According to the description for this episode of UNSHACKLED! titled ‘The Enemy Within,’ “In this homage to CS Lewis’s ‘The Screwtape Letters’, a Senior Tempter instructs a Junior Tempter how to secure the damnation of their latest ‘patient.’ The fact that this patient is part of a Bible study only emboldens their efforts.”
In this video episode of Thinking in Public with Albert Mohler, R. Albert Mohler, Jr. interviews James Lindsay on Critical Theory.
In this post, Neil Shenvi responds to charges he is promoting ‘slave master theology,’ writing, “we need to recognize that there are deep problems at work in our culture and in the church. The social gospel and liberation theology are not dead; they are not even dormant. They are erupting.”
In this interview, Wil and Meeke Addison discuss Cultural Marxism and its birth in America before speaking with Pastor Stephen Feinstein about a new resolution on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.
Baptist21 interviews R. Albert Mohler, Jr. on:
In this post, Tom Nettles introduces a new edition of the Founders Journal featuring an article from Timon Cline on Critical Race Theory, explaining, “Timon’s work in law at Rutgers introduced him to critical legal theory. Soon he became aware of the far-reaching impact of Critical Theory in many disciplines and the implications it has for overhauling all the fundamental commitments of culture.”
In this two-part sermon series, Ryan Fullerton preaches on Romans and Critical Theory.
Todd Benkert’s recent piece on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality (CRT|I) at SBCVoices.com is helpfully clarifying in at least three ways. First, Benkert straightforwardly admits that both he and others within the Southern Baptist Convention are using Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality. Benkert indicates they are not merely using the language of CRT|I, but its concepts, and intentionally so. Second, Benkert admits that these individuals are using CRT|I despite the fact that CRT|I is “dangerous.” Third, Benkert mounts a defense of CRT|I and the infamous Resolution 9, which he believes speaks of CRT|I in positive fashion. He would not change anything about Resolution 9, and does not believe it should be rescinded. Indeed, he believes doing so will actually set the SBC back in terms of “reconciliation work.”
Although Benkert attempts to take a middle way in his post, positing CRT|I as both an analytical tool and a dangerous ideology, his examples of using CRT|I as an analytical tool, some of which are discussed in this post, exemplify why CRT|I is such a dangerous ideology. This observation is not meant to impugn Benkert’s motives. Nevertheless, some (not saying this is true of Benkert) seem unaware of how far down the ideological rabbit hole they have gone. This series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) has highlighted some of the difficulties with doubling down on CRT|I in response to recent posts and podcasts pointing out its problems. This fourth and final post addresses Benkert’s defense of CRT|I by examining two examples he provides from CRT|I.
In this article, “members of the 2019 Resolutions Committee sought to shed light on both their purpose in addressing the topic and the process by which the resolution was developed, with the goal of clarifying any misconceptions.”
Todd Benkert’s recent piece on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality (CRT|I) at SBCVoices.com is helpfully clarifying in at least three ways. First, Benkert straightforwardly admits that both he and others within the Southern Baptist Convention are using Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality. Benkert indicates they are not merely using the language of CRT|I, but its concepts, and intentionally so. Second, Benkert admits that these individuals are using CRT|I despite the fact that CRT|I is “dangerous.” Third, Benkert mounts a defense of CRT|I and the infamous Resolution 9, which he believes speaks of CRT|I in positive fashion. He would not change anything about Resolution 9, and does not believe it should be rescinded. Indeed, he believes doing so will actually set the SBC back in terms of “reconciliation work.”
Although Benkert attempts to take a middle way in his post, positing CRT|I as both an analytical tool and a dangerous ideology, his examples of using CRT|I as an analytical tool exemplify why CRT|I is such a dangerous ideology. This observation is not meant to impugn Benkert’s motives. Nevertheless, some (not saying this is true of Benkert) seem unaware of how far down the ideological rabbit hole they have gone. This series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) attempts to highlight some of the difficulties with doubling down on CRT|I in response to recent posts and podcasts pointing out its problems. This third of four posts addresses the second clarifying point noted above. Benkert admits that both he and others within the Southern Baptist Convention are using the language, concepts, and arguments of CRT|I, and are doing so intentionally, while recognizing its dangers. So it is worthwhile to examine how Benkert believes we can avoid the dangers involved in using CRT|I.