What is your view on the current/predicted status of Critical Race Theory and the church?

CRT is overplayed by Christians and the right in my opinion. It is a big topic in my church’s youth group. My youngest who is a senior in High School at the local public High School, doesn’t understand all of the hoopla. He said that he hasn’t heard anything about the topic of CRT or the topics that CRT has covered in the 4 years of high school. It is definitely out there, but in my opinion it raises its head in local pockets and when it does most of the kids don’t really care about it.

We can’t even have a civil, thoughtful discussion about CRT because its been wrongly defined by its opponents. The problem is that everything that sounds progressive and radical is being accused of as Critical Race Theory by panicking conservatives. I would like to eventually offer a hard critique of actual CRT, but I can’t when the overwhelming majority of conservatives are believing and repeating a false strawman version of it from agnostic classical liberals (Rufo and Lindsay) of it in the first place. Rather, I have to begin by tearing down all the lies about it first, which then leads to people thinking that I am some sort of Critical Race Theorist! It becomes a no-win situation.

So much of it is driven by hyper-individualistic idealogues such as James Lindsay (Prager U had him do a video on CRT). Lindsay is connecting everything to CRT and Wokeness especially when it comes to education. He recently stated that “People who are intentionally bringing social emotional learning into our nations schools belong in prison. It is the worst form of psychological child abuse.” Lindsay is fueling rage among conservative activist parents who are wrongly targeting SEL as a part of Critical Race Theory and Wokeness in Education. They don’t understand that SEL is a tool to help students manage their emotions, not some racialized progressive leftist worldview and plot to undermine parents. My wife happens to be a Christian licensed therapist and she helped implement and also teaches SEL at the Christian high school that my daughters attend. If Lindsay had his right-wing Fascist way, my wife should be rotting in prison for psychological child abuse. Lindsay is one of the 2 main spokesman that every conservative pundit and politician quotes when talking about the dangers of CRT. He was even one of the main people that Voddie Baucham’s dumpster fire of a book, Fault Lines gets his research from. Voddie refers him as a ROCK STAR when it comes to understanding and addressing CRT.

I will grant that Lindsay is an atheist with an anti-Christian worldview.

However, have you read his book, Cynical Theories? (So far) I think it is accurate and well documented. I may write a review when I finish it.

I will grant that Lindsay is an atheist with an anti-Christian worldview.

And I continue to be nonplussed by the number (and visibility) of high-profile evangelicals who have jumped into bed with Lindsay to warn the Church about the errors of CRT. Didn’t Paul cover this enough? Isn’t the OT full of warnings about making political alliances and how much damage it caused God’s people?

[Jay] \

And I continue to be nonplussed by the number (and visibility) of ….

See: What’s Going On With ‘Nonplussed’?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/nonplussed

Are you against reading him?

Does reading him become an alliance? Better only read people you agree with if so.

I have read Cynical theories. From my vantage point, it is a combination of the good, bad, and ugly. At its best, it does a fairly good job describing post-modern thought and exposing some of the crazy aspects of what they label grievance studies. There definitely is some low-hanging fruit to expose, such as “Fat Studies” but even with some of Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility,” and I share the same concerns.

Pluckrose and Lindsay have made this war of ideas a battle between post-modernism and modernism. They are attempting to defend their version of the enlightenment, and their objective truth which they root in science and rationalism. Yet many of the people that they site as examples of post-modern thought (chapter eight) are actually critics of post-modern thought and would consider themselves modernists. (Ficker, Dotson, Mills) I have read several works of the CRT philosopher Charles Mills whom they give as an example of Post-modern thought, which is hilarious. He is an active critic of post-modernism and considers himself very much attached to modernism. However, much of his works are addressing the racialization of Locke and Kantian thought that indirectly and even directly influenced the racism of colonialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. He also goes after John Rawls and his theory of justice (the most influential secular thinker on Social Justice in the 20th century) who applies Locke’s Social Contract to Social Justice. Mills has written publicly that his racial critiques of Rawls and others is to actually save liberal/modern/enlightenment thought, not to destroy it, but Mill’s actual words doesn’t fit the flawed narrative that Lindsay/Pluckrose have created. But Mills (and many of the philosophers they site) embrace much of the same modern thought and commitment to liberalism, they just happen to reject the type of individualism that Pluckrose and Lindsay embrace. Its not a cultural battle between post-modern vs. modern. Its actually a cultural battle between collectivism vs. individualism; between these two secular ideologies that are hopelessly flawed because they don’t root their arguments in the revelation of God, especially when it comes to what it means to be human (Imago Dei).

My readings on Queer Theory or Feminism and gender studies are primarily secondary sources so I cannot vouch for whether Lindsay/Pluckrose are communicating truth in those areas, however, I’ve read over 50 primary sources on CRT so I feel I can comment on whether they are framing it right. While with CRT, much of what they write was generally true (Glad they interacted with Delgado’s Primer on CRT and were working through its elements) at the same time, they seemed to be framing CRT in a very negative sense that most Critical Race Theorists would not be comfortable describing themselves. Its not only what is said, but what isn’t said that gives the whole body of truth about CRT.

Let me give you an example. When they write about Derek Bell, the founder of CRT, besides getting it wrong that he was a “materialist” (he was very much connected to the Black Church, but with neo-orthodox beliefs) they don’t tell the entire story about Bell’s development of “interest-convergence” theory (that rights have allowed blacks only when it was in their interest to do so, beginning with Brown vs. Board of Education). Its a proven fact that the primary motivation that got the wheels turning for Brown vs. Board of Education was US foreign policy in fighting communism abroad. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the main argument for the Soviet Union against democracy was the United State’s treatment of marginalized groups like African-Americans. The US was attempting to stop communism from spreading in Asia, Central America, Latin America and Africa in newly formed decolonized countries after WW2. And because the US was losing badly in the propaganda war in these countries, the US justice department in the early 1950s filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in which it warned that “racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills, and it raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.” When racial desegregation was ruled unconstitutional through Brown vs. Board of Education, many newspapers across the country framed the victory within the context of the cold war. For instance, the St. Louis Dispatch hailed the decision “a victory (for America) that no number of divisions, arms, and bombs could ever have won.” So when Lindsay and Pluckrose state that Bell is a history revisionist, in several cases, he is revising history so that it conforms with the actual truth of what actually happened during the civil rights era, not the “white-washed history that can exist today about Brown vs. Board of Education. Its not just the progressives (lead essay 1619 project) that butcher history. While I would also agree with Lindsay/Pluckrose that Bell is too negative, he is not basing his pessimism on fables. On a different note, I read in one of Bell’s books/stories (I have to go back in my notes to find the exact source/quote) where he pokes fun at the typical “enlightened” liberal character for not believing in original sin including when it comes to racial discrimination. So much for being a materialist.

Another example of Lindsay and Pluckrose’s selective truth is how they frame Patricia Collins and Intersectionality. While I believe Intersectionality to be the most problematic element of Critical Race Theory, and Lindsay/Pluckrose rightly exposes its most destructive elements, they also do not give it the whole picture. Its an analytical tool that can be utilized by those on the far-right as well. Yet that important piece of information is left out of their book because it doesn’t fit their argument that CRT is a post-modern worldview. The very fact that anti-CRTers, anti-Marxists, anti-progressives, etc… can utilize it just as easily as analytical tool as the far-left, severely weakens the whole premise of their book.

I do not share the same enthusiasm as Mohler or other conservative Christians about Cynical Theories mainly because they misrepresent CRT authors and philosophers even though they also got some things right. But it seems as if Mohler, the Founders group, G3, etc… in their passion to expose the evils of secular post-modern thought, have become champions of secular modern thought. “Come out from among them” should apply to those who are funding Lindsay (the Southern Baptists such as Michael O’Fallen) and those like Voddie Baucham who have put Lindsay on a pedestal as a “Rock Star” when they should have enough Biblical discernment to expose Lindsay’s own flawed analysis of CRT that is shaped by the secular ideology of modernism, but they don’t. If they are truly guided by the authority of Scripture to expose every secular ideology, they should act as a referee of these cultural war battles, but instead they have chosen to put on the team jersey of this hyper-individualized form of modernism that Lindsay and Pluckrose are peddling.

Does reading him become an alliance? Better only read people you agree with if so.

Considering that you are the guy who called me a compromiser or liberal or something of the kind because I was reading MacArthur and Piper years ago, I find this question hilarious.

Reading Lindsay doesn’t make an ‘alliance’, and I wasn’t aiming at you. What does make it an alliance are nationally and internationally known ‘evangelical’ leaders continually bringing an atheist rabblerouser in to speak at their church, school, or parachurch organizations, pushing him on podcasts, radio bits, internet/YouTube videos, etc to their congregations. It’s the same thing as OT Israel leaning on the pagan nations (Egypt comes to mind) around them to protect them from the ‘enemy’ (Assyria, Babylon, etc). But I suppose after you have sold out to Trump, you need to keep that visibility and popularity going somehow. Selling out to an atheist isn’t that hard after selling out for the former President.

I don’t think Lindsay is a great speaker. I think he’s a schismatic, someone who loves the spotlight, and lives to fight. In short, I think we ought to oppose him and his baleful influence in any Church that is doctrinally sound. It disgusts me that he has made so much of his money and fame off of good people who think that he’s wise and witty when he is doing nothing more than inviting more dissension and strife in the Body. We don’t need his worldly ideas to oppose worldly ideas. Not when we have the Word.

[Joel Shaffer]

I have read Cynical theories.

Very helpful review. I’ll print that out and watch for the things you mention.

I came across Lindsay on a secular blog, thought he showed some insight and bought the book. I also bought and read one other, How to Have Impossible Conversations, with Peter Boghosian. Their atheism and complete confidence in renaissance liberalism comes through. The first part of that book was common sense on how to communicate, I thought. As you go along, it becomes quite manipulative and more about winning arguments than actually having a conversation. His faulty worldview is obvious.

I am so far about 1/3 of the way through Cynical Theories, thought what I read was objective, but I haven’t read enough in the area to critique it as you have.

So I find your comment very helpful. Thank you for it.

[Jay]

Does reading him become an alliance? Better only read people you agree with if so.

Considering that you are the guy who called me a compromiser or liberal or something of the kind because I was reading MacArthur and Piper years ago, I find this question hilarious.

As I recall, you were reading Mahaney, too, and praising him to the skies. You sent me your copy of his book Worldliness, which I read, reviewed, and sent back. How did that work out for you and your Mahaney-fandom?

[Jay]

Reading Lindsay doesn’t make an ‘alliance’, and I wasn’t aiming at you. What does make it an alliance are nationally and internationally known ‘evangelical’ leaders continually bringing an atheist rabblerouser in to speak at their church, school, or parachurch organizations, pushing him on podcasts, radio bits, internet/YouTube videos, etc to their congregations.

Fair enough, I wasn’t aware of all that, and I would agree with you here.

[Jay]

I don’t think Lindsay is a great speaker. I think he’s a schismatic, someone who loves the spotlight, and lives to fight.

I think this is true also.