I am going to do something a bit cumbersome and pedantic in this post. I have copied the entire text of the controversial Resolution 9 from 2019 which has been the source of so much argument. I am going to comment on it section by section and ask those who are so upset about it to identify exactly what their issue is with it. It should be fairly clear which parts are the text of the resolution and which parts are my comments.
Definitions:
Defining CRT and I is anything but easy. Here is my attempt.
Critical Race Theory – The UCLA School of Public Affairs in an article called “What is Critical Race Theory” says this.
CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.
The Center on Public Integrity has an extensive article on the subject. Finding a simple definition is difficult.
As I understand it, at its simplest, CRT asserts that racism is not just individual, but structural and societal. One of the problems in this discussion is that the very title, CRT, becomes something of a Rorschach test – we all see what we want to see.
Intersectionality – is a bit easier to grasp. It is the idea that different aspects of social and political identity combine to create different levels of privilege and discrimination. Gender, race, caste/social standing, sexuality, religion, disability, and other physical traits can all be part of intersectionality.
It probably comes up in the SBC because both race and sexual abuse are issues in our midst.
I am an expert in neither of these and neither are those who made a huge issue about these. We are fighting about things that are hard to understand, that are largely defined subjectively, and can be a bit nebulous in our discussions.
Resolution 9 with Comments
The “Whereas” statements are meant to make statements of fact, not arguments or “resolutions.” If the resolution is well-written, the Whereas sections should state nearly undisputed facts. The facts here seem fairly straightforward. For the sake of reference in our discussion, I am adding numbers to each section which did not appear in the original. There are 13 Whereas statements and 8 Resolved statements.
(1) WHEREAS, Concerns have been raised by some evangelicals over the use of frameworks such as critical race theory and intersectionality; and
No debate here. Anyone?
(2) WHEREAS, Critical race theory is a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society, and intersectionality is the study of how different personal characteristics overlap and inform one’s experience; and
Perhaps a slightly more extensive definition might have helped here. These definitions are simple to a fault and have exacerbated the discussion. Of course, the criticism applies to resolutions in general. They are simple treatments of often complex subjects.
(3) WHEREAS, Critical race theory and intersectionality have been appropriated by individuals with worldviews that are contrary to the Christian faith, resulting in ideologies and methods that contradict Scripture; and
Some might be surprised to see this here. This is the argument that many have made, and here it is in Res 9. I think the only issue might be with the wording “appropriated by.” The critics of CRT/I would reword that to something like “originated among” or something. We would all agree to the core idea – CRT/I is generally not practiced by Christians, but is it fundamentally anti-Christian or not?
(4) WHEREAS, Evangelical scholars who affirm the authority and sufficiency of Scripture have employed selective insights from critical race theory and intersectionality to understand multifaceted social dynamics; and
This is indisputable, though controversial. People who affirm the BF&M and affirm inerrancy believe that it is possible to gain insights from CRT/I. The key here is “selective insights” as opposed to using them as the framework for truth.
Critics of CRT/I question whether it is appropriate for people to do so, but it is undeniable that faithful, orthodox, conservative scholars have drawn “selective insights” from CRT/I that they do not believe are in conflict with Scripture.
(5) WHEREAS, The Baptist Faith and Message states, “[A]ll Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried” (Article I); and
Need we argue this one? We accept what the BF&M says about God’s word and its authority.
(6) WHEREAS, General revelation accounts for truthful insights found in human ideas that do not explicitly emerge from Scripture and reflects what some may term “common grace”; and
This is accepted by most of us in other academic areas. We say, “All truth is God’s truth,” and gain insights where we do not agree completely with frameworks. The argument seems to be that CRT/I is so corrupt that there are no truthful insights to be gained from it.
(7) WHEREAS, Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify, which result from sin, yet these analytical tools can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences; and
CRT/I are analytical tools only, and not solutions. They cannot diagnose or discover truth and certainly cannot solve our social ills. On this we agree.
(8) WHEREAS, Scripture contains categories and principles by which to deal with racism, poverty, sexism, injustice, and abuse that are not rooted in secular ideologies; and
Scripture is our truth.
(10) WHEREAS, Humanity is primarily identified in Scripture as image bearers of God, even as biblical authors address various audiences according to characteristics such as male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and free; and
Though we are one people, united as image-bearers in Christ, there are human differences. Race is real here in this world and denying that it exists is wishful thinking and harmful to the church.
(11) WHEREAS, The New Covenant further unites image bearers by creating a new humanity that will one day inhabit the new creation, and that the people of this new humanity, though descended from every nation, tribe, tongue, and people, are all one through the gospel of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:16; Revelation 21:1–4, 9–14); and
Does anyone want to dispute this?
(12) WHEREAS, Christian citizenship is not based on our differences but instead on our common salvation in Christ—the source of our truest and ultimate identity; and
Again, does not seem like we are this statement is in dipute.
(13) WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention is committed to racial reconciliation built upon biblical presuppositions and is committed to seeking biblical justice through biblical means; now, therefore, be it
This statement is ideal. The SBC corporately has adopted resolutions and motions that commit us to racial reconciliation. There are some who are not on board with all of this, but since 1995 we have been on record against racism.
(14) RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, June 11–12, 2019, affirm Scripture as the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to redress social ills, and we reject any conduct, creeds, and religious opinions which contradict Scripture; and be it further
There are eight “resolved” statements that express the opinion and views of the gathered messengers of the 2019 convention. There seem to be two of these “resolved” statements that are deeply controversial and a couple of others that critics would quarrel with as to wording.
Resolved statement 1 seems without controversy. Scripture is authoritative and sufficient.
(15) RESOLVED, That critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture—not as transcendent ideological frameworks; and be it further
Resolved #2 is where the sparks begin to fly. Can CRT/I be employed as “analytical tools subordinate to Scripture?”
NOTE: Resolution 9 makes it clear that CRT/I is not to be a “trascendent idealogical framework” but only as an analytical tool under the Lordship of Christ in subordination to Scripture, based on common grace/general revelation principles.
Is this possible?
More importantly, should we not see this as a disagreement between faithful brothers and sisters instead of employing the extreme and apocalyptic language that has been used?
(16) RESOLVED, That the gospel of Jesus Christ alone grants the power to change people and society because “he who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Philippians 1:6); and be it further
Anyone disagree?
(17) RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists will carefully analyze how the information gleaned from these tools are employed to address social dynamics; and be it further
If you believe what Resolved statement 2 says, this makes sense. If you reject statement 2, this is unnecessary.
(18) RESOLVED, That Southern Baptist churches and institutions repudiate the misuse of insights gained from critical race theory, intersectionality, and any unbiblical ideologies that can emerge from their use when absolutized as a worldview; and be it further
We would all agree with this statement, of course, but the critics of CRT/I would say that all use qualifies misuse. They would quarrel, it seems, with the distinction between the acceptable use and unacceptable use of CRT/I.
(19) RESOLVED, That we deny any philosophy or theology that fundamentally defines individuals using categories identified as sinful in Scripture rather than the transcendent reality shared by every image bearer and divinely affirmed distinctions; and be it further
Not sure how anyone would disagree with this.
(20) RESOLVED, That while we denounce the misuse of critical race theory and intersectionality, we do not deny that ethnic, gender, and cultural distinctions exist and are a gift from God that will give Him absolute glory when all humanity gathers around His throne in worship because of the redemption accomplished by our resurrected Lord; and be it finally
Statement 7 here uses a word that some would quarrel with, the focus of the debate. Resolution 9, statement 7 condemns the “misuse” of CRT/I while critics would seem to argue that any use is misuse. Some would disagree with the assertion that ethnic distinctions exist, asserting that the “only race is the human race.”
(21) RESOLVED, That Southern Baptist churches seek to exhibit this eschatological promise in our churches in the present by focusing on unity in Christ amid image bearers and rightly celebrate our differences as determined by God in the new creation.
Even critics would, I assume, agree with this – that the promise of all peoples worshiping together as one people in eternity is to be celebrated.
Summary: The issue is fairly straightforward, according to Resolution 9. All agree that as a “transcendent ideological framework” CRT/I is unbiblical and unacceptable. The only point of difference is whether we can gain insights from CRT/I that can be used in a biblical framework. Accusations of Marxism and liberalism are dishonest.
This is a disagreement among BF&M-affirming Baptists about the application of common grace/general revelation principles to CRT/I.
Comments and Questions
1. Though I attempted to define terms, this discussion will perhaps derail at that point! One person will say CRT/I is this and another will say it is that. The failure to establish a clear definition of terms is a real issue here. It helps if each of us realizes this and does not expect that OUR definition is the standard for everyone. As always, a little humility goes a long way.
2. The history of Resolution 9 must be remembered. A resolution was offered on CRT/I that was strongly worded – it would have pleased all the anti-CRT, anti-Resolution 9 folks. Perhaps the Resolution committee would have been wise to simply ignore it and move on as they do with many resolutions annually, but they created this as a compromise resolution. They joined the original in affirming the BF&M and setting Scripture as our source of truth, but they said that on the basis of General Revelation, there could be limited insights from CRT/I.
3. The issue is not between those who embrace CRT/I fully and those who reject it completely. It is dishonest to present it as such. Resolution 9 clearly says that CRT/I is not a biblical framework and that only Scripture gives us truth and life-solutions. The issue is between those who believe that SOME helpful insights can be gained from the unbiblical CRT/I system and those who say NO helpful insights can be gained. It is a debate about common grace and general revelation.
4. The suspicion among many is that the real issue is not CRT as an analytical tool, but the existence of systemic racism. Is racism ONLY an individual problem or is it in governments and justice systems and societies and other institutions? To many Black pastors and believers, the denial of systemic racism is essentially a denial of their experience and a cover-up of the racism they have experienced.
5. If you read what people say about Resolution 9 and then read Resolution 9, it can be enlightening.
Challenge – those of you who rail against Resolution 9, please be specific. What is your problem with it? Why is it impossible to gain SOME insights from CRT/I?
Please keep in mind Dave’s request that comments deal with the resolution text itself. So far several comments have ignored this and jumped straight to assertions about CRT in general and other aspects that skip the initial work of dealing what the resolution actually says.
Wheres the text of the resolution?
Quoted throughout the article and linked at the beginning. Also here: https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/on-critical-race-theory-and-intersectionality/
The entire text of the resolution is in the post.
The resolution was not necessary…it was controversial and divisive….the CRT definition you reference accepts the premise that institutional racism is present in the dominant culture (white privilege and white supremacy). If that were true how does one reconcile the election of President Barack Obama? The true fabric of our society is not what this theory promotes.
Dave’s request was for people to deal with the specifics of the resolution text.
Did you even read my post? You just want to be upset but don’t want to be informed. Right?
CRT definition in response came from your post….CRT is subject of resolution…
I would have argued against the necessity of the resolution as well, however it has become a talking point in our seminaries and culture at large, therefore while perhaps not patently necessary, it is ultimately relevant.
Talking points should be tried for truth or opinion before subjugation of academic declaration. Having that discussion would be relevant.
If one inserted “gnosticism” in place of CRT/I what would these resolutions and whereas statements sound like? Could someone glean “truths” from gnosticism, or would we arrive where the NT writers, inspired by the Holy Spirit land. Resolution 9 has much good in it, much affirmation of scriptural authority. The problem I see is the slippery slope. CRT/I are based upon unbiblical, atheistic worldviews.
For an example of slippery slope, I remember reading older Biblical commentaries from the 1920s I think, which assumed Darwins theory of natural selection and the origin of species as a given truth. The commentators were, I hope and trust, born again believers, yet the lense through which they were seeing and viewing scripture was an unbiblical one.
Our generation of believers would not the the first to overestimate its ability to utilize “all truth” which was not truth, neither in fact nor in worldview, or to underestimate the destructive results of doing so.
This isn’t very thorough, but my concerns are with the points that you addressed as controversial and problematic to some. Namely, can the church utilize unbiblical, indeed, antibiblical ideas as tools. Wouldn’t it be better to resolve our need to address the issues with CRT/I. While resolution 9 does resolve to reject the worldview, it assumes that a philosopher, professor, or even pastor “should” be open to using the ideas (tools) if offers.
I would agree that not everyone who does so is slip sliding away. But other believers may be led away from scripture/biblical worldview, and I don’t think that’s debatable. They already have, not just with CRT/I of course. It’s tragic. I know some personally.
I see the concern of the apostles John and Paul in regard to gnosticism, as an example to learn from and follow. They regard the unbiblical philosophies/worldviews as anathema. I am concerned about the message sent as CRT/I being harvested for “useful ideas” and seeing scripture through a clouded lense.
Dave’s request was for people to deal with the specifics of the resolution text.
CRT/I is not gnosticism.
Clearly, you don’t want to make an informed comment.
Dave, I understand that CRT/I is not gnosticism. I was attempting an informed comment. Didn’t want to post and be unhelpful in conversation. Thanks.
Gnosticism is a philosophy, not a critical societal analysis, therefore your analogy falls flat. Does the Resolution say anything wrong? Where and how?
4, 7, 15, 17, and 18. I could only affirm these paragraphs if we removed every hint that CRT/I offers us anything positive in the way of insights, tools, or analysis.
We should totally reject CRT/I, in the same way that we reject the Book of Mormon, the mission of Planned Parenthood, and the use of the Ouija Board. We do not say of these things, “Use the good and reject the bad.” We simply and clearly warn folks to stay away.
Not really a fair comparison. CRT should be compared to things like Psychology, Modern Science, Naturalism, etc. We reject many of the presuppositions and overall worldview and recognize the dangers of adopting the system, but realize there are some things that we can learn from these disciplines as we filter them through a biblical worldview. We don’t reject things learned from scientific discovery just because we reject the naturalistic worldview that undergirds it. We instead recognize the tools but evaluate everything by Scripture.
I consider CRT/I to be a worldly philosophy and not a scientific discovery. I might agree with your view if one valid insight on racism could be gleaned from CRT/I that could not be gleaned from Scripture alone. Lacking that, I just don’t believe CRT/I has anything of value for us. It does, however, offer much that is harmful.
That seems to me like a circular argument. If you disagree with the insight or find it challenges your current view, you would deem it as invalid. Rather than interact with CRT, you can just dismiss it.
Precisely. Dismiss it in no uncertain terms. Leave no wiggle room for so-called insights. It is not of God, but is a worldly philosophy rooted in Satanic lies. Do not partly embrace it and partly oppose it. Totally oppose it.
Bingo, RIck.
As others have tried to assert and were shut down – the whole premise of the resolution (and supportive SBC friends) assumes, at least some, validity to CRT/I…that in itself is the problem many of us see with the resolution. Attempts at the convention to make it clear that CRT is dangerous and is born and applied as a godless worldview and were shot down, attempts since to object have been vilified.
I guess we should do a resolution next that we can glean truth from Harry Emerson Fosdick about the resurrection…because, hey – there is something to glean from everything.
This right here. It is the fact that the resolution takes a “Scripture plus…” connotation that is problematic. I think listening to folks who have made this stuff their hill to die on is important. Their concerns and feelings are important. But the sole determiner of Christian thought and conduct is Scripture plus zero.
Actually, Rick, your comment here a couple of days ago inspired this post.
I appreciate you being specific.
Rick, can we agree that the issue is whether common grace/general revelation makes insights from CRT/I usable among those who uniformly reject it as an overall template?
We may disagree on the answer but can we agree on the question?
I might phrase it a bit differently. I would say the issue is first, whether CRT/I offers us any useful insights at all that cannot be gleaned from a biblical template, and second, whether it is wise to suggest CRT/I offers us something useful when it carries so much other baggage contrary to Scripture. Some of us not only see the downside of CRT/I being great, but we also see no upside at all.
Granted, you have a different view. My point is that within the SBC the debate is not CRT vs NO CRT but whether some insight can be gained from that academic pursuit.
I am not expecting you to agree as to the outcome.
Yes, I like that phrasing better. “Can some insight be gained from CRT/I?” Those who argue against the possibility of such insight reason that if the entire framework is unbiblical, any insights based upon it are likewise questionable.
I believe the framework of modern psychology and even psychiatry are unbiblical in general, but certain insights can be gained.
CRT shows how human systems can be corrupted by sin. Though they come at it from an unbiblical mindset, the fact that racism corrupts human institutions is evident.
I do not see how it stands as so uniquely irredeemable.
Dave, may I ask (no snark) what texts or other sources you have read about CRT/I, either by its proponents or those just analyzing it? Sharing that could be helpful to us all. Thanks.
Great train of thought…..Neil Shenvi mentions in most of his teachings on CRT, what the main textbooks are to read on this subject. Neil is brilliant so much of what he mentions is scholarly. Note: Neil has been invited to speak at Southeastern Seminary.
Inasmuch as Psychology and Psychiatry attempt to understand how the mind works: whatsoever is true about the mind and how we heal it, is true because God made it true, and life is all about testing things against God’s Word. I have learned many things about myself studying the work of Tony Robbins or other mindset psychology folks, and have found much within that lines up with Scripture. It works much better as a filter than rejecting things wholesale.
“Those who argue against the possibility of such insight reason that if the entire framework is unbiblical, any insights based upon it are likewise questionable.”
I believe that the main reason for the disagreement is because the so-called “insight” is fundamentally flawed at the outset, being formed and categorized by such an unbiblical worldview and methodology in the first place.
The Apostle Paul leveraged pagan worldviews and theology into reasoning with the Scriptures. CRT/I can be used the same way. Even if to discount everything within CRT/I, it can prove useful.
Where? Surely you don’t mean in Acts 17?
Dave, the problem is that the resolution is proposing an incompatible union of a biblical worldview and CRT/I, while attempting to hold Scripture as authoritative and as CRT/I’s master. But CRT/I imports a worldview that was birthed from postmodernism, which denies absolute truth and God’s authority. It’s primary mode of operation is to deconstruct. Just as higher critical methods began to deconstruct the Bible, so will CRT/I. It is naive to think that incorporating CRT/I scholarship and activism will not cause problems in our seminary education. Furthermore, it’s deconstructive application is not limited to race. In the end, in a CRT/I worldview, the Bible will ultimately be viewed as part of the oppression (on race, gender, sexuality, marriage, etc.). It is my opinion that Resolution 9 had the seminaries in mind, considering who was on the committee and their personal reading in and teaching of CRT/I (Woods & Strickland). And Curtis Woods is a personal friend. Those of us who are vocally opposing it are not denying that racism impacts how people have and continue to interact on many personal and societal levels. We are arguing that CRT/I poses an existential threat to biblical fidelity – that is the rub. That is the discussion we should be having. I have been doing my homework (by no means an expert). So, please don’t assume that critics of CRT/I are not educating themselves on the topic. By the way, I did a paragraph by paragraph critique of the resolution on my blog back in March.
Thank you, Daryl. In all that I have read and listened to recently, your position seems to clearly “get it.” Also, those of us that see the dangers in trying to entwine CRT/I with a Biblical world view are tired of being told that we are causing dissension, distrust and in some cases, slander. We are not doing this. We are questioning something that has been rammed down our throats without time to truly investigate – to investigate all the way back to The Frankfurt School and what exactly The Frankfurt School was teaching. We are not racists either. We want to do life, do church, in such a way that it lines up with God’s Word and not man’s theories. By God’s grace, 2020 SBC did not happen and we have another year to get “read up,” educated and become more like the Bereans. If things get “hot” in 2021, we will not be the cause of that. So much will be at stake.
Thanks Sam, sounds like you “get it” too. I believe one man, Dr. Mohler, could do much during the next six months before Nashville. The focus of CRT/I is primarily coming from his faculty. The drama around it has been mainly at SBTS. He is running for president. He has the unique ability right now to speak clearly into this and take concrete actions. What he does or chooses not to do between now and Nashville will set the tone.
I know I didn’t cite specifics from the resolution, but I wanted to speak to the overall flawed thinking that lies beneath its very existence. Her is the link to my detailed critique of every word of it. Similarly to what Dave has done here. https://sbcvoices.com/whats-your-problem-with-resolution-9-be-specific/#comment-385293
This may be a gross generalization and simplification… but instead of questioning each others spirituality and commitment to Christ. Is this conversation more about the usefulness and place of common grace in the lives of the Christian. The anti-CRT/I camp holds to a rejection of all social science, common grace, as helpful for the lives of the believer. While Resolution 9 is acknowledging the fact that because we are made in the image of God, everyone can see God’s wisdom in the world. This camp would most likely believe it our job as believers to take that “perceived wisdom” and filter it through the lens of Scripture.
My questions and observations
#1 –Whereas statement #1 , Who really raised the concerns cited. Was this an issue that the convention delegates and general SBC membership were aware of, concerned with or studying. This was a leadership issue of educational leaders, SBC leaders and should not have been introduced into a convention that had little knowledge or interest in the subject. Which leads me to my ongoing question–Why was it even brought up?
#2–Whereas is a good point , too complex , to opinioned to be part of resolutions.
#3– Whereas 3
CRT used to evaluate SBC organization, leadership, functioning, goals etc. would arrive at a pro SBC opinion? Better question is CRT really neutral not anti Christian. The history of Christianity viewed thought CRT lens would not be positive.
#4- Selective insights gleamed from CRT is cited. Again, that is the job of scholars, leadership, teachers and those who lead in any organization. One can get selective insights from many sources that are not good but have some useful insight. The Communist Constitution was a great document that was not followed but had some great insight, many fascist government founding documents had some great insights. This is were discernment and leadership comes in.
I will stop here as it will be too long in one post. I will state again CRT was not needed and I believe was injected to do just what happened, create controversy and an ongoing debate.
Yesterday William Thornton posted a good informative article about increased membership of non Anglo people in SBC. I made a comment that was really not related to his point and what he was trying to convey. While not meaning to I got into politics and social issues that needed not to to be included in the discussion . That is what I feel about CRT, it was not needed and I just cannot understand why it was included in Resolutions. Luckily for SBC most pew sitters are totally unaware of the issue, as usual.
For the LAST TIME – it was brought up because of CRT opponents and their anti-CRT resolution. this was a compromise. I have said this 2,000,000 times, but you guys either do not read it or just ignore it. You would rather keep your anti-CRT narrative than speak the truth.
If you want to ask, “Why was this brought up?” ask the Founders-types who submitted the original resolution.
I wish it was the last time, but CRT opponents do not listen and refuse to receive the truth, so someone else will say, “Why did they bring it up?” Ignoring facts and truth is common here.
Dave, it is true that the originally submitted resolution was denouncing CRT/I and calling it out as an ideology injurious to gospel and biblical fidelity. The committee turned it on its head and essentially wrote a new resolution. It probably would have been wisest to have brought no resolution at all.
Just read this. Sad. Never thought you, Dave , would respond to those who don’t agree with you on this as those who “don’t listen and refuse to receive the truth.” Sadly, this statement is so sophomoric. Just because we don’t agree on CRT. Racism is a Biblical issue and needs to be addressed. CRT? Not the same thing.
18) RESOLVED, That Southern Baptist churches and institutions repudiate the misuse of insights gained from critical race theory, intersectionality, and any unbiblical ideologies that can emerge from their use when absolutized as a worldview; and be it further
A list of misuse of insights and unbiblical ideologies that are repudiated would be most helpful. This line is weak and appears written from a place of fear; we are courageous enough to say there are problems with CRT/I but we are not courageous enough to name them.
.
Excellent observation. Throughout the resolution there are no specifics to what the committee had in mind by how CRT/I is misappropriated or misused. It is one of the points of vagueness that makes it a confusing resolution, especially in discerning its intent.
Thank you Dean. I am so sick of the “logical fallacy” being thrown at those of us that think CRT/I is not Biblical, that we are rabble rousers, bigoted, ignorant, etc. Wow, “logical fallacy 101” to name call just because we do not agree – Godly men and women that are African American or another race, would agree, CRT/I is not the way to go. “Truth” has nothing to do with this as the basis of CRT/I is not truth. I love how one side throws their “idea of truth” at the other side with their “idea of truth.” Many of us had not even heard of “The Founders,” but after reading this blog, now I know. Many, they have many good points and it is not because they are trying to cause dissent or are bigots….Just an opposing side. After reading the CRT/I stuff on here I actually watched the documentary on all of this….. Very informative.
I’m not a critic, didn’t vote for it (or against it). Things that puzzle me about it include:
“Critical race theory is a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society, and intersectionality is the study of how different personal characteristics overlap and inform one’s experience;”
I never understood the whole “analytical tool” business. It sounds sophisticated and academic. Who would object to ‘analytical tools’? More often than not, the phrase has been used to cover the whole R9 controversy, ie, “It’s only an analytical tool.”
It’s not in keeping with Dave’s article, so I can’t say that R9 as a whole, separate from its specifics has handed critics a sledgehammer…so I won’t say it. The seminary presidents have tried to disarm critics. Don’t think it worked.
The whole thing is confusing and Baptists like simple clarity.
That said, I think Dave’s article is excellent and some of the comments are as well.
William, after reading much of what Dave has written over the months, I discovered the documentary made by Tom Ascol. Quite informative. A friend of mine was on the committee so for almost 18 months,I have been hearing things from his side. Then I began to listen to Voddie and Monique Duscon who are both black and well versed in it – Monique was a big proponent until she analyzed it up against Scripture. Took a few years but she has done a 180 and knowledgeable – inside and out. Our SBC body needs to listen to others such as Voddie and Monique who are not SBC but “make it plain.” My wife first enlightened me to them. Thankful.
Sam or Meg. It might be good to pick a name, your real one, and use it.
Your comments are welcome.
Husband:/wife!! After long time of marriage and much discussion….thank you though!!!
Got it. Understand.
Not only the “misuse,” but the “use” of CRT is unwise.
I am glad our SBC seminary presidents condemned both racism and the Critical Race Theory. Why not simply judge others by their character, rather than the color of their skin?
CRT was founded in Marxism / Communism.
CRT is racist toward White people and gives preferential treatment to Black people. It says most all Whites are racist, unless I suppose, they agree with CRT.
CRT wants to view everything through the prism of race.
CRT wants to make all Black people victims. Many, many Blacks, however, are very successful in America. Many bemoan hearing Black activists, who make ten times their salary, complain about how tough they have it.
If there is so much systemic racism in the USA, why do so many Backs emigrate to America each year? Blacks around the world wish to come to America.
Let’s condemn racism and CRT. Let’s do our best to treat everyone equally.
David R. Brumbelow
Amen.
For some reason, the link was left out of my previous comment. It is a detailed statement about CRT from a conservative point of view. The Heritage link:
https://www.heritage.org/civil-rights/report/critical-race-theory-the-new-intolerance-and-its-grip-america
David R. Brumbelow
As a layman who watches the affairs of the SBC, I have a couple of comments to offer: 1. Why did this resolution even get introduced and then passed? If all we are talking about is CRT/I as a “useful tool,” why is it not a discussion relegated to the pages of theological publications? It seems to me that a game was afoot, and while I am not privy to the Machiavellian machinations of the ordained, the game was on and a line drawn. (I know this one does not respond directly to the post, Dave). 2. With that said, I have looked into the issue, at least as one who has tried to plow through Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, and I can see usefulness in CRT/I in at least how we handle the Bible and how we arrive at our decisions, especially theological ones. If nothing else, our so-called founders and “theological forefathers” seemed to use their power as white men to promulgate a Biblical basis for the brutality of slavery. That insight alone ought to be edifying, if nothing else. 3. To me, CRT/I (as well as Critical Theory from which it derives) is useful at making us look closer at why we make the decisions we do. Most of my decisions are not Christlike until I make them so – usually after slapping myself upside the head in order to recollect that God has something to do with it all. 4. Finally, let me posit a question and we can see if CRT/I is a useful tool to explain something that simply baffles me. As the SBC elite huffs and puffs that we are Christians and that Christians cannot a priori be racist, why did Southern Seminary not simply remove the names of the transgressing “great” men’s names from certain buildings? Especially when asked respectfully to do so by one of our brothers (please note I did not append the normative descriptor “black” or “African-American” to this brother)? Lots of talk about theological contributions, repentance, “we all sin”, and such. Really? What really is going on? Power politics (usually as played in the big donor/supporter category)? Was the underlying basis racist (perhaps self-denied – dare I say “systemic”) with an eye to the politics of culture (e.g., Black Lives Matter, riots in the wake of George Floyd, statute toppling)? In the decision of Southern Seminary to keep the names on buildings, I find CRT/I might give us a clue if we actually pursue… Read more »
Wow. It’s worse than I remembered.
This is Exhibit A as to why the Resolutions Committee should not be weighed so heavily with academics.
I am still baffled why the Res Com would not accept Ascol’s amendment.
As a lawyer, there is hardly a document that I could criticize or improve. Likewise, I would expect people to say the same of my work. But reading this, I jump off when you read UCLA’s definition, which from what I have been reading and listening to over the last couple of years, seems like a good description for CRT. Reading this: CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color. makes me throw up in my mouth. Racism is not engrained in the fabric of American society. It is not pervasive in the dominant culture. Seeing things this way and then examining “power structures” is the problem. Seeing people and society like this is very sad. It will make a person or a denomination race obsessed and power obsessed. That’s why we see normal, good people, standing up in front of Christian audiences saying “I am a racist.” Because they believe the core tenants of CRT and therefore they believe they are racist and will be until they die because they live in this society. And they believe that about every other white person in the society, too. “People of color” are not perpetually marginalized in this society. It’s a bogus claim to begin with. It wasn’t always true. Slavery ended in 1865 (165 years ago – and the US was not the last to outlaw slavery), lots of other practices ended after that, school deseg was announced by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1954 (66 years ago), the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 (56 years ago), and a host of legislation was passed after that. The US is incredibly diverse ethnically. In our own church, we have interracial adoptions and marriages. In 2015, 17% of newlyweds in the US were married to a person of a different race. I will be glad to examine any policy or idea that can improve society. But those problems need to be identified and named. Not assumed. And the cause needs to be named – not assumed to be racism. That’s what… Read more »
Could you at least interact with tge specifics of the resolution a LITTLE?
I did. I noted the paragraph at the bottom about CRT/I being “appropriated”.
Those comments are very specific.
No, you spent most of it decrying CRT/I (rightly, imo), and part of it decrying what the Resolution *didn’t* say. “Being appropriated” is not specific, but in fact, very much a generalization.
Criticizing the “being appropriated” language and stating why is a specific criticism.
Most pastors I speak to about CRT/I today have the same opinion that Gary Cooper had of Marxism in 1947.
https://youtu.be/gkViHgIs2WM
Disclaimers:. I do not affirm Critical Race Theory a the philosophical basis for reshaping society, indoctrinating students, or cultural change. I believe that the initial resolution was myopic in approach and should have been dropped.
With that out of the way, the resolution seemed far too long and said things that could easily be misconstrued without careful consideration of broader context within the document itself. Within the broader context of the document itself, I see nothing glaringly worthy of the stern condemnation the resolution has received. There is simply no way condemn such an ill concept as CRT in a concise manner that doesn’t cause collateral condemnation. Whether necessary or not, this resolution seems to put a fence around CRT rather than risk collateral condemnation.
Right, I think the error is requiring us to live with the idea that CRT is a good thing to have.
As Dave’s second article points out, it’s hard to understand CRT except in what it’s in opposition to. And what CRT is tacitly in in opposition to is the traditional, MLK/NAACP approach to non-violent racial reconciliation. CRT tries to explain why MLK and the Civil Rights Movement “failed” at creating a society that *can* reconcile.
And I think Baptists are not sure MLK failed at creating a creating a society that *can* reconcile. The debate about “what else must happen before we can reconcile” is the debate. And Resolution 9 affirms there’s something we must assume is right and good when CRT says “we can’t yet reconcile in this social order, and may never reconcile in this social order.”
You posted this at the beginning of the discussion from an outside source, UCLA School of Public Affairs.
CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.
In this discussion there are plenty of comments which put a reverse spin on the fact that institutional racism exists in American society and that white privilege and white supremacy perpetuate the marginalization of people of color. I don’t see any acknowledgement or recognition of those facts in this discussion, but I do see people talk about self-victimization among African Americans. .
Could that explain the opposition to the resolution? Does it put the SBC, at least at the last convention meeting, on the record as acknowledging instutitional racism?
From the “other” Baptist press:
”Critical Race Theory grew out of the work of legal scholars of color who recognized how racism was structured in law, although now it is used across a wide variety of academic disciplines and activist work. CRT recognizes that racism, rather than being individual attitudes, is a system that produces and is produced by social institutions (like the church, education, medicine, media and law) and symbolic messages (like language and images).
CRT attempts to make these systems visible in order to dismantle them and build more inclusive, equitable and just structures.”
https://baptistnews.com/article/want-to-understand-critical-race-theory-read-the-good-samaritan-story/#.X9P77y08Igo
Wow, saying that “critical race theory grew out of the work of legal scholars of color …..” is no basis for which to say it is truth. It really grew out of The Frankfurt School which was in the 19th century. So the above quote is a 1/2 truth at best. Again, for an “easy understanding” Voddie B. Actually studied it while a student in England about 20 years ago.
From “our” Baptist Press:
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/naaf-ausberry-respond-to-seminary-presidents-statement/
Especially for those of us who have experienced the brunt of systemic racism in our daily lives, our seminary presidents are good men and they had good intent,” Ausberry said, “but the optics of six anglo brothers meeting to discuss racism and other related issues without having ethnic representation in the room in 2020, at worst it looks like paternalism, at best insensitivity. The only outcome can be from their life experience, which really ignores the broader family of Southern Baptists.”
marcus ausberry
See….
See what?
There was absolutely no good reason to have Resolution 9 enter the SBC sphere. I believe it was put up for a vote just to do what has happened, divide, confuse , argue and weakened the SBC. 95 percent of SBC do not know or care about CRT.
You keep saying that no matter. Now, it it clear you are lying. You have no excuse anymore
Am I missing something? I can’t find a place in the resolution deem cct it the intersectionality framework itself as umbiblical. In fact in point 3 the resolution implies that cct and Intersectionality are sound theories when they nuance between the theory and the misapplication of the theory. What is ultimately condemned in the resolution is not critical theory and intersectionality but the misapplication of these.
Yes. You are missing something.
Please enlighten me. Which point acknowledges any basic problem with crt. I can only find condemnation of some applications.
“ CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.”
Let us examine this jewel of an analytical tool:
STEP1: Presuppose racism. Everywhere.
STEP 2: Examine everything through the lens of said presupposition.
STEP 3: Discover racism everywhere.
STEP 4: Congratulate yourself for your astute use of a Marxist “analytical tool.”
Please…
Yes! That right there Randall Cofield.
I think the problem starts with:CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.
The tool, by definition, states that white privilege and white supremacy exist at all times and all places (interestingly, the opposite is not held as a possible ‘truth’)
A ‘useful’ tool helps us to drill down to the problem and hopefully along the line helps us to identify resolutions (in our case, hopefully, gospel resolutions) to the identified problems.
R9 & CRT/I presents this definition (or really an assumption) as ‘fact’ and the ‘useful tool’ becomes justification for identifying–in every situation–and demanding resolutions. The premise is there IS white privilege and white supremacy to be found…period.
This is much like conspiracy theorists–if you already believe in the conspiracy, it is easy to find ‘facts’ which support your belief. So then, R9 and CRT/I become the ‘justification’ for finding racism (individual or structural) all of the time, no matter how large or small the degree. It cannot, therefore, be a ‘useful tool’ for determining whether or not racism even exists and needs to be addressed.
The arguments that many make in support of the resolution are that we who oppose it do not understand it….If a group of educated pastors whom, I assume know the bible and its worldview teachings and warnings against “vain philosophy” do not understand it almost two years later…this highlights that:
WE DO NOT NEED TO BE DOING THESE TYPE OF RESOLUTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND CERTAINLY NOT WITH NO “LEAD TIME” IN THE LAST HOURS OF A CONVENTION.
Lots of people, many of whom are not theologically educated, “on the floor” simply voted “yes” because the committee presented it and it was defended from the platform – as is typically the custom.
Is it even possible to enumerate ways in which resolutions have had a positive impact on, well, anyone or anything? I’ll bet we can enumerate ways in which resolutions have hurt us. Well will we learn?
Bill, you and I are together on this.
And we really dodged a bullet when the SBC didn’t meet this year.
Amen Tarheel.
I assume people do not understand it because about 90% of what is said about it is false.
If people understand it, then the other option is that many are flat out lying about it.
Not accusing you, Dave, but I have seen so many who either willfully or ignorantly misrepresent Res 9.
The problem with Res9 is internal. [13] WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention is committed to racial reconciliation built upon biblical presuppositions and is committed to seeking biblical justice through biblical means… This ‘whereas’ denies the need for crt/i. It denies the need for using it as an analytical tool. Since crt/i is anti-biblical, whatever tools it brings are unneeded and against the SBC’s commitment to seeking Biblical justice through biblical means. Then piling on that point is: (14) RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, June 11–12, 2019, affirm Scripture as the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to redress social ills, and we reject any conduct, creeds, and religious opinions which contradict Scripture… Plainly this says that Scripture is the ONLY tool we need to redress social ills and that we are to reject crt/i since it is opposed/contradicts to Scripture. But… And here is the internal contradiction: (15) RESOLVED, That critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture—not as transcendent ideological frameworks; Confusion. In order to resolve in this way, one has to believe that crt/i does not contradict scripture. And that using it as a tool is not contradictory to scripture. That is a big leap. But the contradictions continue… 16) RESOLVED, That the gospel of Jesus Christ alone grants the power to change people and society because “he who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus… This RESOLVE tells us that the ‘tool’ of crt/i can not change anyone. For the Gospel “ALONE” grants the power to change people and society. So though it is contradictory to Scripture and has no power to change peope or society it still can be used as an analytical tool. For what purpose? Given the definitions put forth at the beginning of Dave’s article, it seems that it can be used as a tool to see who has privilege and how much. And not only which people are privileged but which institutions are racist. But in order to use it as a tool, you have to BUY INTO its underlying philosophical framework. Thus [15] RESOLVE is a self-contradicted position all on its own. Thus [17] + [18] RESOLVES are nonsense. And that truth is made evident by [19] + [20] RESOLVES,… Read more »
To piggyback on the above… Now why cant it be used as a tool WITHOUT buying into its framework? And how is this addressed in Res9? “CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.” Narrow it down from society. Is racism engrained in the fabric of the Church or as a system? Narrow it down from Church to the SBC. Surely there are different opinions on this. In some states maybe there is systematic racism. But thats too general. Certainly in those states there is some systematic racism. Certainly there are those who are racist but crt/i really isnt about that. It seeks to identify white privilege that marginalizes others without it. The framework is based on a worldly understanding of what is important. Crt/i looks at secular things and assigns levels to determine privilege. It looks at skin color, income, power, prestige, among others. These are the exact same things that Christians are not to look at. Rather we are to esteem each other better than ourselves. Yet the Apostles were all Jews. Did Jews have privilege? (19) RESOLVED, That we deny any philosophy or theology that fundamentally defines individuals using categories identified as sinful in Scripture rather than the transcendent reality shared by every image bearer and divinely affirmed distinctions; The answer is yes. The Gospel went to the Jews first. They were the Apostles. But they also were not to have pride in that. For the Word says that we are neither Jew nor Greek. But one in Christ. Thus it isnt necessarily wrong if say a huge majority of a board were white in color. We dont need crt/i to know that. Neither can it be used to find a new appointee, to direct the proper next steps, which would be what? To pray and seek God’s person regardless of skin tone, income, power or prestige. If there are individual racists exempting people of darker skin tones from certain offices and positions, do we need crt/i to determine if they are being sinful? Nope. But if they… Read more »
Mike,
Very good analysis. I know it took some time to organize your thoughts like this. I appreciate your doing so.
The SBC would have adopted the original resolution that was submitted if the Res Com had submitted it to the Convention.
But too many members of the Res Com use CRT in their teaching and lectures, but believe it’s ok because they are theologically orthodox and have signed all of the confessional documents. So to be intellectually honest they drafted a resolution which would put the SBC on record as supporting their approach.
Thank you for pointing out in your own words what many Christians initially noted and what more and more Christians in SBC churches are learning.
It’s a painful process to correct thinking and language that has only recently been adopted in SBC life, and now is being challenged.
The 6 seminary Presidents only spoke because they felt like they had to. And as William has surmised, it may not be enough. Time will tell.
Hey Dave and Todd – hope to see ya’ll in Nashville, and you both know I don’t wade into this kind of stuff but thought I’d say a few words about this.
1) I have long thought we have too many “controversial” resolutions at the SBC that don’t accomplish anything but cuase anger and division (plus give people who love to argue and opportunity to do so.
2) The entire problem with resolution 9 is found in whereas #2. CRT is not “a set of analytical tools.” It is a Marxist worldview because it divides humanity into oppressors and oppressed. The oppressed need to overthrow the oppressors so CRT is basically a call for a revolution. to make matters worse, it is Marxism applied to race, not just the means of production. Whites are the oppressors and everyone else is oppressed. As Bible-believing Christians we do not accept Marxism as an acceptable worldview nor do we divide humanity into dialectical categories. We also reject Hegelian philosophy. The problem with the entire resolution flows from the falacy that CRT is an evaluative tool rather than a worldview.
3) Intersectionality is not the same as CRT. It is the idea that there are multiple prejudices that effect people. The classic example is a company will hire a woman or an African-American but not a black woman. The prejudice against her involves an “intersection” of 2 levels. The resolution should have separated out CRT from Intersectionality for more clarity.
Ya’ll have a Merry Christmas!
Hey Paul, good to hear from you. I think your point (#2) does illustrate some of the divide here. Is it a set of analytical tools? Or is it a Marxist worldview? I think it’s possible for it to be both. I don’t see many or really anyone in the SBC saying it’s not an unbiblical worldview. Just that there are insights, conclusions, perspectives it provides that may be used by and even helpful to those of us who reject it.
An example I’ve heard from Neil Shevni is that idea that race is a social construct. He says (and he’s much more of an expert on this than most people talking about it) that’s an insight that comes from CRT. It’s also (I would argue) true AND consonant with what the Bible teaches.
I’d say the fallacy involved here is that people are asserting it must be EITHER a worldview OR an analytical tool, rather than allowing that it may be both depending on who is using it and how it’s being used – or more importantly what it is being used to say.
[…] have deeply appreciated Dave Miller’s recent remarks article about Resolution 9 (What’s YOUR Problem with Resolution 9 – Be Specific). He has graciously asked critics to provide substantive criticism of its text, and it appears no […]
[…] have deeply appreciated Dave Miller’s recent remarks article about Resolution 9 (What’s YOUR Problem with Resolution 9 – Be Specific). He has graciously asked critics to provide substantive criticism of its text, and it appears no […]
I’ve tried to think of an argument, but what I’ve concluded is that you are asking your readership these questions in bad faith. You are asking us the dissect the details of something we know is not biblical, as a whole, yet specific point out line by line, what’s wrong with it. There are good parts of every non biblical ideal, but it doesn’t mean they are appropriate to use as guides in the Christian church.
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. Matthew 24:24
I keep seeing folks say, “stick to the text of the resolution instead of directly addressing the ideas of CRT or intersectionalism.” Should this be the response if the resolution was based on ideas of white power?
I think what the author, and others, fail to realize is that CRT is seen as racist propaganda and, to a lesser degree of offense, intersectionalism is seen as viewing people merely by group identity instead of as individuals. The resolution itself does nothing more than say the SBC is claiming to be CRT lite. I don’t think the issue is what degree you’re adhering to CRT, but that it is being used at all. Failure to grasp this would seem to indicate a rather high degree of cluelessness concerning the outrage.
I’m assuming a major criticism to my opinion here could be: doesn’t matter how much you ‘feel’ it is racist, it isn’t.
If this is true, can you provide an example of how the CRT will be used that isn’t denigrating one group of people based on their skin color? It has been over a year after all, there should be some examples if it wasn’t merely virtue signaling.
If you can’t provide an example, how do you justify defending the policy? I’ve seen proponents of the resolution continually say that they haven’t read up enough on CRT itself and that they are unsure of the definitions being used.. so what is it they are defending? The perceived intentions?
“the road to hell is paved with good intentions”