DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<
form action=&amp
;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
ost&
quot; target=&am
p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
;_s-xclick&a
mp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
ue=&
quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
e=&q
uot;submit&a
mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
&quo
t;&g
t; &
lt;img alt=&
amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 28678--------------------------------------------------
Critical Race Theory Taught In Schools
By: patrick jane Date: May 2, 2021, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Parent uncovers internal documents exposing school's 'woke'
agenda
4 minutes
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf_I49bY-jM
#Post#: 28681--------------------------------------------------
Re: Critical Race Theory Taught In Schools
By: patrick jane Date: May 2, 2021, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, Second Edition (Critical
America, 59) Paperback – December 1, 1984
HTML https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31Mp5HEOsdL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
HTML https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Introduction-America/dp/0814721354
In 2001, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic published their
definitive Critical Race Theory, a compact introduction to the
field that explained, in straightforward language, the origins,
principal themes, leading voices, and new directions of this
important movement in legal thought. Since then, critical race
theory has gone on to influence numerous other fields of
scholarship, and the Delgado and Stefancic primer has remained
an indispensible guide for students and teachers.
Delgado and Stefancic have revised the book to include material
on key issues such as colorblind jurisprudence, Latino-Critical
scholarship, immigration, and the rollback of affirmative
action. This second edition introduces readers to important new
voices in fields outside of law, including education and
psychology, and offers greatly expanded issues for discussion,
updated reading lists, and an extensive glossary of terms.
#Post#: 31607--------------------------------------------------
Re: Critical Race Theory Taught In Schools
By: patrick jane Date: June 14, 2021, 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Tucker: Classic literature out. Sexual propaganda in.
'Tucker Carlson Tonight' host blasts critical race theory and
highlights parents pushing back. #FoxNews #Tucker
10 minutes
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KfNMjIJmEQ&list=WL&index=104
#Post#: 32925--------------------------------------------------
Re: Critical Race Theory Taught In Schools
By: patrick jane Date: July 6, 2021, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/124479.jpg?w=940[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/quick-to-listen/critical-race-theory-racism-evangelicals-divided-podcast.html
Critical Race Theory: What Christians Need to Know
Let’s talk about the issue tearing the American church and
country apart.
Christians should be afraid of critical race theory. That’s the
message that a number of conservative Christian leaders have
shared in recent months. Last fall, the presidents of the five
Southern Baptist seminaries issued a statement saying that
“affirmation of Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality and any
version of Critical Theory” is incompatible with the Baptist
Faith and Message, the denomination’s core beliefs. This anxiety
made CRT a main focus at the denomination’s recent gathering.
In recent years, some evangelicals have identified critical race
theory as an ascendant ideology in the church that is
fundamentally at odds with Christian faith. This anxiety has
been mirrored by many conservatives at large and the debate over
this ideology has moved from the previous president’s public
disgust of the ideology to state legislature measures that would
ban it in schools. All of this comes months after the deaths of
George Floyd and Breonna Taylor have once again spurred both
conversations about how the church ought to respond to racial
injustice but also how the church should discuss this reality.
One recurring concern for some Christians: that their fellow
believers have adopted the worldview and talking points of
critical race theory and Marxism.
Over time, these charges have been lobbed by Christians at
Christians, the latter of whom often feel like this language
mischaracterizes the movement, miscasts their efforts, or
unfairly shuts down conversations without a hard look at the
issues actually at stake.
D. A. Horton directs the intercultural studies program at
California Baptist University and serves as associate teaching
pastor at The Grove Community Church in Riverside, California.
His 2019 book, Intensional, presents a “kingdom” view of ethnic
divisions and reconciliation. Horton has written a four-part
series on Ed Stetzer’s blog, The Exchange, about CRT and
Christian missions.
Horton joined global media manager Morgan Lee and senior news
editor Kate Shellnutt to discuss what critical race theory is,
why it unnerves some Christians, and what can be done to help
Christians stop talking past each other when it comes to
addressing the reality of racial injustice.
Highlights from Quick to Listen: Episode #271
Can you define what critical theory is before we get into
critical race theory?
D. A. Horton: So critical theory was developed inside of a
school in Germany, known as the Frankfurt School, specifically
inside the Institute for Social Research. And it really got its
start in the late 1920s and the early ’30s. And it was led by
the scholar Max Horkheimer, who framed critical theory with
three criteria.
First of all, it needs to be explanatory. This means the
individual who’s engaging the theory must be able to explain
what is wrong with the current social reality that they are
analyzing. They also have to identify who are the powers that
are maintaining what is wrong through the systems, through the
rhythms of the society. Second, it needs to be normative. What
norms in this wrong society should be criticized? What are the
pieces of evidence of the wrongdoing? And then finally, it has
to be practical. What are the achievable, practical ways society
can be transformed?
Coming out of that, we have to understand what Horkheimer meant
by the term “critical.” In his writings and his lectures, he
framed it as a distinct meaning: a different approach to
analyzing society than the traditional way of viewing society.
And honestly, Horkheimer used “critical” in synonymous with
Marxism. His tool of analysis was the lens of Marxism and he
used critical theory to identify what values of capitalism were
producing injustice in the society that he was in.
But it is good for us to understand that, from the beginning,
that framework is not how it always stayed. It did not always
stay within the conversation of Marxism. What we see is in the
second generation of the Frankfurt School is that it produced
intellectuals like Jürgen Habermas, who expanded the research
and the analysis beyond Marxism. He said claims to truth must
also be moral and political goodness, and they have to be
justified. And so he began to pivot away from critical theory
from Marxism.
In his later works, especially in the ’90s, he began to expose
how secularism, or the humanistic perspective of pushing God
out, kept religious thought out of the spaces of law and
politics—to which Habermas was preventing us from having a
better model of society. And so in his work Habermas actually
says religious voices can impact society for good if they learn
to communicate their ideas in understandable language for those
who are not religious.
And he goes on to give an appeal of a biblical perspective. He
says that the biblical social vision is made evident in Genesis
1:26–27, where every human is an image-bearer of the God who
created them. And the way that you can translate that
theological concept to people who are not religious is by
identifying that there is invaluable dignity that every human
being has been given.
So critical theory, when it was initially founded as a framework
of analysis, the objective measurement tool was Marxism. But
then the second generation broadens that reach and even made
appeals for the inclusivity of religious dialogue with a very
specific biblical appeal.
And as a missiologist, I take that as an invitation to engage
with a biblical perspective that analyzes the society but also
has a different finish line than what those who are not coming
from a Christian theistic worldview may present as their
conclusion.
Are we waiting for our Habermas with critical race theory? Do we
need someone who can take some of the ideas proposed in the
framework of critical race theory and add that theological
dimension to make the bridge happen for people who still see it
in conflict?
D. A. Horton: Well, there have been many, many Christians who
are living out their vocations as given to them by God, in the
different spaces and arenas in society. In the behavior
sciences, social work, the field of education, and legal
studies, you have believers who engage the terms, the language,
and the concepts, but at the same time, they’re also looking for
the way that they can communicate a biblical perspective.
Understanding that society is not going to be perfectly
transformed, that our finish line is not a utopia of this side
of eternity, but rather it is residents in the city of God that
we read about in Revelation chapters 21 and 22.
I believe that there have been people doing that; it’s just that
critical race theory and its scholarship has not been mainstream
until recent years. And so that’s where I think it gets a little
murky. But there have been Christians who have engaged this
perspective and they’ve been engaging at it for quite some time.
Is there a way to define critical race theory for people outside
of academia? And how would you define it in contrast to the
perspective of race that existed prior to CRT?
D. A. Horton: The first thing that I think everyone should
understand is that critical race theory is a direct growing out
of something known as critical legal studies. And this is
particularly focused and centered in the United States of
America, so it’s not a global perspective. The only way it
becomes global is if somebody adapts the principles and the
tools that critical race theory leverages as a methodology of
social analysis, and then they apply it to their society outside
of America.
But basically, critical legal studies focused on the
relationship between the legal scholarship and the struggle to
see a more humane, egalitarian, and democratic society. And so
critical legal studies contain insights from the Supreme Court
rulings on Scott v. Sanford in 1857 and Plessy v. Ferguson in
1896 because that provides the context for the legal debates
surrounding the flawed “separate but equal,” as well as the
colorblindness, or the neutrality, of American law.
So after these rulings, it was a normative belief in America
that the law was colorblind, that although people were separate
but equal in the Jim Crow era, everyone still had the same type
of access to freedom and liberty and everything that our
founding documents promise to residents of America.
However, that’s where critical race theory comes in. One of the
architects, Richard Delgado, communicated that they began to
realize that the momentum of the civil rights movement in the
’60s had stalled when it became evident that a lot of the
implementation and legislative changes were not being made by
academics.
The cornerstone founder of critical race theory is Derek Bell.
His documents are what people consider the foundation of CRT.
And alongside the scholarship of Delgado, Kimberly Crenshaw,
Ellen Freeman, Cheryl Harris, Charles Lawrence III, Mari
Matsuda, and Patricia Williams, they are often framed as the
primary voices of critical race theory. To define critical race
theory, you really must look at the themes that these primary
voices begin to bring to the forefront.
I do think it’s important also to qualify that Derek Bell was
interviewed before he passed away, and Bell distanced his
perspective as it relates to what would become later known as
critical race theory from the views of Marxism. And the reason
that he did that is that he didn’t want people to think that he
had to turn to European “white” men to understand the racial
interactions that he as a Black man has had his entire life in
the United States of America. And so one of the misnomers that
we have is that CRT automatically, unequivocally, always equals
Marxism. And that’s just not true because the founder, Derek
Bell, distanced himself from that.
Based on the primary voices I listed, the five themes that I
typically identify critical race as is, one, race is something
that is manmade, and it has created privilege for something that
is known as whiteness—a created American identity which
immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe could assimilate.
They would become white in exchange for their ethnic heritage,
and that would secure them citizenship, employment, housing, and
even religious freedoms and liberty.
In addition to that, racism is something that is seen as
permanent in the United States of America. And a lot of that is
because of the implicit racist language in our founding
documents, like the Declaration of Independence and the US
Constitution.
The third thing is that counter-stories from marginalized people
are necessary. In Christian language, we call a counter-story a
testimony. It’s somebody sharing their testimony of how they
have interacted with racism in America.
The fourth is that being colorblind is not being truthful.
And then the fifth element that I would say is a common theme is
that racial progress seems to only be made when “white people”
are the ones who benefit from it.
So these are the five themes that I have identified from the
primary voices themselves.
The question about critical race being a worldview—which, when I
hear “worldview,” I'm thinking through the lens of the arena of
theology. A worldview is how one answers the questions such as,
Who is God?; Who am I?; What’s my purpose for living?; What is
real?; Who determines right from wrong?; and What happens after
I die?
To me, a worldview would include deism, existentialism,
monotheism, naturalism, new consciousness, nihilism, and
pantheism. And each of those has varying beliefs as it relates
to the concept of race. So, in my opinion, critical race theory
is not a worldview—it’s comprised of legal scholars who are not
dedicating their work to the cosmology of humanity or the
universe, let alone the eternal condition of humanity. The focus
of critical race theory scholars is the inequality of the law in
the United States of America.
And I think that’s one of the misnomers: that people have forced
it to become something known as a worldview. And I just don’t
see that in the primary voices. Their focus is the United States
of America; it’s not global-centric. It throws me off when
people compare critical race theory to a worldview, because as a
theologian, it doesn’t give answers to some of these worldview
questions.
When critical race theory moved from academia into something
that some Christian leaders begin to identify as posing a danger
to our faith, what were some of the stories or connections that
set off alarm bells?
D. A. Horton: This is my personal opinion; I’m limited by my own
experiences and experiences of others that I’m in dialogue with.
But, what began to happen is that some of the language that
critical race theory has developed began to become more normal
in a lot of “Christians of color.”
Critical race theory does provide language for concepts that
believers, specifically of color, have wrestled within their
minds, and now they have terms to use to help these abstract
ideas explain in concrete ways.
One example is the term microaggression. The definition of
microaggression is an action or an incident that is an instance
of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against
somebody who is part of a marginalized group. As an example from
my own life, I was really stressed going into my PhD entrance
exam at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and for that
whole process, I was just really nervous and I doubted myself.
And I remember being driven to the airport by a brother in
Christ and he was asking me what was on my mind because he could
tell I was stressed. I explained to him how I felt overwhelmed
by the process and demands of the exam.
And he looked at me and confidently said, “You should not stress
out. You’re going to pass no matter what. Southeastern needs
you. You’re a minority. They need more Hispanics”—which is a
term I don’t use, but he used it—“They need more Hispanics so
that they can show themselves to be diversified. They need more
guys like you, so you’re going to get in no matter what.”
It was saying that I don’t have the educational capacity or the
academic rigor and wherewithal to pass, but I’m going to get a
pass simply because they need me for visibility. That’s a
microaggression because he connected my ethnicity with the fact
that I was going to pass.
If I share that statement in a Christian space, people ask, how
can you know his motives? How can you know his intentions? And I
think at that point, we want to begin to theologize what
somebody said so that we don’t have to accept the claim that
what was said showed discrimination.
So there was a list of terms that seem to be the no-no terms,
and whenever you heard these certain words used, it was like,
“Oh my gosh, there are Marxists, communists, socialist people in
the church!”
Do you think part of it is that there is a suspicion that comes
from hearing the non-Christianese language used by Christians?
Especially when it’s being used to critique us?
D. A. Horton: I think that is part of it. But if we just even
assess the language that we use as Christians—I mean, the term
gospel was not a Christian term; it comes from a Greek word that
was literally connected to the imperial cult, it was used for
the “good news” that was proclaimed when a new Caesar was
crowned or when the Caesar was going to have a child.
Our writers of Scripture—under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit who safeguarded them from writing anything in error—used
that concept, which was connected to pagan worship. And we have
seen that used to translate into the gospel because we do
proclaim the Good News of Christ being the only source of
redemption that God has in his plan of redemption.
And so I think that’s where it takes more education for
Christians to understand that everything in our speech is not
purely Christian. The clothes that we wear are not always
stitched by Christians. This is exactly what Habermas asked. He
gave an invitation for religious people to communicate their
beliefs and how society can flourish, but they have to be able
to do it using terms and concepts that the nonbeliever can
understand. There has to be some shared language.
Another term is intersectionality. When people hear
“intersectionality” in the church, I often think they’re fearful
of a slippery slope and that it is going to somehow give
affirmation and acquiesce to the LGBTQ+ community. And my
pushback to that is we see the concept in Scripture. And some
would say I’m isolating and reading intersectionality into the
Scriptures. But what I’m doing is identifying a modern word that
describes something that we already see in the Bible.
One of the classic examples I give is John 4. Jesus spoke to the
woman at the well. She was identified by her ethnicity as being
a Samaritan. She was a woman. You can even argue that the reason
that she was drawing water from that well at that time of the
day was that she was socially ostracized, so she was
marginalized. Those are three identifying realities for her.
Another example is in Galatians 3:28; in addition to identifying
ethnicity, he [Paul] also identifies gender, and he identifies
the reality in social class. All three of those concepts are
right there in Scripture.
And this is where evangelicals struggle, because when it comes
to gender, we see constant material being produced to advocate
biblical roles in marriage, in the home, biblical masculinity
and biblical femininity. So, we don’t deny gender. We’re not
gender-neutral. At the same time, we see the economic realities
and we talk about financial stewardship, giving, employment
ethics, good work ethic. We talk about those things. So, we
acknowledge the reality of employment and financial stewardship.
But now we want to say, “I don’t see ethnicity”? That’s not
true. You do inasmuch as you see gender and the reality of the
need for financial stewardship and employment and employee
ethics. And if you’re talking about ethnicity, gender, and
class, that is intersectionality.
So by saying the concept of intersectionality is in Scripture,
does that mean I am forsaking Christ as the only means of
salvation? Absolutely not. What I’m saying is that there are
multiple facets to the reality that we embody in a fallen world.
I am a man. I am also married. I am also Latino. I’m also
Choctaw Nation. I have various European descents inside of me.
I’m married to a woman. I have daughters, I have a son. I fit in
a social class. I grew up in a different social class. These are
realities. Acknowledging these realities does not mean I’m
doubting the gospel. It doesn’t mean I’m denying the sufficiency
of Scripture. Claims of such things are just erroneous and
they’re hyperbole.
And I think if we approached it that way, without the
name-calling, we would see greater progress in the body of
Christ. You can engage the language, but you don’t have to lay
down to the agenda of the world by engaging the language.
Because my purpose and intention for engaging the language is to
help the nonbeliever understand the perspective that God offers
as a solution, in Christ alone, for the realities of the broken
and this one.
As a missiologist, instructor, and a pastor using the language
developed through CRT, what are the ways that it’s helpful, or
are there places where there are limits or concerns? Are there
boundaries you draw for how it can be employed as a tool within
a faith structure?
D.A. Horton: My personal approach is to be honest. What I can do
is look at the claims that critical race theory makes, and if
it’s true then I can acknowledge that truth.
If all truth is God’s truth, then with common grace, God has
given every human being who bears his image rationale, the
ability to process information, to think about it, and to
communicate. And so I would be remiss if I think that
non-Christians cannot tell the truth. And when it comes to
social analysis and assessment, if they depart from truthful
claims, that’s where, as a follower of Christ, I can say that I
have a different guardrail that I’m using to measure the truth
claims. Mine is the Word of God.
For example, when I look at the claim that race is a social
construct, that it is manmade, that is very true because, in all
the times of antiquity, we do not see the racial structures or
caste system that we have seen throughout the colonization of
the indigenous Americas. Spain and Portugal created the caste
system first in the Caribbean and Mexico and South America, and
then Protestants did the same thing in the United States. None
of that is endorsed in Scripture; however, it is a reality, and
it is something that shows in the documents of the United
States.
However, what has God given? He’s given ethnicity. And we see
this in Acts 17:26 and Genesis 3:20. Ethnicity is a gift from
God. And when I look at Revelation chapters 21 and 22, I see
that ethnicity is present in the eternal state. So, Christians
do not need to be ashamed or feel guilty for their ethnicity.
One of the things that I have been trying to do is to get rid of
the color-coded language of the racial caste system and begin to
challenge people to affirm their ethnic heritage that was
elected for them to have and that will be present in the eternal
state. And in doing that, I’m departing away from critical race
theory because I’m going back to the cosmological creation of
humanity and I’m going to the eternal state. Critical race
theory doesn’t go there.
Another example: Often people say that critical race theory says
that whiteness was created and it provides privileges for only
people who are in that category. And there is some truth in
that, but it’s not fully true. And one of the things that I want
to communicate is that privilege is not a bad thing.
Anyone listening to this podcast, anyone that has running water,
anyone that has shoes on their feet, has food in their
pantry—that’s privilege because not everybody in the world has
access to those amenities. Privilege is not bad. It’s not
sinful. It only becomes sinful when it is not leveraged to help
other humans in need. I don’t apologize for my privilege because
I can leverage my privilege in specific moments.
In the four blogs with Christianity Today, I explore all of
this. What are the claims that critical race theory makes? Where
are they true and where are they not true? And then how does
Scripture speak to the truthfulness of their claim? But also,
how does it correct the errors in their claim as well?
Do you think the reason that some Christians are turning to the
language of critical race theory is that they haven’t found
sufficiently comprehensive language within Christian contexts to
talk about racial injustice?
D. A. Horton: I think in some situations, people have grown
weary and tired and they’re just exhausted. They’re just tired
of trying to make evangelicals believe that this is a reality
for some people. At the same time, I think some people are
disgruntled because they don’t feel that they have a safe space
that is safe to communicate these things without being charged
and accused of various terms. It’s a smorgasbord of realities
for people in their experiences.
We, as believers, have to understand that this is also a
discipleship issue. Jesus has given the Great Commission and
included is language which means “to every ethnicity.” So we are
to be making disciples of every ethnicity in America. We are
blessed because God has allowed the neighborhoods to be
inhabited by the nations, so we’re without excuse. And that’s
where I think the work of being diligent to diversify our dinner
tables, to diversify our inner circles of friendships and
discipleship rhythms is important. It should reflect the reality
of the community that God has chosen for us to live in.
I think our local churches should not see the reality of Great
Commission fulfillment as affirmative action or a secular
perspective. No, this is the reality of what Christ is
commissioned every Christian to do. We all have the same job
description as the Great Commission.
And in the eternal state, what we recognize is that the
ethnicities are present, we are worshiping God. We even see that
products of cultural grace are going to be brought in by leaders
of the various ethnicities into the city of God. So, we can
appreciate the cultural expressions that we have, and we can
even see them redeemed for the glory of God.
In my family, one way we’ve done that is with the quinceańera.
The quinceańera began as an aspect of pagan ritual, but then it
was synchronized with Roman Catholic practice and dogma. And
what we did for our daughter when she was 15 is that we made
Christ the center focus. We removed the paganism, but we kept
the cultural celebrations. And a lot of the language and the
customs could be leveraged for the glory of God. Every one of
our daughter’s padrinos and madrinas (godparents) gave a gift
that was connected back to Scripture and affirmed her walk in
Christ.
These are beautiful things of our culture. There are certain
dances, there are certain songs, there are certain testimonies
and oral traditions in various cultures that in the United
States of America have often been deemed as unholy. And if we
have divorced ethnicity, if we have divorced the reality of
race, because we’ve chosen colorblindness or other methodologies
to not even acknowledge those things and framing ethnicity is
something carnal and holy and sinful, that’s a discipleship
issue.
I don’t think we can talk about people’s fear of critical race
theory without discussing cancel culture. How do you define
cancel culture? What concerns might you sympathize with for
those who are very concerned about this, and where might you
push back on people regarding those fears?
D. A. Horton: Cancel culture was derivative of the African
American community. As it would be expressed on Black Twitter,
it was stepping away from public support, and even the shunning,
and the dropping of endorsements of entities or people that did
not fall in step with the progression of whoever was doing the
canceling.
One of the aspects of cancel culture that has now become a
little bit more normative in mainstream society, which then
provided a tributary into evangelicalism in America, is this
contra-biblical way of interpersonal relationships. We have to
understand that cancel culture and the way that it’s been done
by the nonbelievers is not endorsed in Scripture.
It basically opens the door for the Evil One to allow suspicions
to be brewing in the hearts of people. That we can be content
with being warriors of the faith, defenders of the truth of
scripture and Christianity by labeling our brothers and sisters
enemies of the church enemies.
Even the term woke—a lot of people don’t have the historic
understanding of the term. It was something that, again, was
first used in the African American community to mean to be aware
of the reality and the nuances of practical racism that had been
expressed pre–Jim Crow, during Jim Crow, and post–Jim Crow.
And that terminology has now been hijacked in a similar way that
the term evangelical has been hijacked. And I think one of the
things that we have to do better at in evangelicalism is
explaining and defining our terms. And I ground my definitions
from themes all throughout Scripture—not social sciences, not
critical race theorists, not the Frankfurt school, but from
Scripture.
And the reason I want to define those terms is that often in
these conversations, in the church we’re not defining our terms.
We are allowing the interpreter to read their understanding into
the terminology we’re using. That means we have to do the
diligent work of explaining to our listeners what we mean by
these terms. And then we can give them a better understanding of
where we are coming from.
Having terms with no clear tangible definitions just leads
people to move forward in their own assumptions, or move forward
with the trusted voices that they listen to, and that’s a
problem because sometimes the voices that you trust—whether they
are grossly misinformed or whether they are intentionally
participating in this sin of slander—are not always being
consistent and truthful with their assessments and their
terminology and even their claims.
To what extent do you say there are a significant number of
Christians who are being bad actors, and when is it okay for us
as Christians to call people out for acting in bad faith, and
are people always aware that they’re acting that way?
D. A. Horton: I think one thing that I have learned in my
journey of walking with Jesus, over the last 25 years in
America, is that there is a way to theologize yourself out of
being guilty of sins like slander and gossip.
We use codified language like “I’m seeking counsel” or “I’m
trying to get wisdom,” and we’ll throw a Bible passage on that.
And I’m not saying that it’s wrong to seek wisdom and counsel
and guidance; however, when it starts getting into the realm of
suspicion leading to reading things into what they’re saying …
We live in a fallen world, and sometimes when people want to see
something, they’ll see it when it’s not even there. And they’ll
convince themselves that they see it and they will be very
convincing to others. And when I look at that framework in
Scripture, the reality of systemic deception in the world and
society at large is in Ephesians 2:1–3. We see that there is a
worldly system that is in opposition to righteousness, justice,
and all things that are derivative from God’s design for
humanity.
So, is there systemic sin in society? Absolutely. Now can it
also be in the church? That’s exactly what Paul was arguing in
Ephesians 4. The language that he is using points to the
systematic lies that are present in the churches, that were
brought into the church. And the way that we refute that is
through discipleship, rooting ourselves in the Word of God while
living on the mission of God.
We, as followers of Christ, don’t have to be aloof when it comes
to the systemic deception that unfortunately can make its way
into local churches. And what’s being framed now is this new
religion called woke-ism, this new perspective of critical race
theory being charged as an enemy. We are headed to an
unnecessary civil war. And to have a civil war, you have to have
an enemy. And this enemy is manufactured because I’ve yet to see
anyone who is purposefully seeking to bring the nuances of
critical race theory into the Southern Baptist Convention with a
desire to take it over.
Now, is that possible? Sure. We live in a fallen world, people
may have vindictive motives, but the reality of what I see and
who I engage with that are the “faces of this new religion” this
new “liberal takeover,” I'm like, y’all are trippin’. They are
not what you're calling them.
For those opposed to CRT, what do you think is the “worst-case
scenario” in their mind?
D. A. Horton: You know, the only interaction that I’ve had in
length with the side that is framing CRT as a religion and
woke-ism and the social justice movements as entering into the
church, is Fault Lines by Voddie Baucham.
And from the very beginning, the conversation is framed that
you’re standing on one of two sides of a fault line, and
literally the fault line—no pun intended—of the book is framing
the side that Voddie is on and then the side that’s the
nonbiblical social justice perspective, which starts with the
world and then these Christians now are speaking the world's
philosophies and perspectives into the church. And, at the end
of the day, he concludes with a call to war against the opposing
side.
And in that perspective, he’s framed it as a binary where the
reader has to pick a side. And in my mind, that’s a false
dichotomy. I don’t have to pick a side. Is there really even a
fault line? And as I began to assess some of the claims made,
some of the references that were there were cited, it didn’t
work for me.
It’s not choosing a side. I don’t have to. I’m being faithful to
the work of Christ, and I know where the truth claims are, and I
know where they derive away from the truthfulness of God’s Word.
And as a competent follower of Christ, I can engage in those
conversations and I can give empirical data within the space of
the academy.
As a missiologist, I don’t see a dichotomy between faith and
scholarship. I don’t see a dichotomy between faith and career
vocation. Because God is the one who has his fingerprints on the
lives of his children, and the gifts, the talents, and the
opportunities he’s given them, which provides them with an
opportunity to give him representation in the spaces that they
entered.
So, as I enter into the academic space, I am not aloof or naive.
I know that I’m walking into social injustice because my God,
the only true living God, has been systematically parsed out
from representation in data. And I found a way to introduce the
reality of who he is, what he has done, in a way that can be
communicated inside of a humanistic-centric space.
But the way I communicate about that data in that space is way
different than in the church. With the church I’m making the
appeals for ethnic conciliation, grounding my definitions in
Scripture, helping us see a pathway forward. But the pushback
I’m getting is, “Well, you should read Fault Lines.”
Well, I did, and when I express my difference in opinion from
where Voddie is coming from, somehow people don’t think that
that’s Christian-like. And I think we, as followers of Christ,
have to understand that it’s okay to disagree on things. It
doesn’t mean that people are kicked out of the kingdom of God. I
mean, if that’s the case, then that's a non-biblical view of
salvation in the first place.
But when people are trying to create these false dichotomies and
call us to war, I’m like, hold on, time out. We are wasting
friendly fire. We should be advocating against the
principalities and structures that the Evil One has put into
place, but we should not be assuming that brothers in Christ are
the ones being used as sons of disobedience. Especially if
they’re still pointing to Christ as the only means of salvation.
So why are we allowing cancel culture in our evangelical spaces
to now be practiced in interpersonal relationships, church
relationships, and relationships with staff members? We, as the
people of Christ in America, have to be able to recapture the
art of dialogue. We have lost that.
In that spirit, can you see the genuine or sincere motives that
people have for raising questions about critical race theory? Do
you see a good reason or the gospel as a motivation for people
who are still suspicious, skeptical, or trying to learn?
D. A. Horton: Yes, absolutely. I do feel that there is a desire
now for followers of Christ in America to at least understand
critical race theory, and how a Christian is supposed to
interact with it.
The first thing that I express to people is a Christian doesn’t
need to use critical race theory. You don’t have to. Nobody’s
forcing you in the Word of God to communicate that you have to
engage critical race theory. Salvation is a gift given by grace
alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, confirmed in
Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone. So only embracing
Christ, the Savior, is necessary to be a part of the kingdom of
God, to be a part of Jesus’ church.
Jesus’ work is not dependent on anything or anyone other than
him. And I recognize that as a follower of Christ. But as a
missiologist, who is evangelistically active and discipleship
driven, I engage critical race theory because it’s relevant to
my mission field in North America.
So, when people enter into the conversation wanting to
understand, then that’s what I want to do. I want to help give
them the themes that I’ve identified from the primary voices and
point them in the direction of Scripture. I want to show them
where some claims are truthful and you’re not compromising
Christianity or reducing the finished work of Christ if you
acknowledge that there are claims that are true in this
methodology. And then, at the same time, as a follower of
Christ, because CRT was not developed in a theological sphere or
arena, it’s not going to lead to the same kingdom conclusions
that we see as those living on mission for Christ. The
conclusions and the solutions should lead to gospel
conversations with people.
And I think the fear is that people are saying that CRT is being
forced on them by Christians who have platforms. CRT is saying
that the gospel is not enough, and we need this to help us. And
I think that’s where we just read our presuppositions and what
people are saying.
I’m not admitting that the gospel is not enough. I still
proclaim the gospel. So when people are saying you got to pick
critical race theory or the gospel, I’m like, that’s a false
dichotomy. I don’t have to play your game. Helping people
understand that through dialoguing and answering honest
questions with us honest research will help us. And it doesn’t
mean that just answering questions is going to suffice and
everything goes back to being good. No, these are ongoing
conversations again. That’s why I say it’s a discipleship issue.
People are cherry-picking some of their quotes, not giving
diligence to the context of the quote, and people are only
seeing the sound bite. And the people who don’t want to do the
diligent work of researching or cross-referencing or searching
for context, they're going to believe these little sound bite
options. And that’s where the motives of people then have to be
measured.
These are things that I think can only be parsed out through
ongoing, honest, transparent, and safe spaces created for these
real conversations, and they’re best done in discipleship
relationships.
*****************************************************