Christians and Racial Justice: A Critical Debate (ft. Neil Shenvi & Ed Uszynski)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2024
- Is Critical race theory a threat to the church? Has it just become a buzzword for progressive ideologies? Is it compatible with Christianity? Authors Neil Shenvi and Ed Uszynski agree about the nature of CRT, but they disagree strongly about whether it is a threat to Christianity, whether it is compatible with Christianity, and much more. Please check out this important conversation and consider sharing it with a friend.
READ: Untangling Critical Race Theory, by Ed Uszynski (amzn.to/4aOVqw3)
READ: Critical Dilemma: The Rise of Critical Theories and Social Justice Ideology (amzn.to/3x4Vkm7)
READ: "Tangled: A Long Review of Uszynski's Untangling Critical Race Theory," by Neil Shenvi (shorturl.at/WTVcp)
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell
Website: seanmcdowell.org
I'm a black woman and I disagree with Ed.
I'm not sure if maybe I'm just not smart enough for this conversation, but I find myself disagreeing with Ed for one very obvious reason, I don't need to consider CRT, because the Biblical idea of racial justice is sufficient.
Why mess around with the very flawed counterfeit when I already have the original.
Amen!!!
Love you, sister!
Amen
CRT or not, CRT is a legal tool that is used in the halls of academia by lawyers to exam laws, and policies and institutions that either uphold or produce racial inequality so it very may well have a place in that context. American law is very complex.
Agreed! There are no end to bad ideas, if we have to contemplate all of them ...we'd have no time to get anything done.
The problem with looking at the world through the lens of CRT is that it is a broken and distorted lens based on unbiblical, Marxist assumptions about human nature and how the world works. We absolutely need to listen to people with different perspectives and try to understand them, but at the end of the day we have to apply a Biblical lens to understand the world around us. It was a great conversation.
It's interesting because I work in an agency that has a huge focus on DEI and CRT issues. When I hear the same messaging coming out of my church, I had to question if my agency was having a revival (obviously not) or if the church was living downstream from modern culture. I am so glad I found ministries such as the Center for Biblical Unity which helps expose what is really happening in churches today and encourages us to look to the Bible for principles around Unity as this is not some "new issue".
In fact this led me to a personal revival where I learned to appreciate vs by vs, chapter by chapter Bible teaching, that helps reduce the likelihood of secular ideology and influence from coming into the teaching.
37:45 White people have not thought about race? They fought to end slavery, they helped fight the civil rights movement. And we are taught to think about it all the time. Non-stop. We can't look at a black person without thinking about their race and overthinking microaggressions. This is not a Christian way of looking at the issue. It seems obvious to me that Ed actually buys into the narrative and doesn't agree that it's a bad thing.
It's hard to listen to this without wanting to make constant comments. I am trying to listen, I am trying to understand, but I don't think when people say things that are bad and unbiblical we need to try to understand where they are coming from all the time. We should be able to say this is wrong. The same is with queer theory in the same as with racism.
Imagine this. A group of white evangelicals suddenly stand up and say blackness is a problem, and black people need to be less black. Are we not okay condemning that, or do we need to have a conversation? Or can we do both?
Um, plenty of white evangelicals have done that. And then look at RL Dabney. A racist from the past that John MacArthur, Phil Johnson and others constantly venerate even though they acknowledge that he was racist. If you can condemn John MacArthur and the like, then that's fine, but there's a large portion of American evangelicals that dismiss conversations about racism all the time and they're usually the ones that have the most to say about CRT. And when it comes to understanding where people are coming from, you can do that while still calling things out to be wrong. You can appreciate what people say about masculinity and make headship without accepting abuse against women and children that runs rampant and is dismissed and overlooked in a lot of the more conservative churches. Mind you, not all conservative churches, but the hyper conservative ones.
I do think Ed is seeing CRT from the perspectives that aren't necessarily a problem while Neil and others are seeing the problems in it and rightfully questioning if the "good" views will compromise and grow the issue
I think an interview like this needs to have someone, and there's A LOT of current people, who formerly was involved in the mindset of idolizing race and how it starts small and grows to really get the point across of how dangerous idolizing race is
@@thisguy2985 I didn't say that no white people or white evangelicals are racist or struggle with race issues. I think it's the vast minority at this point. Are you sure they are rejecting "conversations"? When I see people making the claim that we need to have a conversation about race, it is usually followed by the idea, "Shut up and listen to what we have to tell you. You can't ask questions and you can't push back." That is NOT a conversation, and that is not what is meant by conversation. Latasha Morrison's book is a great example of that. I agree with the second half of your post 🙂
The real test of this should be "what does the Bible say?"
In my opinion and looking at the Epistles it is clear that the church should hold firm to sound doctrine and not search out teachers who will satisfy their itching ears.
We should see the difference between each other melt away by the commonality of the one who redeemed us.
Peter attempted to hold to antiquated ideas by announcing that it was unlawful to enter the centurions house but God commanded that he go and witness.
The first sermon on pentacost showed that God was multiethnic minded.
We should "warn a divisive person once and after that have nothing to do with them." If we follow biblical commands by the founders. But how often do we in the modern church adhere to what the Bible teaches and submit ourselves to the words as they stand?
At the time the church founded there were current slaves in attendance. There were people of different races and even different attractions sexually (otherwise Paul wouldn't have needed to address these issues with a letter to instruct the church how to handle these issues).
I fall back to Jesus's prayer before his transfiguration: "Father, make them one. Just as you and I are one."
The difference between Neil and Ed is that Neil is rejecting CRT due to its anti Christian mandates. While Ed seems to defend it because there are some ideas involved that may have merit.
CRT needs to be dismissed. If we find issues then we do not need to adopt a bad theory to work on those issues. Any issues that are with us today should be addressed.
The logic here doesn't follow. you don't have to accept all of something to point out its truths. all truth is God's truth. you have to address points on their merrits, not write it off on principle.
@@d2k0bler You reject it when it comes as a package and it's ideas contradict God's.
On a separate note if there are viable points that do not contradict God's they can be examined outside of the rejected package.
@@mattgustafson2516 thats a logical fallacy. its also not the way we live life. you can't reject something just because these people say so based on someone's representation of it. if you have a person (like here in the video) discussing the ideas that happen to coincide inside CRT then you judge what's being said as its being said. remember, the thoughts and ideas expressed have been talked about before CRT was a thing.
@@mattgustafson2516 well then don’t accept it as a package. That’s what it means to discuss and pick apart and validate the ideas that are valid and reject the ideas that are not.
I think the question should be phrased differently.... Is Christianity a threat to CRT? Answer is , yes, when a person is genuinely converted, Christ will be everything.
While I feel Ed's heart at least in part, as a believer, I don't think I need CT as a lens as to how to view or treat anthropological/social issues. Scripture, I think, clearly delineates as to how we should respond to society's sufferings and pain past or present and it begins with going back to the fundamental command to love our neighbors of all colors, socio or economic levels, lgbtq, etc; who are all image bearers of God. The Biblical view in my opinion should be the fundamental theoritical and applicative lens with which to be informed and address the human plight.
That is pretty much what I was thinking! Ed was very well spoken, but I didn’t agree that CT was a necessary tool for understanding racial and cultural and social issues, we don’t need CT, we need Christ and scripture and love for Jesus and others.
@imabeliever85 Agreed. As far as I understand, CT does not hold to objective moral Truth. If this is the case, then how can CT ground justice or call anything objectively evil or immoral? The Biblical view grounds objective morality and Truth in God, so we have a standard, measure, and ontic reference point for good.
I think the problem is that the church is notoriously bad at having this conversation unless they're dragged kicking and screaming. It's like an extreme feminist calling someone out for abuse but not listening to her because she's a feminist and then the woman being abused continues to be abused because the church was unaware and refused to listen to someone calling it out because they had a different worldview. Basically, it's a matter of "If the church won't do it, someone else will". Kinda like how people comment on how MLK learned from a liberal Christian organization, but fail to mention that the conservative ones wouldn't let him join because he was black.
@thisguy2985 I agree that the church at large has failed in many areas. This is a failure of humans in the church, not of God or of the Truth of Scripture, from which we are informed as to how we should live and live with and treat others.
So I don't think departing from what God has already provided for humanity to actually heal and solve mankind's plight for a godless ideology and practice which at best is a band-aid, is what those in Christ should do.
The church needs to be the church Christ has built, and that Scripture commands. We are to go into the world and engage humanity and love our neighbors by becoming God's hands and feet.
@@titosantiago3694 It's important to remember that Christians used scripture to defend chattel slavery in the U.S., and that TODAY we see prominent Christians- many of them pastors- playing footsie with these defenses on social media. It should be that the Church is the dominant voice against ongoing racism in our culture. Sadly, that hasn't been the case historically, and it isn't the case today. I don't know the extent to which CRT can be helpful to the church, but I'm willing to consider it.
Why does Ed get to explain away and excuse what all the authors have written?
Ed's position becomes clearer and clearer as he speaks. He lives within anecdotal space, which is terribly antithetical to logical thinking. We are overrun with objective vs subjective thinking.
Thanks for hosting this debate, Sean! This was really insightful and beneficial for me.
Can't wait to read Ed's book, as a two hour discussion can only bring up certain aspects.
Totally agree with Neil - we need to understand first the IMPACT of CRT, then through discussions the details behind the higher level issues and facts can be gotten at through both experiences and facts.
White guy: White people should let POC lead conversation on race.
Also white guy: Proceeds to tell the Indian guy how he should talk about race.
Hahaha I noticed that too
I'd say that both of those are inaccurate presentations of the conversation.
@@Parableman Hey, I get you! Ed did not literally say either of these things. But he does believe and communicate the first and that’s definitely what CRT teaches. And in this discussion he is advocating for CRT and criticizes Neil’s book multiple times, not necessarily for being false but for being the wrong way to “have conversations” (or talk) about race. So I really don’t think I’m too far off.
Because I don’t agree with the tenants of CRT, I believe both Ed and Neil can seek the truth and both speak on the issue of whether or not CRT is Biblical. Neil doesn’t have a special insight into truth just because he is Indian. The irony is that under CRT, we should be giving more space, platform, and credence to Neil when it comes to race.
I saw Ed in person at a conference and he did actually say “White people, you need to go listen to and learn from black people before you speak. Just don’t listen to [insert long list of black people he disagrees with especially on CRT].” I also had this in mind with my comment.
I appreciate their dialogue and I don’t think Ed is a bad guy or coming from a bad place. But I do think many of his assertions are coming from an emotional place. He wants to love and connect and encourage and empathize, which are all awesome, beautiful goals and we SHOULD. I just agree strongly with Neil that if we are sacrificing truth for the sake of love, things are out of balance. If we can’t hold truth and love together, then we aren’t fully encapsulating the heart and mission of Christ on Earth. He came only to demonstrate his love for us but to testify to the truth (John 18:37).
You’re right, my comment wasn’t an in depth analysis of the conversation, so I hope this is a fairer explanation of where I’m coming from. Not looking to unnecessarily stir the pot.
Hope you have an amazing and blessed day!
P.S. I am pretty sure this was my first ever RUclips comment and I was pretty sure someone would push back. Thank you for doing it kindly!
@@Parableman also, feel free to push back. I may not respond but not because I won’t read it. Just because I don’t know if I have anything else to add to the conversation lol✌🏻
@@cakmak15 Ed was very clear that he opposes the absolutism of such statements. Neil agrees that there are often times where that is good advice. I don't think those are very different positions.
Ed, feelings are fickle. Feelings don't think. Feelings don't process facts and reality reliably.
Sean, I would LOVE it if you interviewed Steve Gregg from the Narrow Path! He is brilliant and is a walking Bible.
You could interview me. I’m a Jewish believer and I’ve been a pastor for 28 years. But I just told you the most interesting things lol
22:40 Bogus movements don't give just words to a person. They put ideas in people's heads. In this case including but not limited to victim mentality and actual racism.
How do you know whether it is a victim mentality if you don’t talk to them about what they’ve experienced ?
How exactly does one "pay attention to the Bible from the lenses of the black community"? What does that even mean? Does this change how we interpret the Bible? Why would anyone need this lens?
I am black and have no clue what that means 😂
It's contextualization. Like how you'd evangelize to someone in prison differently than a child, an elderly person, a farmer, someone of a different culture, etc. Someone who's been abused, you may initially emphasize the loving fatherly aspect of God while if there was a spoiled kid who thought God was stupid you might initially emphasize human depravity and how everyone falls short of the glory of God. Coming at it from a different point of view and contextualization doesn't mean ignoring things or giving a completely different message. I am also black and understand COMPLETELY what he's saying.
@@thisguy2985 This would work if the black community was the same everywhere and also if it stayed the same. So it does not IMO fit to abused children or elderly persons. Their situation change as situation of every person and people read the Bible differently in time as the Holy Spirit shows them things. Could you pls share some particular example of paying attention to the Bible from the lenses of the black community?
Yes! And WHO represents the "black community"? They are not a monolith. Should we pick Latasha Morrison? Jamar Tisby? Thomas Sowell? Voddie Baucham? I expect from Ed's perspective, the black community is an amorphous blob represented by Latasha Morrison.
How does putting on the lens of the “black community” (I would also like a definition of black community) align with the hermeneutical principle of authorial intent? I can understand contextualization from a missions perspective….
My Hosts Ed, Sean, and Neil thank you for thy visitations and attending unto our OWN! Remember WHO said "If ye LOVE me"! Love you too! Gratitude and Honor
Thank you for this Sean for this discussion. It was so helpful to me as I have conversations with others.
You bet!
Neil's analysis in his book has provided the STARTING POINT to understanding Critical Contemporary Theory... education/knowledge is critical first among Christians.
I prefer this before forming any opinions on this topic.
I really appreciate Ed in this discussion. His approach resonates with me and my experience. I look forward to reading his book.
Neil, I agree completely and I think you’re handling your side well. It’s not about NOT hearing the “why” in a personal conversation… it’s about not entertaining dangerous and destructive ideology in order to look open minded. You can speak in grace AND truth.
I can’t believe Ed can hear a quote that is so abusive (white people don’t get to speak and need to allow others to yell and cuss them out) and still only think, yeah but what is behind that. If you had a husband abusing a wife, sure you can find out why, but you don’t entertain the idea of the behavior and think it’s fine for someone to recommend that behavior to others because of the trauma the husband maybe originally experienced. Abuse does not justify more abuse.
Neil’s perspective seems like the good middle ground to me.
I agree 100%
This conversation is very difficult to listen to. Because it is completely and utterly unhelpful! I hear a lot about “lived experience” and all the differences between Black people and white people and their experiences, etc. etc. etc.… Let us who love Jesus look at the scriptures when it says we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual principalities and powers of wickedness in high places… white black brown etc. it doesn’t matter… These people aren’t our enemies these people aren’t our problems. These people aren’t our oppressors… The enemy of our very souls is who comes to kill steel and destroy! and people are our neighbors, and we are called to love them. The more we talk about our differences and our personal traumatic lived experiences with other races, the deeper the division goes. A house divided cannot stand! People aren’t the enemy! The enemy of our souls is the enemy! The greatest commandment is to love, God and love your neighbor! You can’t have one without the other! For how can you love God if you don’t love your neighbor who you can see? The Bible says then you’re a liar and the truth is not in you. This conversation is unhelpful! Love God, love people! Wrestle against the enemy using the armor provided you through the Holy Spirit! That’s it! There’s no other argument! nothing else needs to be said! Apply the Word of God to your life and that’s all you need to do.
thats great and all, but there are people who are avid in defending their partial views. I just had a conversation with a guy who said that haitians deserve to be enslaved and then qouted R.L. Dabney, a PCA minister who defended the institution of slavery and was a staunch racist. Whether you like it or not there are people who still hold to these ideals. Praise God that the PCA has repented of this, but people are becoming more bold in their racism. You need to call it for what it is and rebuked it.
Good on Neil. Ed is definitely trying to conduct a struggle session against him.
This is 🎯! I consistently see this way of talking in Marxist meetings.
Ed wants to center on feelings and experiences. Neil centers on Christianity and Jesus.
Dear Ed: the extreme result is the inevitable result.
I've never once in my 58 years seen a gay person down trodden and oppressed.
Not once
Great thought provoking conversation that brought some clarity from both sides, even though Ed as far as I understand does not represent or endorse the present CT we are experiencing secularly and that I think more specifically Neil is warning of.
I loved watching these two with their different roads to the topic locate each other throughout the conversation and illuminate their similarities and differences, with such a spirit of charity and love. Great examples. Thank you to both!
A very enjoyable debate with good points made on both sides, but I think Ed Uszynski has lost sight of the idea that ideas themselves can contain enticement (see also: Genesis 3) and thus can be dangerous. Both men seem to actually agree on how to apply the concepts but Neil Shenvi wants to walk the track and count ties carefully until he's ready to stop, while Ed kept referring to "riding the train." What if the train moves fast and has no stations before end-of-line?
This interview was a blessing! Taylor's testimony really touched my heart! I want to order his book. God bless,! ❤
I completely disagree with Ed. I’m kinda of certain I’m not going to keep my mouth shut.. I’m around a lot of great people, white and black.. and Hispanic.
I see Ed’s heart to not create hard lines that cut out conversation, but the issue is the heart of CRT that may have started with pure intentions has evolved into something ugly and divisive. And the thing is, the mindset that white people are encouraged to have is one that also cuts off conversation. I don’t know how many good talks I’ve had when I’ve just “shut my mouth.”
Well done Sean! Thank you for this.
Hey guys great talk. I love debates/discussions between knowledgeable people because it gives the rest of us a chance to think critically and reflectively, so thankyou both for your respect towards each other and for Shaun putting this together and letting you speak.
If you would permit me to use some analogies from some of my favourite movies, my takeaway from listening from both of you regarding CRT seems to be Neil sees it as "the One ring" from LOTR, it cannot be controlled, it only corrupts and it needs to be destroyed, whereas Ed seems to see it as the infinity gauntlet from the Avengers, yes it is powerful and dangerous, but let's use it for our good.
While those are both valid perspectives , the fact that you both agree this theory CAN cause harm, with reports of suicides from it, lends tension to view it as the " One ring" rather than the infinity gauntlet.
I know Ed will push back on this, so let me gently suggest a litmus test, replace the words black with white and white with black in the language espoused by the theory and see if that causes you some discomfort.
I think when you do this you will realise the same mentality that created the Jim crow laws in America created this theory also.
As Paul says, there is neither jew nor Greek, slave nor free, (no black or white- 😉) for we are all one in Jesus. God bless brothers.
Much of this interesting dialogue centered around 1) whether or not CRT authors are viable, and 2) the damage white people may or may not do to society. Absent in this entire conversation is the damage black people (and Hispanics, and Asians, etc, etc, etc) may or may not do to society. On that point alone, this is an unbalanced conversation, and has limited use in any real racial reconciliation. Maybe that 1/2 of the conversation will come later (I'm not holding my breath. Christians in the West are remarkably averse to talking about that, and would much rather talk about white pathologies. They are unbalanced on that point).
I raise that point in order to demonstrate that Ed consistently wants his cake and eat it too. Here's a prime example:
At the 1:26:00 mark, Ed talks about human rights for gays (and other oppressed minority groups), while at the same time maintaining his Christian view that homosexuality is immoral. As Christians, we have no problem acknowledging both facts. However, he skimps on the fact that CRT advocates repeatedly insist that his Christian opinion on homosexuality **IS** oppression, whether or not he physically/socially abuses gay people. Ed pretty much turned a deaf ear to Neil's insistence that CRT advocates repeatedly write that there is no bifurcation on exactly this issue. Sorry, but if CRT advocates are selling their worldview as an 'all or nothing', then the right Christian response is "Nothing for me, please! Thank you, and have a nice day"
The Biblical response to this fundamental CRT mindset has already been made clear in the pages of Scripture: "Come out of her, My people, so that you will not share in her sins or receive any of her plagues." (Rev 18:4).
Ed needs to wholeheartedly condemn CRT the way its advocates sell it. And he seems averse to doing so. ..just like most Christians won't talk about black (and Hispanic, and Asian) pathologies in society.
- -
Personally, I'm not much in favor of Neil's stance on SBC Prop 9. I get what he's saying, but I was one of the voices giving him grief about it when he ran his FB forum on it some years ago. I'm of the opinion that all truth is God's truth, and whatever scraps of meat CRT has to offer comes with too much bone to bother with. Scripture is sufficient, and doesn't need a CRT crutch.
And if it matters, I'm not white, and I was born in a 3rd world country. Today I live in a small US town that is overwhelmingly white, with a 0.97% black population (you read that right). I stand out like a sore thumb. And yet, I can probably count on 3 fingers the number of times I've been treated with racial animus over the past ~30 years.
(Maybe the problem is different in big cities. It's been a long time since I've lived in a big city.)
The statements are so vague about people saying that they felt left out of a conversation.
I'd really like to know exactly why and how they felt left out not a bunch of assumptions about the white man in the meeting. As a teenager I grew up in the Inner City from middle school to high school and was a minority as a white . Most of the students in my school were immigrants or indigenous Canadians. I suffered bullying from indigenous people. Our family was not affluent including being on welfare for a Time. For the last 30 years I have lived on isolated indigenous reserves in Canada where I as a white person, a distinct minority. In today's Dei ideology I represent the racist oppressor in this community even though the indigenous people here are my employers and I am subservient to them because I am an employee. I am here on their good graces. I essentially have non-person status because I am not a band member and I am not allowed to vote in band elections nor voice my opinions. I recieve no special perks band members receive, as I am not indigenous nor a band member.yet I am beholden to all their laws and authorities. The church that I attend here is a nice mixture of cultures including treaty status band members, non-status indigenous, people white people, Americans and Philipinos . We don't seem to have any cultural issues. And often it seems It's the indigenous people are on their own volition apologizing to the non-status residences for the racial biases or racist actions of the local band members which is extremely minimal nor dangerous on the whole.
And we the minority non-status groups do not complain about any racist attitudes towards them, again of which I say is very minimal. I still can't help but think and observe that d e i ideologies turn to disrupt the peace and cause divisions where there was no divisions before. Of course I as a white person my 30 years plus experience and observations are meaningless because of the color of my skin according to Dei. I have had many opportunities to hear individual indigenous peoples neigbhours ahare their life experiences. I have heard the full range from the best to the worst. It can't be generalized.
It can be apologized for but can not be erased through reparations. There is so much more to say but who knows it it would help!
1:37 - As followers of Jesus, why do we need this “great lens” of intersectionality to look through? Does Gods word not provide us with the best lens with which to think rightly about these issues?
Exactly! Wish this was stated more clearly in the interview.
It does, but Christians don't always listen. Sometimes the world acts.more Christian than Christians do, but then aren't listened to because "Well they're not Christian, so they must be wrong". That's why so many abuse cases against women go unreported and everyone gets called a feminist who try to call it out. Look at the cases of abuse happening under John MacArthur's watch that people still refuse to address because "Feminism bad"
Some Christians have blind spots, so other brothers and sisters may see something you dont
@simplyserge144 That is the great work of the Holy Spirit in us :-) Definitely not going to credit that to a modern day ideology called intersectionality, but God's vision for accountability to one another is perfect.
Currently reading critical dilemma. I would say ed misrepresents Neil’s book and its purpose. Neil at some points is very charitable to points in CRT, he does not throw the baby out with the bathwater at all in my opinion. Ed surprised me in this conversation, a lot of the points he brought up as “not addressed” in the book actually were addressed just not to the depth he seemed to have desired. Obviously it’s not possible to remember everything you read but I there were a handful of things ed said about Neil and his book that were just untrue whether he knew that or not. Another point I don’t think most people will read critical dilemma and come away thinking they need to avoid CRT like the plague. Ed is reading his own bias into the book when he says it will make people avoid CRT as an evil thing.
Great conversation. . .
Christians are finding CRT in the same way that non-Christian are discovering Jordan Peterson
21:52 "And I find myself saying that Neil is pointing out why a statement is wrong. And I find myself asking why was the statement made in the first place?"
I think that's the money question and money observation, on Ed's part. I think Neil's approach of general condemnation is the easier route and also why many will take it.
I say that distinguishing critical race theory or thinking about race critically, from much of the heretical views its morphed into and been hijacked by. Thinking about race critically in a nation with our history and present, helps us address the inherent dignity of black and brown image bearers systematically stolen and suppressed over centuries. With gospel lenses we can see a similarity between CRT and the fig leaves Adam and Eve grabbed for themselves to cover their nakedness in the Garden. The serpent disrobed them of their righteousness as image bearers. And America has a history of this sane dis-robement continuing in its churches (slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, red-lining). The solution is not pretending there's no question. It letting the gospel restore the glory of the dignity that has been lost, stolen and even sometimes forfeited.
I appreciate your analogy and reference to the Bible. God has opinion on this matter and speaks to injustice, impartiality and favoritism, hatred and pride. In His word we can see His will for humanity and how lost we all are and how desperately we all need Him. As brothers and sisters on hrist we must seek, show, and model the unity that is portrayed in His word! I wish mention of the Bible would have been offered more in this interview. I love the work that Monique Dusan, from Center for Biblical Unity, is doing in pointing the church back to the Biblical definition of Unity.
@@jeramysteele I love Monique and Krista! I got to meet them at the Colson Fellows Summit a couple years ago.
One complete extrovert, one more quiet introvert. Makes for a very unbalanced conversation in terms of “two sided discussion” (the idea differences notwithstanding) unless the moderator controls it a bit better. Ed tended to “drone on” over the same points, and anecdotal experience (valuable thought it may be). Lopsided. Ed’s criticism of Neil’s perspective felt condescending to me.
Ed seems like a nice guy, but my problem with his position is that he seems to want to excuse the writers of CRT because of the history of slavery and because all the problems hadn't been dealt with yet. He doesn't seem to realize that CRT ultimately is racist and leads to an even more racial way of thinking about everything since everything is defined by race in it. He should realize the problem if he took all the statements made about "whiteness" and put in the word "blackness" instead. It would immideately show what it really is. Correcting a wrong with another wrong is never the solution. I've been instructed by Christ to look at the fruit of a tree and thereby judge it. The fruit I see from CRT isn't pretty, it reeks of hate and just about every negative emotion you can think of. It does not promote or foster any of the fruits of the spirit, on the contrary, it makes you go the other direction. That tells me everything I need to know about who the ultimate source of it is. There's also a foul smell of emotional blackmail and manipulation of empathy within it that I almost fell for, but that highly enranged me once I saw through it. The one point I'll give Ed is that I do believe in dialouge.
I heard . A Pastor say recently, that Where People leave Churches. In many cases, these are OVER dramatised..with minor issues.. Then Blame the Church. Where they were Not Blameless .. just Saying!
My Own. Nothing is better than seeing my Own having sincere conversations unto one another = sincere answers! Remember ye are a little Child born "i" sitteth with thy AM! As HE the "i" AM. From the SINGULARITY The I AM. Shared "i" AM come forth! Now sincere conversations can take place from the Fall!
Listening to Ed is difficult.
Our faith in the Lord Jesus can not be separated from any other discussions. If we are not talking in thw context ouf our faith our words, thoughts & results about any other subject are in vain
The over arching conflict seems to come down to CRT & CGT both revolve around group -think and group righteousness, whereas, Christianity, by God's Word, is about the individual ultimately, each soul created uniquely, each on a journey, of course to bring every other soul they can to the Lord Jesus Christ, but ultimately, to reach the eternal reward. CRT & CGT are all about coercing everyone else to believe and conform to them, Christianity is about conforming to Christ. One is a narrow worldly view, the other is expansively looking out and far to eternity.
Without basic truth, which Christians can only promote, hopefully with love, there is little hope for those individuals who've determined their entire life focus will be about 'color', 'fairness', 'equity'. Amazing accolades and job security for the lead promoters, but likely a failed eternity will be their reward.
Thanks for a good session! I'm a Canadian so don't share the US view on this subject but one thing for sure: I've read Kendi and completely reject his idea that a black person cannot be racist. Bottom line is that if a policy explicitly favors one racial group over another that's racism and in Kendi's writing racism is very evident. It's only a MINOR exaggeration to say Kendi is even more racist than Wallace, Faubus and Thurmond was in a previous generation.
That saying this session was particularly interesting and definitely something I will be thinking about with respect to the Canadian church where the main type of racism relates to aboriginal people rather than blacks (who arent really present in numbers outside Toronto - where they're mostly Caribbean blacks - and Nova Scotia). To the extent it's an issue in the Canadian church it's more by neglect than explicitly so it's good to have this subject "on the radar"
What’s the Canadian view?
36:00 Neil talks about writing a book that says certain bad doctrines are bad. And then separately somehow there is a different way to talk to your LGBTQ friends or coworkers or whatever. OK, but I think the problem is that when you write books that just say this is bad, you can do it in a way that is not offensive, and let the truth be the offense if need be. Today it is becoming very lucrative and popular to be as deliberately offensive as possible toward those we see caught in sin or with whom we disagree. This does nothing except create more division and doesn’t even give people a clear picture of the truth to reject or accept.
We as Christians need to understand that we are being heard against this backdrop of toxic Christianity or toxic conservatism. And I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh religiously for about 13 years straight.
56:10 just up to this point Neil is talking about his experience with white people being very loving and caring. Yes, I have experienced the same thing growing up white in a white community. Up until you question their perception of a particular person that they idolize (political figure, spiritual teacher, or whatever). Also a note pay attention to what too often happens when somebody doesn’t experience that love and connection and they look around at everybody being happy and loving, and they are not experiencing that, such as in a covert abuse situation? Or just plain old being overlooked and ignored. It’s very easy to miss if you aren’t the one experiencing it. And when they turn around and accuse the favored elder or pastor of abuse, and everybody just says well that can’t be happening because we aren’t experiencing it, it’s doubly traumatizing to that person.
How many Christians are we hearing about today? That had no idea of the abuse that was happening right under their nose because they couldn’t believe that such and such Pastor would do such a thing?
I know that we have to treat people the way they present themselves to us, if they aren’t spouting racist things then we can’t assume that they’re racist. I get that. But that doesn’t mean it’s not making inroads. And the last people who are going to see it are those who are not the targets.
56:14 he gives what seems like lip service to discussing the idea that 20% of evangelicals do not agree with inter racial marriage. That is a pretty **huge** problem to be just dismissing it out of hand as if it doesn’t apply to this situation.
You can’t dismiss the dangers of a lit match just because the flame is small . And 20% is not small.
Anyone who is pro-CRT only needs to read Brian Godawa’s “Cruel Logic”.
agree with Neil - my church doesn't understand CRT and cannot explain why its ideological tenets are bad biblically
This is a fascinating discussion and I'm only ankle deep into it, listening wise, but as a medium toned person (neither dark nor light), I have experienced racial prejudice, and I do think that getting the narratives of lived experience of not-White people IS valuable to examine.
What do these worldly ideas have to do with the church? I'm not going to drop to my knees, when I don't know why people even listen to this.
There are texts. Read Joni Schwartz-Chaney's Critical Faith: What is it, What it isn't, and Why it matters
Can someone tell me what's wrong with meritocracy?
Really great respectful discussion. Looking through a broader societal political lens CRT is a potential gateway to progressivism and ultimately the deconstruction of orthodox biblical beliefs. I wouldn’t give my kiddo a Ouija Board to play with just for fun either. At the individual level one can’t do any better than loving their neighbor and demonstrating some curiosity about others. CRT offers all risk and nothing more positive than what scripture plainly prescribes. Everybody has struggles to overcome and challenges to face. A small fraction of those may be race related. Churches centering on race plays into the hands secular progressives.
I have tried to facilitate conflict between and among Christian individuals and groups for over 50 years and never reach harmony by starting with theoretical points of view. There are far too many personal issues and pain points. Harmony is always between humans that must agree on an issue. Peter was unable to have table fellowship. This discussion is an example of three theoretical men trying to harmonize different theories.
I’m a black woman and I agree with everything that Ed said!!
Does Ed know who who LBJ was?
CRT, much like progressive Christianity correctly identifies issues and problems. But where they go from there is antithetical to the Gospel. Ed is correct in following to where CRT points and wants to have conversations, but then he seems to stop there. CRT goes further, much further. And it’s a path towards disunity not unity.
Ed seems to want to have hard conversations about race, sex, etc. but critical theory doesn’t allow for that.
At one point near the end of this amazing exchange of ideas, Dr. Shenvi is making a point about the way intersectionality is at the core of CRT. He says something like, “If you go to a Critical Race Theorist and say, 'I am open about being introspective about the ways in which I've been cruel and insensitive regarding race, class, gender, sexuality and other marginalized people . . . '” BUT THAT'S JUST IT: I don't think Evangelicals want to be introspective about the ways in which their thinking and behavior may hurt marginalized people. They are happy to have a first-rate scholar like Dr. Shenvi delegitimize CRT and its adherents. They are glad to have that homosexuality component to CRT because, in their minds, it invalidates the whole deal. Rant aside, thanks to both Dr. Shenvi and Dr. Uszynski for modeling a passionate but respectful dialogue, and to Dr. McDowell for fairly and adeptly moderating. Dr. Uszynski, you're my new hero.
Ed was allowed to express this statement unchallenged. He stated that he sees a majority of those he works with leave the ministry amidst the spaces of “white evangelicals” because we don’t pay enough attention to the Bible or paying attention to the Bible through the lens of the “black community”. Why didn’t Neil or Sean stop and say, “Wait! Which white Christians? Where is your data? Is it fair to judge people as a group based on the color of their skin?” Ed was spewing critical theories and critical race theory throughout his comments and they went unchallenged. CRT is a huge problem in the church because it has been infused in our seminaries and universities for decades. Churches should be educating their parishioners how to recognize it in their schools, in the churches, in their libraries, in their sports, in their clubs, in their corporations, in their community orchestras, in their robotics clubs, etc. but the church is asleep. ASLEEP IN THE LIGHT. These conversations amidst evangelicals that would praised by SBTS, other Christian colleges, TGC and the like - need to stop. It’s not helping in getting rid of this terrible ideology from the psyche of Christians.
You think CRT is a huge issue in our churches? Really? Most churches I attend (flint, detroit, and lansing michigan) do not even talk about race or race issues or how to bring healing into our communities or be advocates of peace. Honestly, pornagraphy, political idolatry, excessive consumerism are much bigger issues than churches talking about CRT or it's ideology. Again, most churches ignore any talk of race issues because the pastor will get slammed.
I am listening to this over time so I am adding comments as I go. Toward the end when Sean summarizes Ed's position, that he doesn't support critical race theory but basically likes elements of it, I have heard no evidence that there is anything he doesn't support. What tenet of critical race theory does he reject? He accepts interest convergence, racism is normal and ordinary, intersectionality minus homosexual marriage, it seems like he buys into pretty much all of it. I do wish that this conversation could have focused on examples of how racism is ordinary and embedded today, because I would dispute that, at least to any real measurable degree. I find that these people usually cite disparities, which are not evidence of discrimination. Changing culture would have far more impact than eliminating racism.
I'll throw one final comment in here. The racist impact on black communities is from policies on the left. I highly doubt Ed would agree with that, but Thomas Sowell documents it very well. Even during Jim Crow, blacks in the south were buying houses, building families, and starting to build wealth. LBJ's welfare state policies destroyed the black family and began the cycle of government dependence that still haunts them today. Want to solve the problem of a Christian school in a black community not offering opportunities for those poor, black students to attend? Support vouchers and school choice! Private Christian schools cannot afford to have students go for free, at least the ones I am familiar with, and I was the principal of one. The left oppose all ideas that would allow black communities to get ahead and instead support all the ideas that hold them back.
Thank you. I totally agree.
Civil rights was meant for equality for different skin color, not a moral problem. Expasion to any morally wrong issues is not Christian nor constitutional.
No, you can’t get off the CRT train before it hits the end of the tracks
Why not? He just did
I'm only about a third of the way through so far, and I think I agree more with Neil. But I don't necessarily disagree with Ed. What I've noticed is that they are both attacking the systematic first, but they're coming at it from opposite systematics. For example it is attacking systemic racism paradoxically or ironically or poetically by approaching the individual relationally first. Ed is attacking the systemic monolith or ideal of CRT because the system itself is anti-biblical and bad. Both of them are right, but they're starting point is different. Neil is saying debunk and agree that the whole system is bad and then we can relate to the person, it is saying we need to relate to the person first and then show them how the gospel is a better way and also CRT is wrong, but dealing with your concerns As an individual is not wrong.
Seemed like Ed sees CRT as a vibe rather than an ideology with propositions and real content.
Also, ANY idea whatsoever can spur meaningful conversation. That doesn’t mean an idea is fit for use in the church. For example, “Pol Pot’s goals and ideas were misunderstood and actually admirable.” That horrendous sentence could generate some great conversations. But it’s an immoral statement.
Content matters.
l just learned that Voddie Bauchum has written a new book. l like Voddie!
This Ed guy is so condescending. He’s determined to make Neil agree or else categorize Neil as a racist. Ed shouldn’t even be platformed here.
You must have watched a different video.
Ed should go to the church that i just left, they got into CRT big time. He'll need to go fast, because it's about to close down due to all the offended white people leaving.
I think u need to talk to Jeremy Lin about race in the NBA...its deffinately there according to his experience.
Both guys have valid points, but they’re based on experiential SUBJECTIVE experiences. When we over focus on the problem of sin’s fallout we will have different responses! As believers we are charged to study the truth of the WORD and know what it says about everything. There is nothing new under the sun. The Israelites were having the same conversations while being chased across the desert by the Egyptians, and they also would have been charged to obey their masters when enslaved (according to scripture). We are to study the truth and then respond, not study the counterfeit and expect to glean truth from its ever changing environment.
THIS!!!!
It seems to me that Ed is all four and speaking from standpoint epistemology so it seems to me that his discourse is colored by the tenants of CRT so he's speaking through those lens not about them
CRT is another gospel and what does a Bible say about another gospel? There are things that are unredeemable such as porn, abortion, and Karl Marx. What fellowship does light have with darkness?
Ed acts as if Kendi is the "Fringe" of CRT and unfortunately he is wrong! I work for a public agency of over 10k employees. In 2015 it was Kendi's and D'Angelos version of CRT training that we were required to attend. It may also be helpful to mention that there is more disunity and suspicion between co-workers now than prior to 2015. I feel he is trying to teach a real "fringe" version himself. Also, and I hate that I have to apply this to Neil, also, but I never heard any scripture or examples of Biblical views in this entire discussion. Rather than the urgency to "find usefullness" in CRT concepts (as Ed suggest), I would ask "Is the Bible sufficient or does it lack on these issues?" Do we really need another idelogy to understand how God feels about racism and oppression?
He's not fringe in our culture. His book was #2 on Amazon in 2020. But he's not really central at all to CRT as an academic discipline. Those people don't see him as one of them, and they disagree with a lot of his stances. In particular he defines racism as any disparity along race lines, and they see racism as power + prejudice.
@@Parableman what the average person is being taught and bought and is dominant in our culture is what gets the attention. When the average person hears CRT that is what they reference. Isn't the war against an ideology that is opposed to Yahweh's? Defending something that isn't really even relevant is kinda pointless, imo. The Kendi is what is getting into our churches and businesses and is creating disunity.
@@jeramysteele Yes, the fault there is two-fold. The race activists have brought CRT principles into their overall worldview, and the connection to actual CRT is there. Yet what they are doing is not quite CRT.
Then on the other side you have people like Chris Rufo, who deliberately decided to call everything he didn't like CRT in order to make it seem worse than it actually is to get people opposed to it. He admitted doing that, too. His strategy is fundamentally dishonest, and he admitted that.
Kendi and DiAngelo have an ideology that is terrible. It's not quite the same thing as CRT, even though it draws from CRT for sure. And it's fine to focus on that. But I think there's a difference between what they are doing and what the academic CRT stuff is doing. You can see enough distinctions between different parts of critical social ideas and the specific expressions of them with different names (and the ones that won't name what they are doing, like Kendi and DiAngelo) that I don't like using these big names unless it's dealing with an academic discipline or well-defined view. Neil mostly agrees with me on that. That's why he pushes for more specific ideas. Critique individual claims. That's where the real work is done. The overgeneralizing and talking about bigger sets of ideas is a recipe for turning people off. Ed gets that right. Neil isn't anywhere near as guilty of it as you'd think from what he's saying here, but there is something right about that, and Neil actually agrees. My podcast with Neil makes that clear.
It's weird to say that Neil doesn't use scripture. After the presentation of critical social ideas, they have an entire chapter that is simply presenting the gospel and evangelical theology, rooted in scripture, and that serves as a foundation for nearly everything they say in the rest of the book.
For a wonderful defense of colorblindness, read Coleman Hughes new book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America.
Ed Stetson? Are you going to say anything?
Why is this a bigger issue in the Evangelical and Baptist community vs the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or ACNA? I hear the label white Evangelical thrown out alot and it seems to be connected to a certain political party. Is this CRT tied in with a particular political party? Is this being brought in to the church. We never got politically involved as a church. I never knew who was voting for what party. Evangelism and outreach was our main focus. I have a Grandson who attends public school. I do not want him learning a white privilege ideology. He is mixed European and . Morrocan. He is to be respectful to all. He is not to put people in class identity box. We dont sugar coat Americas past moral failures and at at the same time we don’t use oppressed and oppressor language. History testifies to centuries of unspeakable evil from every continent and every ethnic group.
Christianity is the worst enemy of the body of Christ. Truth is not relative, truth is not dogma. Truth simply is! It is independent of interpretation, but not simple logic.
Every individual has a unique experience and everyone has a right to be heard, loved and understood. But no one's experience warrants special considerations/ privledges/powers/ over another's experience.
Galatians 3:26-28 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Ed, I sense you're more interested in lots of conversations about feelings but i don't hear much about what God thinks and wants from us.
Oppression come here in front! Remind! LORD many have exalted themselves above! Where ye belongs? Under Thy Feet LORD! Oppression will say, remember the little Child born "i" AM! Will visit! The salvation and the Redeemer. Forgiveness knows commanded to keep? Drawn near! The SON of MAN will keep!
Great discussion. Appreciated their geniality even in their dissension.
Perhaps, all of us just want to be viewed as more than just the color of our skin? God made me white, and this ideology would say that makes me inherently evil. I feel totally defeated by this conversation sometimes because I cannot change the color of my skin. Interestingly, as Christians, we say we are born with a fallen nature, inherently in need of a savior, which is why condensing the fundamental problem to sin makes sense.
I think we need to stop using all these words too that spark instantly a hard heart.
Perhaps the main point is that All of the ideas discussed stem from a Marxist atheistic worldview, which should be the warning sign to Christians that it is incorrect but is man’s attempt to correct errors within society. Christians ought then to go to Gods Word to determine the correct response.
Perhaps we ought to remember that people of every color have done evil things.
I read something where an person with more pigment complained about friends not being willing to go into her world. Then you have individuals within that shade of pigment like Candace O who do not want to be associated with “bl..k” culture. It is complicated on all shades of the discussion, but It does require discussion to bring clarity and unity to the body of Christ.
I don’t think we should listen to secular ideology unguardedly ever or put on their lenses to view the world or ride a secular train at all. If people are suffering as a result of their sin, should we alleviate that suffering before they have had sufficient time to turn to God? I believe there is space to be that hand of grace, but God uses suffering sometimes to turn people’s hearts to Him. Are we stepping in too soon or too little to late? Important conversations for the church to have. Thanks again, Sean!
Feelings and lenses, feelings and lenses...
Read the book. Follow the book. Follow Jesus.
To me, Ed comes off as arrogant & argumentative. I just can't imagine hanging out with him would be pleasant.
Yes. Politics is always a threat to religion. CRT is political.
Do CRT supportors ever use it on Jewsh specialty? If they don't, are they hypocrites?
Beloved bring all my shared "i" AM Judges and Prosecutors in front if will say differ? I'll wait right Here
I am still not getting at all why we should talk about CT in a church. Bible gives us basic principles that solve this all. If we don't have enough love and forgiveness it IMO makes no sense to talk about CT. Because love and forgiveness is way more important. And IMO effectively removes the need of CT topic from the life of a church.
Bringing the CT topic to church just for the purpose of bringing it there seems only poisoning to me. We should learn to live as Christ wants as simple as the topic is. Not to add complex philosophical ideas that blur, disrupt and replace the simple truths.
It seems that U2 are talking in vague generalities and a lot of the discussion. Why can’t you mention very specific things and hash it out from there. It seems that one of you is more logical and the other more emotional and in that case you’re just going to talk past each other. You’ve got a tackle specific things. Specific circumstances. Specific tenants One at a time without talking about sweeping generalities.
When will we start looking at people based on their character and integrity? Why do we constantly have to look at color and how someone likes to sexually satisfy themselves? The family I grew up in has multiple races. A true melting pot. We haven't had racial wars in our family. So I expect the world to be like my family. Loving and getting along as people. But no, sin prevails here on earth instead.
To say we shouldn't make skin color a topic of conversation is to make the assumption that racism isn't around. If it exists, it should be talked about. No one in my family has had an abortion, but I'd still speak against it as if it mattered, because it does
@@thisguy2985 We very much do have opinionated spirited conversations. However, and though most in my family are secular, racism is not held as an idol, or a focus of our gatherings.
Beloved DECIEVERS will say are ye good? Keep watch! For this is the great Awakening! Upon all dry grounds nor the world.
Ed is too proud of the shit he’s been studying for 20 years! That’s the problem with all the so-called scholars or experts who spent years in those bs areas, feel so good about themselves, take all they can to defend those poisonous theories, and therefore so disconnected with reality and wisdom!
Ed keeps changing the group without addressing any underlying sin issues. Incredible!
"Let's talk about that" is what Satan told Eve. Once she talked, she is deceived.
So anyone who wants to have a conversation is automatically trying to say something anti-biblical? Gonna go with Proverbs 18:17 on that one.
23:51 yes
Sinful people suffer. Calling it injustice is against God.
So abortion isn't injustice? Or is it not sin? This comment doesn't make sense.
But they’re NOT individual theories. It’s all one world view and it’s not Christian.
both, it´s both,