In this video episode of Thinking in Public with Albert Mohler, R. Albert Mohler, Jr. interviews James Lindsay on Critical Theory.
In this interview, non-SBC author Sean Collins interviews Joseph Bottum regarding how, “Woke anti-racism certainly appears to have taken on the trappings of religion. White people have been seen washing the feet of black people and asking for forgiveness, a ritual firmly in line with the Christian tradition. And terms like ‘white guilt’ and ‘white privilege’ are treated much as Original Sin used to be – things for which humanity must forever atone.”
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 article, Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer argue, “Whites are not corporately guilty for their ancestors’ racial sins (much less the sins of historical strangers) and do not need to corporately repent for them.”
In a 2013 essay, Thabiti Anyabwile wrote regarding same-sex marriage, “Turns out that being civil about indecency actually hurts the traditional cause.” His point was that polite discourse about abominable behavior plays a role in normalizing such behavior. It is not difficult to see why that would be the case. Polite discourse minimizes and, over time, neutralizes the instinct of moral revulsion. While moral revulsion alone is not enough to sustain ethical practice over time, it is an important community-shaping element. Healthy communities express moral revulsion at that which is truly abominable, and the healthy effect of such revulsion is a natural deterrent toward said behavior within the community. People who are socialized into being appalled at what is appalling to God have the blessing of a moral compass shaped according to truth. Anyabwile’s “gag reflex” argument highlights an important component of the effects of our discourse about sin. It is entirely possible to speak of sin in a way that is technically correct, while still lacking entirely in true moral fiber, leading to the further erosion of social norms and the withering away of a protective moral revulsion.
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.”
I love the word “community,” but I hate to see it bastardized into such phrases as “the ________ community” (fill in the blank: white, black, gay, female, non-binary, Christian, minority, etc.). Whenever you put a modifier in front of “community” to define it as a demographic, you have actually changed the meaning of the term. A true community is a local establishment of households who share physical spaces and community traditions. They are invested in local history and institutions. They have flesh-and-blood interactions with one another. They eat together, do business together, send their children to school together, go to town hall meetings together, worship together, attend local public library events together, and thousands of other activities that are entailed in living one’s life locally. A city or town is itself a large community that is further subdivided into communities that exist at smaller levels: districts, neighborhoods, schools, churches, etc.
My point here is simply this: there is no such thing as a “community” of people who are grouped together on the basis of a demographic indicator (skin color, sexual orientation, sexual identity, etc.). The moment we speak of “the gay community,” for example, as a way of linking together gay people across 3.8 million square miles between our national borders, we are speaking of people who do not share common spaces and institutions, who do not (and cannot) have interactions with one another, and who therefore cannot in any meaningful sense constitute a community.
In this video, Stephen Michael Feinstein explains how his California Southern Baptist Convention failed to guard against the threat of Critical Theory.
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.