent some money on this and they got two hours of my time. I have the time to waste.
I welcome a more thorough, serious treatment for those who think it worth while. It’s a lot easier to read a few thousand words than to sit for a couple of hours watching talking heads…again, mostly old white guys.
_____________
Wade Burleson has a lengthy treatment of this that I commend and I join him and others in prayers for Tom Ascol’s full recovery from his recent episode.
I welcome any of my colleagues taking a shot at this. So far, all I have is an offer for an article on ‘why I will not watch the Founders movie.’
SBC pundits and watchers have forecasted a presidential contest between announced candidate Al Mohler and someone else. We will see. I’m not planning to attend (even though I think I have some very old Disney tickets around here somewhere).
And, I predict that before the year is out people will be calling for a ban on using “dead cat bounce.” I wanted to get one in here on SBCV before it is too late.
Thanks for enduring the movie for us. Reading your review and maybe Wade’s is about all the time I plan to spend on this. Ascol calls McKissic dishonest? Serious case of projection going on.
The genesis of the movie was Res 9. That was a disaster. Will be interesting to see what, if anything, becomes of it.
I believe the movie will make a significant contribution to pastors and layman across the SBC toward an understanding of CRT/I. Most people have no idea what it is. This movie introduces the concepts and attempts to explain the concerns.
The “pro CRT/I” folks, and I really couldn’t tell you who they are because once I can identify one of them, they either go into hiding or they repudiate their previous recommendations of CRT/I, so at this point the anti CRT/I folks have the field.
As to the “I refuse to watch this movie” pledge, that usually goes nowhere.
Reminds me of a comedy skit where a guy would do movie reviews without watching the movies. He said he didn’t watch the movies because doing so would prejudice his views.
“ I’d agree with Ascol on the resolution process being flawed and that the notorious Resolution #9 was handled in an “unwise” manner. I’d call the whole resolution process and concept ridiculous, a pail of tepid expectoration. Not sure why our Grand Old Convention can’t get its act together on resolutions.”
Yea. Yes. yes.
Resolutions mean nothing – or they mean everything – they are not binding – or they are completely binding – they are the sense of the only people in the room – or they are the sense of the entire SBC – all depending on your view of a particular resolution or set of resolutions mind you.
As to the documentary- I haven’t watched it. Don’t plan to. See no real reason to at this point.
I will say however that not all abuse is sexual nor can be compared to it… I have no Idea if the man on this video was downplaying or trivializing sexual abuse as you contended – But I do happen to think that if we as pastors ask women/allow women (or Men) to do things in our churches that God has set as out of His order simply because they “can” or “are good it” or “feel called to it” or “can do as good” or whathaveya – it certainly can, IMO, be appropriately labeled as spiritual abuse.
Yes. The BFM says “office” but being people of context – and (i trust)people seeking to convey original intent and understanding of the BFM2000 (as well as explicit biblical teaching) – as Dr. Mohler so aptly said a while back on a podcast posted about here about the *artificial * distinction Within complementarianism some are attempting to make that women can perform the functions of Pastoral office (like preaching to the gathered church) as long as they don’t “hold the title“ ….
“The office is the function and the function is the office”.
Not to mention the Similar *artificial* distinction some advance that within the BFM2K the “senior pastor” and other “pastors” somehow hold a *different* office (the bible only notates 2 in the local church btw Elder/Pastor and Deacon) so women can fill *other* pastoral roles than “Senior Pastor” …
Those who advance these notions sure seem to be playing word games to allow something they desire irrespective of the teaching of Scripture and also the BFM2000.
ave Cline wrote: “But I do happen to think that if we as pastors ask women/allow women (or Men) to do things in our churches that God has set as out of His order simply because they “can” or “are good it” or “feel called to it” or “can do as good” or whathaveya – it certainly can, IMO, be appropriately labeled as spiritual abuse.”
This is not a good point but others can judge for themselves. I think it is a strategic mistake by the hardcore comps. We will see.
The point is that there is a legitimate debate about the BFM. It uses certain language and eschews stronger language. Shall we consider “office of pastor” to be deserving of the strictest and most narrow definitions? I think not. Mohler is invested in “office is the function and the function is the office.” It’s a good sound bite but will not stand close scrutiny, IMO. Which is the whole point of the CMBW. For about a generation they have attempted to inculcate Southern Baptists with strict roles by gender. Their success has been limited partly because they know that creating lists of acceptable and unacceptable tasks for women would be disastrous. The generalized office/function:function/office will fail as well.
I take the “office of pastor” to mean the senior pastor. Sub-senior pastor positions should be a local church decision. We can discuss it later.
There is no such thing as a “sub pastor”, my friend.
Plus,. clearly, the “office of Pastor” in BFM2k means – um, the office of pastor – anyone who holds/functions within that office within a church *is* a pastor… And according to Scripture and the Baptist Faith and message… must be a man. To convey otherwise seems playing word games to achieve a desired end.
Not so, bro but you are welcome to your opinion.
….and I welcome your opinion about my opinion, bro. 🙂
Like any politician, I always retain the right to reserve and expand my remarks…which I’ve done.
I’m not sure that I watched the same cinedoc. Couple thoughts:
“…is mostly a lot of old white guys talking mostly about matters of race…”
Does race matter that much to you that it’s the front-and-center summary? The fact is that their race has nothing to do with the weight of the arguments.
“…someone tally up the minutes of the film that puts African-Americans front and center as the source of objectionable stuff.”
Same issue, since “objectionable stuff” is objectionable regardless of one’s ethnicity.
“Buice cavalierly and casually devalues and trivializes…”
That’s really hyperbolic – I saw the clip and that is not what is happening at all.
“…why go nuclear by calling him “dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful?””
First, it was what McKissick DID that was dishonest (and it was), and not a personal characteristic of McKissick himself. But, that said, McKissick knows better.
“…the Baptist Faith and Message limits the “role of pastor” to qualified men. It does not so state.”
But do you honestly think that it does not so intend? Or what was the conservative resurgence about anyway? We give place of priority to authorial intent on any other document of record – so why not the BFAM?
“Glenn Sunshine on CRT and Marx – what denomination is he, anyway?”
Again, what does that matter? We all learn from outside our denominational boundaries, right? His arguments should be judged on their inherent validity, not on his affiliation.
The upshot? I like the cinedoc so much that we’re going to schedule a public viewing at our Church, followed by a Q&A session. With a free lunch, too. You’d be more than welcome to attend, too.
Thanks for the invitation. A bit distant for me. If we were closer I’d be happy to discuss things occasionally over coffee or tea.
I get that you like the thing. Fine. Ascol’s labeling of McKissick as “dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful” was deliberate and pointed. Sin pertains to the individual. A person whom we think makes a “dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful” remark is dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful. Ascol could have easily avoided the heavy slap here. Wish he had.
The BFM is quite succinct on this. There is a legitimate, long running discussion about “office” and “function.” Al Mohler doesn’t call the shots for the SBC on this and I don’t think you win the argument by appealing to authorial intent, either.
Buice deliberately made the statement and called attention to the fact that he was doing so. It was a dumb statement. He can own it.
Do you know what church Sunshine is affiliated with? I was asking. It may make a difference or may not.
The problem that the old Trad group had was that they said and did things that made it embarrassing and difficult for many people to want to be identified with the group. The Calvinists, Founders specifically, Ascol specifically have been doing the same thing – the gang that can’t shoot straight. The essence of the film is about race and the subject is race in the SBC. It’s hard to conclude that the targets aren’t a few black people in the SBC; thus, the observation about old white guys talking about black folks. You don’t have to like it or agree with it but if you are a Founders/Ascol follower you will have to deal with that.
William, Do you deny that rejection of the idea of females serving as pastors (and preaching) in churches was a factor leading to the coalition leading to the conservative resurgence and eventually the BFM2000?
Whatever a BFM2000 complementarian is – they, at minimum, are one who opposes artificially creating distinctions between function and office of pastor so as to “allow” for women serving as “sub pastors” and/or preaching to the gathered body.
Sure – theres been “SBC” theologigal discussions over this – but, until recently anyway, disagreements have been between lingering egalitarian type moderates and complementarian conservatives – – – now though you’ve got even conservative complementarians seeking to redefine common understandings and definitions too for some weird reason. .
“Serving as pastors” isn’t what BFM says. You are welcome to your definitions. I’m not for some ad hoc group defining for me. The office = function is Al and you, not the BFM. There are innumerable permutations. Let’s see the cred committee jump into that snake pit. Good for discussion…
You’re right – it says office of pastor. You, Dwight and others have created (well joined egalitarian thought anyway) and forwarded the “sub pastor” distinction that seems to require linguistic gymnastics so as to “allow” for female pastoral leadership and preaching to the gathered church.
Frankly, Its a bit of a silly notion to postulate that the word “office” floats around aimlessly and without anchor (like, i dunno, the office having functions)….and divorced from the clear and plain reading and understanding of both the scriptures and the BFM2000 limiting that office (and necessarily therefore the function) to males.
Hey, make a movie. Instant celeb status for you. Get a bunch of old white dudes to do the talking head stuff. I’ll be glad to make a cameo appearance.
Welll, you clearly fit the old white guy talking/posting head motif. 😉
“…and forwarded the “sub pastor” distinction”
Exactly. Creating new categories to allow for shenanigans at best, and disobedience at worst. How can we chide the Roman Catholics for inventing the “pope” and the “cardinal” while we embrace the extra-biblical positions in our own evangelical world?
“I don’t think you win the argument by appealing to authorial intent, either.”
Are you suggesting that the BFAM is a “living, breathing document”? Seriously, authorial intent is all that matters – not our subjective spins on the document. That goes for documents like the BFAM, the US Constitution, and even the Bible. What truly matters is what the person or persons who penned the document meant by what they wrote.
“The essence of the film is about race and the subject is race in the SBC.”
Sorry, but no – it’s the infiltration of CRT, identity politics, and intersectionality into SBC entities that have made race the subject in the most recent past. The film is *about* exposing those wicked and godless philosophies for what they are, and allowing ‘sola scriptura/tota scriptura’ to be the only foundation for the pursuit of justice.
“Sorry, but no – it’s the infiltration of CRT, identity politics, and intersectionality into SBC entities that have made race the subject in the most recent past. The film is *about* exposing those wicked and godless philosophies for what they are, and allowing ‘sola scriptura/tota scriptura’ to be the only foundation for the pursuit of justice.”
Tim: That is simply not true and anyone who either attended the Convention, or saw it online, knowing what our seminaries stand for could really believe this. I don’t think you or Tom or etc. believe this, but it is meant for unsavory purposes. No one with integrity could agree that this is true, and those who do not know are not going to do research to find out because they don’t want to find out. They want this to be true so they can get the upper hand of power. It doesn’t matter who this film lies about or how they edited it as long as the end justifies the means.
That is horrible on so many levels, I am glad I don’t have charge because I would put these churches (al of them) as uncooperating and not agreeing with the BFM which does not state what you and Dave C are attempting to make it state. Meanwhile, victims of sexual abuse and their advocates are attempted to be destroyed, Beth Moore and KS Prior are attempted to be destroyed based on lies that is all about gaining power and always has been no matter who is hurt in the process.
As for the “sola scriptura” line, that is simply a line, a phrase that means nothing because if it did you guys would not skip the other 75% of the Bible while sticking with the do not and judgement passages only.
Tim: I listened to some of your sermons out of curiosity and noticed that you thank James White, Doug Wilson, Tom Ascol in a couple of them, so it does not surprise me that you are showing this film at your church. I think you are wrong in distributing distortions and things not true, but we do practice autonomy don’t we.
I see – so local Church autonomy allows for promulgating lies? What about the other Churches in my association – aren’t they in full fellowship with us and vice versa? If we’re promoting “things not true” (euphemism for “lies”) then what does that say about their continuing fellowship with us?
That’s the question isn’t it Tim.
Yes. If I knew that one of our associate Churches was hosting an event where they were promoting something that I deemed as not only dangerous, but a downright deception, it would be irresponsible and cowardly NOT to contact the elders of that Church, right? And if they refused to listen or interact, then move to involve the association as well?
Tim: I agree. That could be a possibility, but I also believe in letting churches believe on this as they will, there is no stopping distribution of falsehood, and let the chips fall where they may in June.
“… simply not true and anyone who either attended the Convention, or saw it online, knowing what our seminaries stand for could really believe this.”
Debbie – this is PRECISELY what the “BWS?” film addresses! It’s documented – in their own words. The Bible is without error and is the single infallible and final and complete and ultimate and absolute Word of authority that supersedes all the dumb stuff that our venerable theological institutions co-opt. Claiming to believe in inerrancy—or fidelity to the BFAM—whenever you are called on to explain your most recent foray into ‘wokeness’ or identity politics is not the same thing as living under the authority of Scripture.
Tim: You are waaaaay out in left field on this. The film does not have an ounce of truth. The film is fiction therefore you are rallying under a false flag. And why? I think it is for the thrill of the hunt. Some people are just not happy with unifying for the Gospel. There has to be excitement and what is more exciting than another fight like the CR? Otherwise it is just a yearly boring business meeting.
If one can’t find something to battle against, then they make up something. That is the case here. And so Tom Ascol and Jarred snuck around, secretly filming and recording, then came the editing, the heavy editing. That is all this film is. Period. No amount of your screaming is going to change that fact.
Tim: I know how the film was made, I was at the Convention in Dallas as a messenger when Tom secretly recorded parts of that, which I did not know he was doing, he attempted to secretly record those who were outside standing for the sexually abused in the SBC, most who were sexually abused themselves by SBC ministers, yet Tom was asking them questions that had nothing to do with being sexually abused and why? For his own agenda. I was so angry when I knew of this and still am. He is not someone I want “steering the SBC ship.” I do not want undone all the things we voted for and passed with a huge amount of messengers affirming.
Did you get that Tim? The Founders, Jarred Longshore, Tom Ascol, came to the Rally in Birmingham that was composed of sexually abused men and women, most were sexually abused by SBC ministers, and asked questions concerning their view of women in ministry and LGBTQ and gave no compassion to these people standing outside in the hot sun, did not say who they were or why they were there(to film a documentary) but instead asked questions that had nothing to do with sexual abuse. Victimizing them once again.
“…gave no compassion to these people standing outside in the hot sun”
There was no shade?
Sounds like a fair review. There does seem to be an SJW strain in the SBC right now; not represented primarily by a person or group, but evident in the terminology and activity of certain persons or groups. People and groups who, otherwise, present themselves as doctrinal guardians seem to have adopted Jim Wallis terminology and technique. A shallow facade of virtue is developed in words and actions that seem incongruous with the broader context. Though shallow, the terminology and technique are difficult to counter in a diplomatic manner. The Founders are responding as entitled dominant culture guardians, rather than loving and discerning guardians of truth.
I watched a debate on YouTube where one of our SBC leaders did a good job of countering the errors of Wallis’ thinking. The SBC leader won the debate, but I doubt his logic resonated with the younger audience. It was a real shock last year when I started to see the glancing blows of virtue and the psychologically disarming phrases of Wallis in certain circles within the SBC. I do not believe that this is a real invasion of the “social gospel”. I think it’s primarily being used offensively to promote and defensively to insulate. The clearest manifestation of this is calling everything a gospel issue.
I have only had time to watch about half the movie so far, but have found nothing I would substantially disagree with thus far. If fact I felt the part about resolution #9 was right on point. The gentlemen who spoke for the resolutions committee during that debate was either intentionally lying or horribly misinformed. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the later. Either way, to pretend critical race theory is mearly a tool and not a worldview was an awful statement for him to make. It really minimizes the terrible implications of marxist thought. As a chairman speaking on behalf of the SBC resolutions committee, he can’t be blowing smoke like that. Im glad these errors were brought to light.
Kyle Hall: I say the film is intentionally lying. Were you at the Convention? Did you see the whole Convention online? If you are interested in the truth and seeing things as they actually happened without snippets edited to fit an agenda, I suggest you do so. Also watch the outbreak discussions on racism in the church and sexual abuse in the church, that is the bigger problem. And I don’t know if you are SBC or not but are you? If not, I really don’t see the problem you would have other than starting trouble where there is none.
Yes, I was at the convention. The resolutions committee chairmans false claim on CRT is likely accessible just by going back and viewing the sessions online at the SBC website.
Your comment is very revealing. CRT has nothing to do with “Marxist thought” except in the minds of a few rabble rousers in the SBC who associate everything regarding discussions of racial justice with Marx.
Whether it is a viable tool or not is fine to debate, but to attempt to mislabel its origins and underpinnings in order to demonize it is essentially lying. Which last time I checked is something forbidden in scripture.
Wait, did you mean to say that critical race theory is not affiliated historically with Marxist thought?
Are you saying that critical race theory and its partner intersectionality is something that should be employed within the SBC?
Here is an excellent article on CRT by The Gospel Coalition – https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/incompatibility-critical-theory-christianity/
David Brooks and Al mohler are just two that have said there is a link… are they “rabble rousers”
Alan,
First, thanks for the link to the article. I had not seen it. It’s very helpful for our discussion here and points out several of the flaws in the Founders methods of dealing with CRT/I and does an excellent job of identifying the helpful and unhelpful aspects of CRT/I.
Second, I don’t consider Mohler or Brooks to be rabble rousers. I looked at the Mohler link (since he was interacting with Brooks’ article I didn’t go to that link) but the Mohler transcript in section 3, which is where he briefly discusses cultural Marxism, doesn’t mention CRT at all. So I don’t think you can draw any conclusions from that article about Mohler linking CRT with Marxism. I did a cursory Google search and didn’t find anything else, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Third, I have done a decent amount of research on the linking of CRT/I with Marxism since it’s the way CRT/I is being dismissed out of hand and without engagement by its most boisterous opponents. The flaw in their argument lies in the theory of Marxism which focuses on the sameness of the working class. Classical Marxists would be disinterested in the distinctions in CRT. I read a couple of different academic articles on the subject and also found that proponents of CRT are troubled by the Marxist focus on the collective, since one of the primary tenets of CRT is the individual nature of truth, especially as told thru ones own story.
There’s really very little compatibility between the two philosophies, although they do use similar language when discussing “oppression” they do so from very different starting points and seeking very different ends. You could make, and should in my opinion, that the dangers of CRT lie in its postmodern influences. Which, since they focus on deconstruction, pose a much more direct threat to the Gospel story, since the end of postmodern philosophy is always that nothing can be known for sure.
I think it’s important to understand CRT and intersectionality in an academic sense, since they are more and more part of the culture we live in. I think we need to be wise and take the good they offer (better ways to present the Gospel cross-culturally would be a good example) and leave out the garbage (such as ones own story or truth trumping verifiable facts)
Thanks for the interaction.
Ryan:
Here’s an article from Al Mohler showing the connection between Marxism and CRT.
https://albertmohler.com/2019/06/14/briefing-6-14-19
Mohler is not the only person to say this, but I have posted his article because you have admitted that he is not a rabble rouser and have cited his work approvingly.
This article could not be clearer. Mohler connects CRT to Marxism.
Mohler is not the first or last of the public intellectuals to note this.
I hope this article is helpful.
Louis,
Thanks for the article. Two quotes I would like to point out:
“In critical race theory, Derek Bell argued that the fundamental problem is white supremacy. Whereas, Marx and Ingels pointed to economic oppression, he pointed to white supremacy, which he argued is embedded throughout all of western civilization in its institution and laws”
In this quote, (and in a couple of other places) Mohler points out the facts I mentioned earlier- Marxism and CRT/I are systems dealing with oppression from two different cause points (hence their incompatibility) since one would seek “economic justice” and the other would seek alleviation of “white supremacy” as a means to end oppression. They are operating in two different spheres.
“Both critical race theory and intersectionality are a part of the continuing transformative Marxism, that is now so dominant in higher education and increasingly in policy.” I assume this is the quote that you would argue connects Marxism and CRT/I in Mohler’s mind. And it may very well. I will be honest and say it is a strange quote, since he spends the MAJORITY of this article highlighting the differences between CRT/I and Marxism. If his assertion here is they are the same, then I would disagree with him, and so would much of the secular academy (I will drop one link for your consideration at the end of this comment, but there is a lot of writing on this subject)
Thanks for the link, it is helpful for further study, and I’m enjoying the deeper dive into these issues.
Link:
http://www.historicalmaterialism.org/articles/intersectionality-and-marxism
Thanks for reading and the commentary. I’ll read the piece you cited, and let you know if I have any insights.
If I am reading you correctly, because CRT/I’s concern is not economics, you would not see it connected to Marxism because Marx dealt with economics. Oppressor/oppressed in the economic sense.
What I have understood from my reading is that the Marxists in Europe later in the 20th Century did not see the fulfillment of Marxism economically, and they figured it was because the cultural institutions prevented it. Thus, the cultural institutions had to be transformed through the same paradigm – Oppressor/oppressed – but in the cultural sense. So instead of Bourgeoisie/Proletariat, they focused on race, gender, religion, and sexuality. With the oppressors being White, Male, Christian, heterosexual, cisgendered, and the oppressed being non-white, female, non-Christian, homosexual, and transgendered.
If I am reading you correctly, you don’t deny that historical development.
But you don’t like it being linked to Marx because Marx was economic.
I don’t agree, but I don’t believe the labels are the significant issues. I also believe it is designed to lead to economic changes ultimately, so it may be a distinction without a difference.
But the good thing about a continuing discussion is that people continue to relate, and that promotes a better understanding, even though there may not be agreement.
I will read the piece you cited, and I will get back to you.
Thanks.
Ryan:
Thanks for the link to the Marxist Journal, Historical Materialism: Research in Critical Marxist Theory.
The article that you linked to discusses the differences between Marxism and Intersectionality, as well as their shared concerns and goals.
It’s a long article and more than a bit tedious.
It’s difficult to summarize the entire thing, but to boil it down to a useful analogy, the theories might be called “cousins”, rather than Intersectionality being strictly an offspring of Marxism.
Still, there is plenty of overlap.
I can see your concern about speaking correctly about these theories if for no other reason than to be intellectually correct.
In the SBC discussions, I believe that the goals of these theories, with their overlapping concerns, render them subject to the criticism that has been levied. But a more sophisticated and accurate discussion never hurt anyone.
Thanks, again.
Appreciate your thoughts here. Thanks
No one will care, but the link to Founder’s has been deleted from all my devices. The reason is because they now appear to have entered the very dangerous realm of sad theological clowns.
Note to esteemed readers: It is unlikely that a comment with a bunch of links will get through. Thanks.
Gotcha, Thanks for the heads up William…when mine went to moderation that is what I figured.
Absent the links, my main point is CRT and Intersectionality have been written about for some time well before our SBC bruhaha. Many academic and educational articles have been written since 1977 and many show some linkage to Marxism. There are others that say there is only slight links and a few say no link. These articles are from non-Christian sources in most cases. So to say there is NO link between the two is not so. CRT has also a strong link with people like Farrekan and many like him. That would NOT be an endorsement at all in the Christian world. To me, CRT theory is about equal with evolution.
Now with all that said, I would not give any credence to the CRT thought process nor use it for anything other than to start a fire with it. It certainly is not in any way a necessary tool for preaching the gospel and actually is in opposition to such. ..
One of the Esteemed Readers
Agreed, Alan.
I am not and have never been a “founders fan”. My thoughts on this have nothing to do with the documentary nor anything whatsoever to do with what Tom Ascol, or anyone else from founders, has said on the subject…
This is what I believe and believed long before “resolution number nine“:
In faithfully preaching the Scriptures one must, as a text requires, preach “against” racism and oppression of those who are created in the image of God… But one can, and must, do so biblically and without touching, even intentionally, staying away from CRT and intersectionality.