Does Critical Race Theory Threaten the Gospel?

A lot of evangelicals are saying it does but I don’t see how.

Over the past month, I have been reading critical race theory analyses in search of how they might threaten religion in some manner. Thus far, I haven’t encountered any mention of the Bible, the gospel, or religious criticism. There is frequent mention of white privilege, colorblindness, and systemic racism. However, nothing in the analyses I have read asks anyone to change their religion or modify their beliefs in God. The only change at issue is social change in the direction of justice. Critical race theory analysts hope to highlight the insidious nature of racism in various institutions where white people are often blind to it.

As far as I can see so far, critical race analyses don’t make claims about the deity of Christ or whether He rose from the dead. There are no theological claims involved that I can find. I didn’t feel that my faith was challenged at all. There was no way of salvation offered.

What is challenged is the status quo. In one analysis, I read this passage about a private school’s decision to hire a diversity coordinator.

A CRT analysis would explore the ways in which the multicultural courses and programming challenged and changed racist practices and policies. A limitation of the liberal commitment to diversity was manifested in Well’s hiring one person, an African American, to attend to the school’s diversity initiative. Making her responsible for teaching all the multicultural courses and providing all the programming and professional development in the areas of cultural sensitivity and awareness demonstrates the school’s lack of commitment to diversity. This token commitment to diversity, which rested solely with one person, and encompassed a wide range of responsibilities, essentially ensured that change at Wells would not be sweeping or immediate. Thus, with the limited human resources Wells employed to “diversify” the school and the curriculum to create a more diverse and inclusive schooling environment, it guaranteed that changing the racist remnants of the “Old South” would not likely happen quickly, but incrementally and superficially instead, if at all. An abiding limitation of liberalism is its reliance on incremental change. Interestingly, those most satisfied with incremental change are those less likely to be directly affected by oppressive and marginalizing conditions.

On the surface, it appears that the school is working to make change, but an hard look at the situation from the minority perspective doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. When examined in this manner, it becomes clear that the school isn’t serious about diversity, but that their efforts may be to assuage guilt or to hold off public criticism. The analysis can’t get to the motive and doesn’t appear to try. However, the point is that the response isn’t sufficient to address justice and equity for minorities.

I haven’t agreed with every analysis I have read. Some use so much jargon I am not clear what they mean. However, I have not encountered any articles which ask me to convert to another religion. I have not been asked to give up mine. Seeing racism which is embedded in institutions and social practices is eye opening and sobering. Often, it makes me angry. I feel resolved to do what I can to help the situation. But what I don’t feel is an urge to convert to another gospel.

 

 

 

46 thoughts on “Does Critical Race Theory Threaten the Gospel?”

  1. To adapt the words of Thomas Sowell, “you don’t address the sin of racism by more racism.”

      1. The solution is simple, the application is hard. Teach truth that all human beings are created in the image of God. All people, regardless of race have equal value. Promote MLK JRs teaching where an individual is not judged on the basis of their skin color, but their character (loose translation). In fact, immerse yourself in some of Thomas Sowell’s writing on racism and race relations.

        It certainly appears to me that what we are doing isn’t working but only creating more racism. I watched this summer as a number of children with different skin color met in a park and just started playing with each other. They hadn’t met before and they hadn’t been indoctrinated about racism. So they just played together and had an enjoyable time before it was time for each to go their own way. They didn’t know any better so they just enjoyed playing together.

        Sure, we need to teach history and the evils of what racism has caused so that we don’t repeat the evils of previous generations. We also need to make sure that we teach that every single race has the ability to be racist. An honest study of history will certainly show that.

        So back to the original statement of teaching and modeling the basic presupposition that every human being is of equal value and worth and therefore should be treated with dignity regardless of race or skin color.

        1. “Teach truth that all human beings are created in the image of God. All people, regardless of race have equal value.”

          this is not a realistic solution and wouldn’t work (as it hasn’t worked yet).

          the whole “everyone should just be nice to each other” isn’t a solution for anything, it is just wishful thinking that won’t accomplish much.

          “I watched this summer as a number of children with different skin color met in a park and just started playing with each other. They hadn’t met before and they hadn’t been indoctrinated about racism.”

          Except eventually children will start self-segregating as they get older (usually about 3rd grade).

          “therefore should be treated with dignity regardless of race or skin color.”

          “should be” is not the same as “ will be

  2. So, what actual CRT scholars have you read, given your comments here? Have you read Mari Matsuda’s work, Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw or Angela Harris? Why don’t you actually give an analysis of a particular work of critical race theory? What are the ontological and epistemic commitments of folks like Delgado or Harris or Bell? In what historical and philosophical lineage do they stand? Where are they drawing their social theory from? What do they believe are the sources of moral values and duties?

    Let me give you a hint, it ain’t the Bible or Aquinas or Luther.

    Just leaving breadcrumbs here.

    1. Why don’t you actually give an analysis of a particular work of critical race theory?

      Here’s an idea. Why don’t you do that – somewhere else – where your breadcrumbs will be more appreciated, if there is such a place.

      1. there are plenty of sites where his comments would be appreciated. Where do you think all the nonsense about CRT is coming from?

        1. It this video you sort of give a definition of CRT (starting approx. 5:15 in):

          identifying remnant features of America’s racist past in law and government in the hopes of eliminating those disparities, features of racism from the system.

          What is wrong with this? Don’t you think it is a good idea to try to do this?

          1. Ken,

            You have to read CRT literature before you can actually get to the philosophical “foundations” or gross lack thereof, that almost all CRT scholars agree on: materialism, Metaphysical anti-realism, epistemic skepticism and moral relativism. I mean, the questions that people and societies try to answer about life are pretty much always the same questions. The starting points for answering them however can be radically different. And, in being radically different, inevitable end at very different places/solutions. Clearly there is nothing wrong with trying to eliminate disparities, but if you really believe all disparities can be eliminated so long as we “try hard enough” then there are consequences of that mindset, usually very bad ones. Moreover, if you immanentize all forms of evil, then you must always find an oppressor from whom you can be liberated. Without sin or the devil to be liberated from, you will find someone or some group in society that is “the enemy.”

            I am astounded that what used to be called “First Things” seem to matter so little to so many Christians today. But that is because Christianity in America has devolved into Pragmatism. It is about “what works” to make life more comfortable, not about what is true, or holy or beautiful. It is as if what most CRT scholars like Harris or Crenshaw or Matsuda actually believe a human person is just doesn’t matter. It is as if people who reject the notion of original sin will simply come to the same solution as we will even though they believe that human culture can literally be fixed through political means and we (or at least I) do not.

            The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure Hegel thought he was doing mankind (sorry, I mean personkind) a great favor, after all. And look what happened with that mess! Or, to quote Isaiah Berlin:

            “If Kant had not beheaded the God of the theologians, Robespierre may not have beheaded the king.”

            In a few years we may very well be saying “if Matsuda had not removed the blindfold from lady justice, then perhaps we would have far less people blindfolded in front of firing squads today.”

          2. But that is because Christianity in America has devolved into Pragmatism.

            As a pragmatist, I must disagree with that.

            Yes American Christianity has evolved into something that is not at all close to what Jesus taught. But it isn’t pragmatism.

  3. In my view, the conservative backlash against “CRT” (I put in quotes because most of what they are saying is CRT is not anything close to actual CRT) is a result of a lot of establishment people becoming very afraid of the race discussion that significantly ramped up last summer amidst the various protests, and searching for any possible way to completely shut down that discussion. So they latched onto one particular model of discussing race, deliberately over-generalized to claim that ALL discussions of race were variations of this model, and implemented scare tactics designed to convince their base that this was the greatest threat facing America today. And the base, so far, is completely buying this, as they buy everything packaged to them by their leaders and media mouthpieces. And politically conservative evangelical leaders are doing their part on behalf of their sworn political party by proclaiming to other evangelicals that this is the greatest threat facing Christianity today.

    Essentially, they are shutting down the discussion of race by saying that “the only people who are racist are those who say racism exists.” This is just a variation of the way evangelical leadership shuts down other discussions, very much akin to “the only problem in the church is those who say there are problems in the church.”

    1. Also, according to Ken Ham the universe is only about 5000 years old. Should give some perspective on any sentence that starts “According to Ken Ham…”

        1. I am posing a question so that we can have a discussion whether CRT is a legitimate threat to Christian gospels or to anything else. For example, your namesake Ken Ham seemed to be claiming that CRT negates the concept of sin, but does it? I see that CRT is saying that whites are inadvertently participating in racism, and I am wondering if preaching about sin, could be interpreted so in some situations.

          1. Your question implies someone has made the claim that “CRT teaches that it is racist to preach that blacks are as sinful as whites”.

            As for citing Ken Ham, I’ve already pointed out why that is a bad idea.

            CRT says that everyone is “inadvertently participating” in systemic racism. Further that whites benefit the most from this racial bias, while other races are benefited/disadvantaged by it to varying degrees. Generally, because blacks end up at the bottom, so other races/ethnicities may “benefit” when competing with blacks (or other races lower in the bias scale), but not against whites.

            However, the problem is people distort this idea to incorrectly claim that CRT says “Whites are all racist” as a way of avoiding taking about the real and serious issues of racism that CRT addresses.

  4. What the parents are complaining about is not CRT, but any discussion of any history of slavery and race in schools beyond just a mention. There is also the remnants of Antebellum mythology the Daughters of the Confederacy demanded be taught long ago. It seeped into the culture via textbooks, novels, radio, TV and movies. They have a need to cling to that mythology and ignore history.

  5. CRT may not have a theology but it does have a worldview, who we are, what’s wrong with the world, how to fix it, and what fixed looks like. Interestingly the bible also has some things to say about this. The question then becomes are they in agreement or are they teaching opposing things? And if opposing, which one if either will you follow?

    As far as CRT having a gospel, probably Liberation Theology of some sort, so if that’s the gospel you believe in you probably aren’t being asked to change.

  6. CRT would threaten the ‘religion” of those white people who know that Jesus was white, and blackness is the mark of Ham, and those who think Jack Chick’s leaflet on converting Native Americans is just peachy. (They start out dark and dirty, and then turn….white.)

  7. I’d love a list of some of the resources you read WT – I’ve wanted to do a similar meta analysis type overview (just for my own benefit – not to produce anything since I’m just a mere nerd, not an academic) and haven’t dug into journals or such and it seems all too often now Amazon results return evangelical / tucker carlson style polemics instead of actual insight into the topic

  8. I’d love a list of some of the resources you read WT – I’ve wanted to do a similar meta analysis type overview (just for my own benefit – not to produce anything since I’m just a mere nerd, not an academic) and haven’t dug into journals or such and it seems all too often now Amazon results return evangelical / tucker carlson style polemics instead of actual insight into the topic

      1. Thanks for the alsoacarpenter blog link! I don’t have a subscription for Sage Pubs, but the References provided on the page are very helpful.

  9. Isn’t pretty clear that the CRT noise is just another tentacle of the culture war and a diversion? If you want people to vote against their own self interest you have to have circus, right?

  10. I strongly suspect that people who insist that Critical Race Theory somehow threatens their religion have no real understanding of what CRT is, or what it seeks to do. In fact, unless their religion supports sustaining bigotry against races other than their own, I don’t see how it could threaten them.

    1. “unless their religion supports sustaining bigotry against races other than their own, I don’t see how it could threaten them”

      If CRT threatens bigotry, and evangelicals feel threatened by CRT… the implications are obvious.

    2. That’s because you haven’t read the original CRT sources, but here is one excerpt from Mari Matsuda’s seminal work in Critical Race Theory (oh, in case you don’t know who Matsuda is, along with Derrick Bell, Richard DelGado and Kimberle Crenshaw she is one of the fountainheads of Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory). This is from the Stanford Law Review, July 1991):

      “Through our sometimes painful work in coalition we are beginning to form a theory of subordination; a theory that describes it, explains it, and gives us the tools to end it. As lawyers working in coalition, we are developing a theory of law taking sides, rather than law as value-neutral. We imagine law to uplift and protect the sixteen-year-old single mother on crack rather than law to criminalize her. We imagine law to celebrate and protect women’s bodies; law to sanctify love between human beings-whether women to women, men to men, or women to men, as lovers may choose love; law to respect the bones of our ancestors; law to feed the children, law to shut down the sweatshops; law to save the planet.”

      So, just to get this straight, because you might get swept up in the initial sentiment, which seems to want to correct a legitimate social ill like poor mothers on crack, consider what is being said here in its full extent. Law, humanly constructed law (not even the Mosaic law, mind you, which neither Paul nor Jesus thought could save us) will save the planet. This law, moreover, MUST take sides. It cannot be neutral. But what is law that takes sides other than politics?

      So, if CRT is so innocent, then ask yourself this question: can politics save us?

      That is the CRT Gospel.

      1. Sounds like a progressive legislative agenda. It doesn’t claim to take anyone to heaven just to make living on earth a little more bearable for people who may need some help with that.

        1. Okay brother, whatever. If you want to live in a world where the law is explicitly partial, i.e. driven by political agendas, and takes sides depending on people’s social identities and if you think that that is both just and fair and good, then I don’t know what to say except you either don’t know history, you think that human beings are born without a sin nature, or you are just a fool.

      2. To clarify the quote you gave is from Mari Matsuda Beside My Sister, Facing the Enemy: Legal Theory out of Coalition”, Stanford Law Review Vol. 43, No. 6 (Jul 1991) p. 1188. (you need jstor access to use that link).

        Matsuda does not claim the law “MUST” take sides, only that the group she is working with (apparently formed at the 3rd Annual Conference on Women of Color and the Law but she isn’t really clear about that), is envisioning laws that are not neutral in order to address the issues she mentions. However, this isn’t about CRT (not directly anyway) but about inequities between genders (and in particular how women of color are more significantly harmed by those inequities).

        Many laws in the US have not been neutral with regards to race, gender or many other categories. Both explicitly written into the law (ex. slavery, segregation, etc) and in how laws are implemented (i.e. who the laws benefit/harm/are applied to). To try to claim “that is just politics” is to ignore the reality of the situation.

        1. Ken,

          Oh my goodness. Your “qualifying” remark did nothing to attenuate Matsuda’s statement about her and other CRT folks new “theory of law.” By the way, thanks for the link, but I have the PDF on my laptop. I suppose you were trying to provide that for others who might be interested, and not implying that I hadn’t read the whole article, which I have.

          As to Matsuda’s “theory”, when one abandons any notion of the reality of spiritual goods, or pre-political moral and ethical and even relational approaches (e.g., promoting traditional family structures) to the solving or mitigating of social ills and says that humanly constructed Law must “save the planet,” then how do you even begin to think this is compatible with Christianity. What do you think human beings are, I must ask? Do you see really human beings as “born free yet everywhere in chains?” Has history taught you nothing about human nature?

          You and your brethren here are the kinds of “good Germans” that the Nazi’s clearly found so useful. I shall thank you in advance for helping usher in the next era of totalitarianism.

          1. I was pointing out that her “theory of law” was NOT in reference to CRT but something else. Further you are making all sorts of assumptions about her “theory” that isn’t evident in that article. What you are doing is an ad-hominem attack on Matsuda rather than addressing any actual CRT issues. This attack isn’t any different than others who attacked the BLM movement by claiming its founders are socialists.

            “Has history taught you nothing about human nature?”

            Yes it has, especially US history. Which is why I can understand why Matsuda might have made the comment she did about needing laws that “take sides” rather than “value neutral” laws. However, I would need a lot more details about what she means before making any judgements about her comments.

          2. Ken,

            Matsuda is well known as one of the three or four main scholars of Critical Race Theory. The others are Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw and Richard DelGado. So to say that her theory of law is not in reference to CRT is like saying that Marx’ theory of economics was not in reference to class struggle.

            Where is there a personal attack on Mastuda. These are her ideas, cited directly from her article with an accompanying comment on the ideas. To attack an idea is not to attack a person, unless, of course, you are already working in a critical theory framework, in which case any resistance, even to ideas, is considered a personal attack.

            Look, one can understand Matsuda’s comments. One can understand how human beings might react to a history ridden with sin and evil. But, that doesn’t mean that reaction is Good, or beneficial, or conducive to human flourishing! In fact, it is often the opposite.

          3. “her theory of law is not in reference to CRT is like saying that Marx’ theory of economics was not in reference to class struggle.”

            And to presume that every thing Marx ever talked about was in reference to class struggle is foolish. As I pointed out, this paper was not about CRT. Certainly it may have contributed to future work in CRT, but not every topic that deals with racism is CRT.

            What do you believe Matsuda means by “theory of law taking sides”? And why do you believe it is a bad thing?

          4. Ken,

            Why does everything Marx talked about have to specifically do with one of the fundamental tenets of his theory, i.e. class struggle? Well, because it is a central feature of his theory that informs all other aspects of it, even if it is not directly mentioned everywhere. For example, everything Marx talked about (of significance) also presupposed religion was a projection of the mind, thus everything (of significance) he talked about presupposed that God doesn’t exist. That seems to matter, doesn’t it?

            The paper is a partial exposition of Matsuda’s theory of law, which is a core tenet of Critical Race Theory, i.e., that impartiality before the Law is a bad concept (I won’t say “false,” because I don’t think Matsuda and others thing in terms of true or false). So, of course this has to do with CRT if it is defining a central tenet or value of CRT! I just don’t see why you are trying to distance Matsuda from CRT when it is a given fact that she is one of the founding scholars of CRT?

            If you want to be judged not based on your actions or intentions before a court of law, but instead based on social features or identity, then I suppose that is your choice. To me, this idea of partiality in law based on social location sets up the initial conditions for kangaroo courts and show trials the likes of which we saw in the 1920’s in Russia and the 1930’s in Nuremberg Germany.

            But, if tyranny is not an issue for you, then I guess it just isn’t an issue for you.

            Thanks,
            Anthony

          5. cite me the page and her exact words where Matsuda claims “that impartiality before the Law is a bad concept”

            “If you want to be judged not based on your actions or intentions before a court of law, but instead based on social features or identity, then I suppose that is your choice.”

            Again, cite me the portion of the paper where Matsuda supports this notion.

            You are twisting her words to say something she never said. then attempting to smear her by associating her with fascist ideologies, as well as attempting to associate anyone who disagrees with you in the same manner.

          6. Ken,

            Oh my goodness, Ken.

            Okay, my fascist ideologies, like wanting the law to remain neutral.

            Again Matsuda:

            “As lawyers working in coalition, we are developing a theory of law taking sides, rather than law as value-neutral.” (1183)

            This is the revolutionary theory of law that we are developing in coaltion, and I submit that it is both a theory of law we can only develop coalition, and that it is the only theory of law we can develop in coalition.” (1183)

            So, let’s put two and two together: a theory of law is being worked out (this is 1991 mind you) by professional academics in legal studies that is not value-neutral but that explicitly takes sides.

            Look, Ken, you have convinced me. All of a sudden, I have a renewed faith in the spirit of man. Sorry, I meant to say of the spirit of gender-neutral “person.” I am sure that nothing can go wrong if we reject the concept of impartiality before the law and instead use law as a value-laden tool to right our social ills. Then we will be more like God, who is a respecter of persons after all.

            regards,
            Anthony

          7. “my fascist ideologies, like wanting the law to remain neutral.”

            I didn’t claim you were fascist. I said you were the one portraying people who you disagree with as fascists.

            You seem to have some reading comprehension issues. Would explain a lot about your comments.

          8. “professional academics in legal studies that is not value-neutral but that explicitly takes sides.”

            And that is not even close to saying:

            “that impartiality before the Law is a bad concept”

            She never said that. The paper you reference (and other articles in that same issue) is discussing a specific topic, violence towards women of color, and how the existing laws and policies are not helping those women. So she is suggesting an alternative to deal with that specific case (and possibly others that she mentioned.)

            You re-interpreted her words and attributed claims to her that she never said.

  11. CRT is neither a bogey man that needs to have a strawman put up and knocked down, nor do I see it as a real solution to evil that resides in the hearts of men. Politics has always been claiming to fix the bigger issues, yet they remain. Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Only Life. Ignore Him and your life will keep getting worse. Embrace Him and things will change inside you for the better. This will not change the evil in others but it can get a whole lot of it out of your own head and heart.

    1. CRT is now the strawman to deal with anything addressing racial issues. Those who don’t want to deal with racial issues (or even admit there is a problem with them in the US), have misrepresented CRT to turn it into this evil bogey man. And now anytime something racial comes up they slap it with a label of CRT to make it easier to dismiss.

      Case in point people in TX are trying to ban a pair of books (graphic novels) touching on racial issues, but have nothing to do with CRT. I’ve read one book, “New Kid” it is very good. I’m picking up the 2nd one “Class Act” today to check that out as well. Both by Jerry Craft. I recommend reading either book (check your local library) and comparing what you read to what the parents opposed to them are saying about the books.

Comments are closed.