In this article for Themelios, non-SBC author Robert S. Smith explains, “While majoritarian systems always have the potential to become tyrannous, and the track-record of Western civilization is far from unblemished, to demonize the key elements and attainments of Western culture—e.g., Christian morality, family, hierarchy, loyalty, tradition, the rule of law, sexual restraint, universal suffrage, property rights, patriotism, capitalism, and technology—is both myopic and ungrateful. Furthermore, criticizing an imperfect system when you have no idea how to build a better one is more than idealistic; it is irresponsible.”
In this article, non-SBC author Daniel Schrock comments at length on an objection raised when, “the 47th General Assembly opted (after a lengthy and impassioned debate) to ‘declare the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’s ‘Nashville Statement’ on biblical sexuality as a biblically faithful declaration and refer the ‘Nashville Statement’ to the Committee on Discipleship Ministries for inclusion and promotion among its denominational teaching materials.'”
In this podcast episode, the hosts focus on, “Ideas like: intersectionality, whiteness, and privilege, among others. All of these ideas have their roots in something called Critical Theory. Today, we talk with Neil Shenvi and Matt Warner, who discuss whether Critical Theory is a threat or is something that can be edifying for Christians to employ.”
In this article, SBC author Bart Barber makes plain the contours of the complementarian discussion in relation to the issues of Scripture and abuse, writing, “Beth Moore asserted in her remarks that certain corruptions of complementarianism lead to or exacerbate the abuse problem that the Southern Baptist Convention faces. I think that perhaps I agree in part and that I disagree in part.”
Critical theory locates the sin of oppression in systems rather than in individual acts. Consequently, it argues that guilt accrues to all who belong to an oppressive class, regardless of their personal intentions or actions, due to the benefits they receive from the oppression of minorities. To take a prominent example, white men in America are to be regarded as stained from birth with the sins of racism and misogyny by virtue of their (involuntary) participation in the two privileged categories of “white” and “men.” In order to be imputed with the guilt of these two sins, a white male need not actually perform any racist or misogynistic actions. All he must do is exist in a society that grants him privileges for his ethnicity and gender. Therefore, he relates to members of other groups (minorities and women) with a vacuum of moral authority that requires him to humble himself, repent, and seek atonement and absolution from them. This is the basic framework by which sin, guilt, and justification are understood through the lens of critical theory.
This post is the fifth in a series addressing New Liberalism and the Southern Baptist Convention. “New Liberalism” is a catch-all term for what some see as a theological threat similar to the liberalism of the previous century. This series does not assume that New Liberalism is in the SBC, but is intended to more clearly delineate the concept of New Liberalism in relation to the SBC.
Psychology and sociology most often function as all-encompassing, transcendent, ideological approaches to understanding the world, operating upon assumptions decidedly opposed to God. One sees this as much in Jordan Peterson as one sees it in Critical Theory. The conclusions may be different from one another, but their foundations are the same. Scripture appears in both, but not as Scripture appears in conservative Christian theology. The difference between secular psychological or sociological approaches to Scripture and conservative Christian theology is not the use of Scripture and religious language, or lack thereof, but the way in which Scripture and religious language are used as either building upon a secular theory or as bedrock for an explicitly Christian theology. We are not saying that those promoting the former set of ideas are not Christian. We are saying that what they promote is not Christian. And we are concerned about which will be preached from our pulpits.
In this article, Denny Burk writes in response to Sam Storms, “to defend the Baptist Faith & Message 2000—in particular, its teaching about the pastorate.”
In this video, Stephen Michael Feinstein explains how his California Southern Baptist Convention failed to guard against the threat of Critical Theory.
In this podcast interview, non-SBC speaker Rosaria Butterfield explains, “Gay Christianity is a different religion. I’m not standing in the same forest with Greg Johnson and Wes Hill and Nate Collins looking at different angles of the trees, I’m in a different forest altogether.”
This post is the fourth in a series addressing New Liberalism and the Southern Baptist Convention. “New Liberalism” is a catch-all term for what some see as a theological threat similar to the liberalism of the previous century. This series does not assume that New Liberalism is in the SBC, but is intended to more clearly delineate the concept of New Liberalism in relation to the SBC.
The progenitors of the new progressivist tendency in Christianity might truly believe that they believe the Bible, might earnestly desire others to believe the Bible, and at the very least want others to believe that they believe the Bible. Thus sociological theories are read back into the text of Scripture in much the same way that scientific theories were read back into the text of Scripture, and especially Genesis 1-11, in the old liberalism. Terms are lifted from their texts to create a new Christianity commensurate with and thus subordinate to the spirit of the age.