A friend just observed her dog training mentor on YouTube attacked for being ‘woke’ because he uses reward rather than punishment. It split his base. The movement toward punishment and pain in dog training is growing, alas, but that is not my point. This back and white polarization is the work of the devil. I soeak as a believer in the existence of such an entity or spirit as Satan though only in the relative plane.😜
That's a great example! I'm feeling it with the "gentle parenting stuff." Do I become [insert political label] if I use gentle parenting in certain ways as opposed to more authoritative parenting? What if we just use wisdom and determine, with Aristotle, the right time and place for a certain approach? That's better than ideological thinking, one-size-fits-all. :)
Yes I also just heard a presentation with serious data from big studies that informed family support and steady warm though not permissive contact is more effective at dealing with addiction than ‘tough love’ and refusing contact and isolation. Duh. Common sense but people have been pressured and bullied around enabling in a totalizing ideological way.
Excellent Joel. Your point about totalizing worldviews being a hoax is entirely right. You should see the replies in my inbox after I mentioned CRT, perhaps, isn’t a totalizing worldview but one tool or theory that academics use (or don’t) for certain legal discussions. My more evangelical readers can’t get the “two worldviews” thing categories out of their heads and they’re going nuts.
I would say, however, that God-fearers in scripture is a term for Gentiles converted to Judaism, not the God-curious like your friend Brent.
The God-fearers mentioned in the book of Acts were not full converts to Judaism. If so, they would simply be called proselytes.
The God-fearers were interested in Judaism, admired its moral code (in contrast to their pagan world and its immorality), attended synagogue to learn more, and often accepted that God exists and is the creator. But they did not undergo proselyte baptism, circumcision, start keeping kosher dietary laws, etc. Not full converts.
So, should the Jews have continued to invite these God-fearers to come to their synagogues, or should they have berated them for not committing to Judaism? That is the very relevant analogue to this current discussion.
Clark, you're right the God-fearers didn't look like Gentiles who fully converted to cultural Judaism. But no Jew would have used the term "God-fearer" unless they were referring to someone who worshiped Yahweh. So I think it is a group that is more than "Yahweh curious", and less than "full on proselyte." They are certainly what we in our modern times would call converts, who did not go (or more likely could not, from their own enmeshments in Gentile life like the Centurions) all the way in becoming culturally Jewish. It's probably more akin to the way J.R.R. Tolkien thought of C.S. Lewis's conversion to faith...always glad for it, but always deeply disappointed he did not go "all the way".
I think your question hits the nail on the head. Why are we so uncomfortable with this third category, when clearly the Jewish world was not?
I agree with most of what you wrote, but caution against saying "cultural" Judaism when we are talking about religious observance. Not keeping the Sabbath, or dietary restrictions, or not being circumcised, were certainly considered religious issues by Jews, not just cultural customs.
I have to say it does sound very parallel to the Christianity-interested folks I'm speaking with! One of the key features is that they haven't taken on the full markers of religious membership, which for evangelicals means mouthing the same formulas, adopting the evangelical subculture, etc. I guess I'm happy with the title and use of "godfearer" no matter what. :)
Thanks, Nicholas! You're right about the Scriptural usage of God-fearer, but it just seems like a very apt description for Brent and some similar individuals I see.
Good point on CRT as well, though I have to admit one of my foundational experiences there is of a friend (now prof at Wheaton) beginning down the CRT path from an academic perspective, and then beginning to adopt the more totalizing worldview, which is adjacent to CRT, the legal theory. Unsurprisingly, he had in-laws who were intense Fox News Christians... Erring on one side tempts people to err on the other side. :)
But nonetheless, it's very important to be able to distinguish one intellectually valid point from another. Critical race theorists make valid studies of racially-relevant cases, and there's lots to learn there. And as you pointed out with regard to Tom Holland, anti-racism has clearly Christian roots in the doctrine of the image of God, the kingdom of God from all tribes, tongues, and nations, and so on.
I've seen that story play out many times, sadly. We evangelicals tend to give self-fulfilling prophecies about culture, and push people in these directions. I'd be very interested to hear your friend's story. In my experience, academics see CRT as one single tool in an arsenal - much the way we would see grammatical-historical, systematic or biblical theological approaches to scripture as different angles on the same subject. And I, for one, have found its insights extremely helpful, since it shows the way our sin corrupts the language we use. The only time I've seen it treated as a totalizing worldview is by evangelicals...which to me illustrates the wide gap we've created between evangelical culture and the academy.
This is a good conversation to have. I want to attempt some clarity here: When I mention my friend starting by academically studying CRT and then moving toward a totalizing worldview, here's what I mean. Obviously, he remained a Christian, so he still had a "Christian worldview." But from engaging with an academic discipline that unearths legal examples of systemic racism, he began to interpret many experiences and things people would say as examples of racism or sexism. He became quite discouraged at how much racism he was surrounded by. But I knew in particular examples that he was detecting bigotry unreliably. In one example, at our church, a female student was discouraged by how a man in the congregation responded to her comment in Sunday School. It felt like she was being shut down in a way. Having been there, my wife and I did not think that was accurate and we personally knew that the individual in question held quite egalitarian views on gender - which we had argued against with him. The "totalizing worldview" element is evident in the leap from race to sex.
I think we can continue to distinguish CRT, the academic phenomenon or tool, from this broader worldview with regard to race, sex, and so on. However, I am somewhat dubious about the distinction in this particular case. I attended a lecture by my friend, and as he described, the tool of CRT is to take as axiomatic that racism is engrained in the American system and ineliminable. Then you look for particular examples of it in legal cases and write journal articles about it. The tool/worldview distinction breaks down if the tool is to adopt the worldview and see what you find. I've detected similar things with feminist biblical interpretation, and the like. It would be a tool if it did not involve taking on ideological assumptions.
How does that strike you? What is the link between CRT and the "worldview" that sees oppression of racial minorities, women, and sexual minorities as endemic? I can see drawing a distinction, but I don't think they are unrelated.
My own argument is that Christians shouldn't react to ideology of the racial and sexual variety with conservative Christian ideology, but I do see some of the primary examples today of ideology being of the sort that views race, sex, etc., through the lens of oppression.
Now, I've of course come to think that the predominant conservative Christian take on sexual orientation *is* potentially homophobic, but I treat race as a separate issue. Currently, I'm persuaded of the view of race relations that Coleman Hughes calls "humanist" in this video, and ties to the Christian doctrine of the Image of God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6orCV4I7jjU.
But I also think that the specific examples of legal and structural racism that critical race theorists uncover are significant and should be paid attention to! I would not use "humanist" ideology to deny empirical examples of legal discrimination, etc. (Sorry for the length of this comment - I just don't think there's a quicker way to do it justice.)
It sounds like you're perhaps confusing a Marxist framework with CRT. CRT uses some of Marx's ideas, but is actually very critical of Marx's framework. CRT does not divide the world into "oppressed/oppressor". It recognizes it as one valuable framework when analyzing language (as does scripture itself!), but doesn't accept it as a totalizing explanation for reality.
Are there any sources or best accounts you've read of CRT that clearly distinguish it in this way?
I would also distinguish Marx from CRT in another way: Race-analysis v. class-analysis. Old school Marxists will often dissent from CRT because they think that class and economics remain the salient feature in unjust structures today. Adolph Reed and his son Touré Reed would be the best examples of this: https://www.versobooks.com/products/592-toward-freedom.
I would continue to hold that CRT involves adopting a belief about America, that it is unchangeably racist on a structural level, which makes it difficult for me to fully accept that it is a tool, not a belief/framework imposed on the world. That's how my friend presented it in his lecture. I raised my hand and objected, and he stood by it as far as I could tell.
Maybe a good analogy would be textual criticism. You and I both know textual criticism has a limited but helpful scope in biblical exegesis. But if someone came along and said, "You're a textual critic! You see all of your relationships and politics and everything through the lens of textual criticism! Don't you know German Liberals introduced that discipline to us, and that makes you a NaziA?" I would be incredibly confused...because of COURSE I dont see my whole life through that lens. And of course I know where TC comes from. But the accusations are clearly coming from someone who has no familiarity with my academic world. That's how CRT criticisms come across to my students, when they learn about it directly from their professors.
Reminds me how the co-founder of the 12-step program (who happened to be Christian) described how he "quit the debating society."
I also tried to live like that, especially around religion and politics.
If I'm here to change your mind, very little connection or growth will happen. I'll be far more helpful - and might learn something - if I just listen and share. I can even ask questions and challenge - but not to get you to be on my team.
Healthy debate has its place, but only in very specific settings. At least that's how I see things. If you think differently, I'd love to hear why, and I might have some questions - but I won't try to convince you.
A friend just observed her dog training mentor on YouTube attacked for being ‘woke’ because he uses reward rather than punishment. It split his base. The movement toward punishment and pain in dog training is growing, alas, but that is not my point. This back and white polarization is the work of the devil. I soeak as a believer in the existence of such an entity or spirit as Satan though only in the relative plane.😜
That's a great example! I'm feeling it with the "gentle parenting stuff." Do I become [insert political label] if I use gentle parenting in certain ways as opposed to more authoritative parenting? What if we just use wisdom and determine, with Aristotle, the right time and place for a certain approach? That's better than ideological thinking, one-size-fits-all. :)
Yes I also just heard a presentation with serious data from big studies that informed family support and steady warm though not permissive contact is more effective at dealing with addiction than ‘tough love’ and refusing contact and isolation. Duh. Common sense but people have been pressured and bullied around enabling in a totalizing ideological way.
I kept finding bits of this I wanted to pull to quote and ended up giving up. It's all so important. Thanks, as ever, for your reflections, Joel.
Also, sounds like we share an alma mater.
Excellent Joel. Your point about totalizing worldviews being a hoax is entirely right. You should see the replies in my inbox after I mentioned CRT, perhaps, isn’t a totalizing worldview but one tool or theory that academics use (or don’t) for certain legal discussions. My more evangelical readers can’t get the “two worldviews” thing categories out of their heads and they’re going nuts.
I would say, however, that God-fearers in scripture is a term for Gentiles converted to Judaism, not the God-curious like your friend Brent.
The God-fearers mentioned in the book of Acts were not full converts to Judaism. If so, they would simply be called proselytes.
The God-fearers were interested in Judaism, admired its moral code (in contrast to their pagan world and its immorality), attended synagogue to learn more, and often accepted that God exists and is the creator. But they did not undergo proselyte baptism, circumcision, start keeping kosher dietary laws, etc. Not full converts.
So, should the Jews have continued to invite these God-fearers to come to their synagogues, or should they have berated them for not committing to Judaism? That is the very relevant analogue to this current discussion.
Clark, you're right the God-fearers didn't look like Gentiles who fully converted to cultural Judaism. But no Jew would have used the term "God-fearer" unless they were referring to someone who worshiped Yahweh. So I think it is a group that is more than "Yahweh curious", and less than "full on proselyte." They are certainly what we in our modern times would call converts, who did not go (or more likely could not, from their own enmeshments in Gentile life like the Centurions) all the way in becoming culturally Jewish. It's probably more akin to the way J.R.R. Tolkien thought of C.S. Lewis's conversion to faith...always glad for it, but always deeply disappointed he did not go "all the way".
I think your question hits the nail on the head. Why are we so uncomfortable with this third category, when clearly the Jewish world was not?
I agree with most of what you wrote, but caution against saying "cultural" Judaism when we are talking about religious observance. Not keeping the Sabbath, or dietary restrictions, or not being circumcised, were certainly considered religious issues by Jews, not just cultural customs.
Thanks, Clark! I came upon this website: https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/who-were-the-god-fearers-and-which-god-did-they-fear.html.
I have to say it does sound very parallel to the Christianity-interested folks I'm speaking with! One of the key features is that they haven't taken on the full markers of religious membership, which for evangelicals means mouthing the same formulas, adopting the evangelical subculture, etc. I guess I'm happy with the title and use of "godfearer" no matter what. :)
Thanks, Nicholas! You're right about the Scriptural usage of God-fearer, but it just seems like a very apt description for Brent and some similar individuals I see.
Good point on CRT as well, though I have to admit one of my foundational experiences there is of a friend (now prof at Wheaton) beginning down the CRT path from an academic perspective, and then beginning to adopt the more totalizing worldview, which is adjacent to CRT, the legal theory. Unsurprisingly, he had in-laws who were intense Fox News Christians... Erring on one side tempts people to err on the other side. :)
But nonetheless, it's very important to be able to distinguish one intellectually valid point from another. Critical race theorists make valid studies of racially-relevant cases, and there's lots to learn there. And as you pointed out with regard to Tom Holland, anti-racism has clearly Christian roots in the doctrine of the image of God, the kingdom of God from all tribes, tongues, and nations, and so on.
I've seen that story play out many times, sadly. We evangelicals tend to give self-fulfilling prophecies about culture, and push people in these directions. I'd be very interested to hear your friend's story. In my experience, academics see CRT as one single tool in an arsenal - much the way we would see grammatical-historical, systematic or biblical theological approaches to scripture as different angles on the same subject. And I, for one, have found its insights extremely helpful, since it shows the way our sin corrupts the language we use. The only time I've seen it treated as a totalizing worldview is by evangelicals...which to me illustrates the wide gap we've created between evangelical culture and the academy.
This is a good conversation to have. I want to attempt some clarity here: When I mention my friend starting by academically studying CRT and then moving toward a totalizing worldview, here's what I mean. Obviously, he remained a Christian, so he still had a "Christian worldview." But from engaging with an academic discipline that unearths legal examples of systemic racism, he began to interpret many experiences and things people would say as examples of racism or sexism. He became quite discouraged at how much racism he was surrounded by. But I knew in particular examples that he was detecting bigotry unreliably. In one example, at our church, a female student was discouraged by how a man in the congregation responded to her comment in Sunday School. It felt like she was being shut down in a way. Having been there, my wife and I did not think that was accurate and we personally knew that the individual in question held quite egalitarian views on gender - which we had argued against with him. The "totalizing worldview" element is evident in the leap from race to sex.
I think we can continue to distinguish CRT, the academic phenomenon or tool, from this broader worldview with regard to race, sex, and so on. However, I am somewhat dubious about the distinction in this particular case. I attended a lecture by my friend, and as he described, the tool of CRT is to take as axiomatic that racism is engrained in the American system and ineliminable. Then you look for particular examples of it in legal cases and write journal articles about it. The tool/worldview distinction breaks down if the tool is to adopt the worldview and see what you find. I've detected similar things with feminist biblical interpretation, and the like. It would be a tool if it did not involve taking on ideological assumptions.
How does that strike you? What is the link between CRT and the "worldview" that sees oppression of racial minorities, women, and sexual minorities as endemic? I can see drawing a distinction, but I don't think they are unrelated.
My own argument is that Christians shouldn't react to ideology of the racial and sexual variety with conservative Christian ideology, but I do see some of the primary examples today of ideology being of the sort that views race, sex, etc., through the lens of oppression.
Now, I've of course come to think that the predominant conservative Christian take on sexual orientation *is* potentially homophobic, but I treat race as a separate issue. Currently, I'm persuaded of the view of race relations that Coleman Hughes calls "humanist" in this video, and ties to the Christian doctrine of the Image of God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6orCV4I7jjU.
The best exponent of this view is Ayishat Akanbi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-WimRb2jXs&pp=ygUOYXlpc2hhdCBha2FuYmk%3D.
But I also think that the specific examples of legal and structural racism that critical race theorists uncover are significant and should be paid attention to! I would not use "humanist" ideology to deny empirical examples of legal discrimination, etc. (Sorry for the length of this comment - I just don't think there's a quicker way to do it justice.)
It sounds like you're perhaps confusing a Marxist framework with CRT. CRT uses some of Marx's ideas, but is actually very critical of Marx's framework. CRT does not divide the world into "oppressed/oppressor". It recognizes it as one valuable framework when analyzing language (as does scripture itself!), but doesn't accept it as a totalizing explanation for reality.
Are there any sources or best accounts you've read of CRT that clearly distinguish it in this way?
I would also distinguish Marx from CRT in another way: Race-analysis v. class-analysis. Old school Marxists will often dissent from CRT because they think that class and economics remain the salient feature in unjust structures today. Adolph Reed and his son Touré Reed would be the best examples of this: https://www.versobooks.com/products/592-toward-freedom.
I would continue to hold that CRT involves adopting a belief about America, that it is unchangeably racist on a structural level, which makes it difficult for me to fully accept that it is a tool, not a belief/framework imposed on the world. That's how my friend presented it in his lecture. I raised my hand and objected, and he stood by it as far as I could tell.
Maybe a good analogy would be textual criticism. You and I both know textual criticism has a limited but helpful scope in biblical exegesis. But if someone came along and said, "You're a textual critic! You see all of your relationships and politics and everything through the lens of textual criticism! Don't you know German Liberals introduced that discipline to us, and that makes you a NaziA?" I would be incredibly confused...because of COURSE I dont see my whole life through that lens. And of course I know where TC comes from. But the accusations are clearly coming from someone who has no familiarity with my academic world. That's how CRT criticisms come across to my students, when they learn about it directly from their professors.
Great points.
Reminds me how the co-founder of the 12-step program (who happened to be Christian) described how he "quit the debating society."
I also tried to live like that, especially around religion and politics.
If I'm here to change your mind, very little connection or growth will happen. I'll be far more helpful - and might learn something - if I just listen and share. I can even ask questions and challenge - but not to get you to be on my team.
Healthy debate has its place, but only in very specific settings. At least that's how I see things. If you think differently, I'd love to hear why, and I might have some questions - but I won't try to convince you.