Gospel-Grace-Glory: An Examination of G3 Ministries

Joel, you would be correct. I wasn’t trying to respond point-by-point to any tenets of CRT. These are just the scriptural principles I use when dealing with applications of the popular view of Critical Race Theory, which of course, isn’t exactly the same as the actual theory. I’m not particularly interested in the theory itself, but on the practical outworking of it (which you may see as a sort of consequentialism). For example, CRT theorists generally hold that racism is inherent in the laws and legal institutions of the U.S., in spite of the fact that the U.S. system of justice was founded on and tries to adhere to the idea of being blind (not just colorblind), even though it may at times have been misused or written wrongly to the detriment of certain groups and/or “races.” Even so, that history doesn’t justify distorting the administration of justice today to make up for past wrongs.

the CRT language uses embedded rather than inherent. And to certain degree, I do agree that racism was embedded in the laws and legal institutions of our country from its inception over 240 years ago. Thankfully, many of these laws have been overturned, but a few still exist. For example Legal experts who embrace CRT have rightly pointed out historical rulings such as the 13th amendment that although outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude except for those convicted of a crime. Right after this was passed in 1865, states began leasing convicts to large business and corporations in the south. This incentivized southern legislatures to pass laws specifically for black people (Black Codes) that criminalized "breaking curfew," "loitering," "not carrying proof of employment," "vagrancy," and "having weapons." By 1880, Georgia's penal system which was majority white before the civil war had 12X more blacks that were imprisoned that whites. It was a new form of slavery that was created in the south. Tens of thousands of blacks were imprisoned until the Great depression.

We could also talk about imminent domain laws that still exist but were used to take away black homes and businesses when freeways were built and urban renewal took place in larger cities throughout America between 1946-1980. Tens of thousands of black businesses across America received no compensation when their businesses were displaced when the new freeways destroyed black neighborhood after black neighborhood, while millions of black homes were purposely devalued which allowed the government to pay between 40-80% of what the property was actually worth. What it ended up doing was bulldozing low-income, minority neighborhoods to alleviate congestion for white automobile drivers driving in from the suburbs to their downtown jobs. And then the many black folks who were displaced were forced into government housing because our Federal government only gave them 30 days to vacate. They weren't allowed to fight the system because they had no power to do so. At one time, the black bottom neighborhood of Detroit back in the 1940's had 8 grocery stores, 17 physicians and 6 drug stores, all o of which was lost to urban renewal/freeways/government housing. Now, if you look at the entire city of Detroit not just one that one small, overcrowded black neighborhood that was lost, there is only 1 black-owned grocery store in the entire city.

Every city has stories like this. My question for you is, if this happened to your father when you were growing up, wouldn't you be demanding reparations? If your father had a grocery store and it was told to close down for the building of a freeway, and they didn't compensate the business (only the land where it was located on, which often was owned by non-blacks) and then the house that your father and mother bought was seized by the government and devalued by our government and told that you have 30 days to move, so you had to move into government housing, wouldn't you not trust the laws of our government?

Now I realize that much of the reparation talk is about slavery. And you are right that there has been falsification of history when it comes to slavery and the antebellum economy of the south. White far-left activist historians such as Edward E Baptist have created a false narrative based on false premises about Capitalism and a huge accounting error about the US economy and its relation to Antebellum slavery. He and others assert that 35-50% of the US economy was connected to slavery during that time, when it was more like 5%. That is why you have black activists such as Ta-Nashi Coates attempting to make a case for reparations. (and quoting Baptist) Their case is based on false history. One can even make an argument that the Antebellum economy of the south was more of a Feudal economy rather than Free-market Capitalism. There are historical documents of politicians in the south denouncing Adam Smith and Free-Markets because it embraced freedom and free markets and the rule of law.

While CRT theory itself does indeed think of race as a social construct, somehow everything is still expressed in terms of race (or other “intersectional” attributes), when the solution would include the idea of learning to ignore physical differences like skin color (dare I say colorblindness?), and rather treat each person as human, not black, white, Asian, etc.

I'm not sure you really want to ignore skin color and become color blind (which is basically a secular conservatism position). Many people that believe in colorblindness are usually blind to actual racism because they want to believe more positively and the best about people and the systems they create, and end up embracing a functional Norman Vincent Peale approach to racial issues.

As for Kendi, I didn't deny that he wasn't influenced by CRT in some areas, rather I stated he doesn't use CRT as an analytical tool or framework when he interprets history. Kendi is probably my least favorite author on race because he believes that Capitalism is racism and racism is Capitalism and how he intersectionally embraces the LGBTQ as "anti-racist." Also, he wants to start a department of racism with no political appointees or accountability to anyone.

Joel, it’s interesting that you consider the CRT language to use “embedded” rather than “inherent.” I’ve heard the latter used, and seen it used in writing by at least one source (Britannica). I think that difference is key, because it means the difference between being able to reform something that has bad elements (embedded) vs. having to tear something completely down and start over (inherent). Maybe I’ve conflated the “burn it down” language with CRT due to people, who like Kendi, consider capitalism to be equal with racism. Needless to say, I disagree with this view. Of course there have been racist laws and applications of laws in U.S. history. That doesn’t mean the system itself as designed is the real issue, which some think today, even if that’s not the way all “pure CR theorists” think. The south in particular did a lot of things wrong both prior to and following the civil war, but that doesn’t make them the standard of U.S. law.

I don’t think very highly of eminent domain laws myself, even recognizing that for a government to function, they must exist, but I think they should have much stronger protections and limitations than they do. I particularly think the Kelo decision was an abomination, allowing the state to transfer property from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. However, I think that eminent domain is not racist on its face, even if certain applications of it have been. I was just reading about a case earlier this week that was directed at farmers, not minority inner-city residents. I think the differences in application are more between classes than races, as the rich can hire lawyers to help with fighting this.

Finally, I believe in “colorblindness” not because it’s a “secular conservative” value, but because scripturally, we are all one “race,” and I believe that focusing on minor differences like skin color, and creating whole narratives of oppressor vs. victim based on those differences is only dividing us further. I don’t think the U.S. has ever been free of racism, of course, but up until the events leading to the beer summit early in the Obama administration, it seemed that racism was decreasing, and people were getting better at getting along. Since that time, with more attention being drawn to the racial factors in crime and other incidents, instead of focusing on what actually happened, racial tension is worse than I remember seeing it in my adult life. Maybe it’s just the accessibility of media and things like smart phones that bring it more in front of us, but it certainly seems to me there are other factors driving this division, and it’s not largely coming from those of us who want a “colorblind” future free of racial strife. Oh, and it’s not that all of us have a “Pollyanna-ish” view of the past either.

Joel Shaffer wrote: I stopped using “Worldview” language and switched to a Christian Ethical Framework because so many conservative Christians I know have distorted the Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation worldview into a anemic, reductionistic version instead of its initial robustness that the Kuyperians originally framed it to be.

Interesting point. It seems like everything either becomes forgotten or becomes a buzzword eventually. After it’s a buzzword, it’s also eventually forgotten.

It’s human nature to mow the easiest part of the yard then figure you’re done, and that’s all mowing is.

josh p wrote: Of course a pastor should know at least the basics about his cultural context but it would be difficult to go far beyond that.

josh p wrote: The Trueman book was “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.”

That alone puts you beyond “at least the basics” I think. Outside of seminary—or even in seminary—I wonder how many are reading that sort of book. I haven’t read Modern Self, but I hear it’s a serious, heavy book (literally as well as metaphorically!).

dcbii wrote: Even though CRT itself may have absolutely nothing to do with with reparations, being lax on crime from certain races or groups, falsification of history, emphasizing victimhood and oppression of particular races, or discriminative programs like affirmative action, it seems that the roads lead to these results, nonetheless.

It might be worth noting here that, at this point, we’re deep into the territory of “term no longer means what it used to mean,” because… politics + media + celebrities, etc.

So to we almost need two terms now: classical CRT and popular CRT. I know, the latter isn’t “the real thing,” but I’m not sure that matters now?

It’s almost like inaccurate use of a term because self-validating—because the term slowly starts to mean what people use it to mean.

… humans. So messy.

Joel, it’s interesting that you consider the CRT language to use “embedded” rather than “inherent.” I’ve heard the latter used, and seen it used in writing by at least one source (Britannica). I think that difference is key, because it means the difference between being able to reform something that has bad elements (embedded) vs. having to tear something completely down and start over (inherent). Maybe I’ve conflated the “burn it down” language with CRT due to people, who like Kendi, consider capitalism to be equal with racism. Needless to say, I disagree with this view. Of course there have been racist laws and applications of laws in U.S. history. That doesn’t mean the system itself as designed is the real issue, which some think today, even if that’s not the way all “pure CR theorists” think. The south in particular did a lot of things wrong both prior to and following the civil war, but that doesn’t make them the standard of U.S. law.

Embedded is what the overwhelming majority of CRT scholars use. (i.e. what Delgado uses in his CRT Primer book). I don't see encylopedias as very reputable sources, since they are a secondary source. I think one of the problems and difficulties understanding it is that as CRT has grown in influence, especially since it has become multi-discplinary, there becomes so many different types of versions of CRT. Wheaton Philosopher Nathan Cartagena has likened CRT and its many versions to Christian denominations in America. While CRT holds to about 6 to 10 basic elements, each type of CRT brings different ideologies from the scholars who are interacting and competing with each other. CRT's founder (Derek Bell) barely read Marx and never read anyone from the Frankfurt School. His influences were Fredrick Douglass (Christian black abolitionist), black legal scholar (Ralph Bunche),black social activist/author (WEB DeBois) and the black church of America. Over the past 40 years, its become a progressive sociological/legal smorgasbord of secular ideas ranging from Marx to Max Weber, depending on the scholar. With such a huge variety of worldviews represented by CRT, I'm sure there are some who use "inherent" but it doesn't represent the majority.

I have more to respond to but I have a meeting tonight.

Finally, I believe in “colorblindness” not because it’s a “secular conservative” value, but because scripturally, we are all one “race,” and I believe that focusing on minor differences like skin color, and creating whole narratives of oppressor vs. victim based on those differences is only dividing us further.I don’t think the U.S. has ever been free of racism, of course, but up until the events leading to the beer summit early in the Obama administration, it seemed that racism was decreasing, and people were getting better at getting along. Since that time, with more attention being drawn to the racial factors in crime and other incidents, instead of focusing on what actually happened, racial tension is worse than I remember seeing it in my adult life. Maybe it’s just the accessibility of media and things like smart phones that bring it more in front of us, but it certainly seems to me there are other factors driving this division, and it’s not largely coming from those of us who want a “colorblind” future free of racial strife. Oh, and it’s not that all of us have a “Pollyanna-ish” view of the past either.

I disagree with you on everything you say, except that we are all one race. In my opinion, it's not because you have a Pollyannaish view of the past, but rather your narrative on what is causing racial divisions in the first place and the belief that racism seemed to be decreasing. Don't get me wrong. There have been segments of racism that have decreased in America over the past 40 years. For instance, several studies have shown that positive attitudes towards interracial dating and marriage have significantly increased over the past 40 years. And I celebrate that fact. But because I've been analyzing statistics on fatherlessness, race, crime, and poverty for our ministry on a weekly basis for almost 20 years (since I became the executive director of Urban Transformation Ministries), and because my M.A. in Intercultural studies trained me in statistical analysis, especially on how to do qualitative research, I can say with a clear conscience that much of the conservative narrative on race the past 15 years has been flat out wrong (I say this as a fellow conservative).

But let me give you part of my story. Because 23 years ago, I still believed very similar to you. I saw neighbors of mine playing the victim card when it came to race. Whenever a camera-chasing race hustler (i.e. Al Sharpton) was leading a racial protest, I sneered in disgust. I fed myself a steady diet of articles and books from Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and John McWhorter that solidified my conservative views about race. And I focused much of my attention on helping my neighbors develop self-reliance and personal responsibility along with giving them the gospel. However, I was beginning to acknowledge systemic racism when i saw several students of mine racially profiled by the police and at stores they frequented. What I was reading from Sowell, Steele, and McWhorter wasn't squaring up with the reality I saw on a semi-regular basis.

I also read "Divided by Faith," by Emerson and Smith, which revealed how differently black and white Christians viewed race, including their view on racial disparities. Basically most conservative White Christians (CWC) (62%) believed that current racial disparities were/are caused by a lack of motivation among blacks whereas only 31% of conservative black Christians (CBC) believed that racial disparities were/are caused by lack of motivation. At the same time, 27% of CWC cited racial discrimination as the cause of racial disparities, while 72% of CBC believed racial discrimination was the cause of racial disparities. But the book suggested a reason why I saw things differently than many of my black brothers and sisters in Christ. I realized my cultural tool-kit was immersed in American individualism with a bias against structures and systems.

It was then where I begin to apply the Redemptive-Historical Christian Worldview of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Consummation to Race. I also wrote my masters thesis on "Helping Resolve the Tension between Evangelism and Social Responsibility by Rooting Mission within the Doctrine of Creation." Through these two things, I began detoxing myself from these black atheist conservative authors whose views on race were much more committed to secular enlightenment than Biblical Christianity when it came to race because they didn't view humanity as Imago Dei, or who were fallen because of sin (that included corrupted structures because of corrupted individuals-Total Depravity) or that our only solution is redemption in Christ, and our destination will be a future heaven/new earth where a ethnically diverse multitude of Believers will worship Jesus. By this time, I was beginning to utilize my research tools through ethnography studies I did in my neighborhood with our ministry and analyzing different studies on race, poverty, crime, fatherlessness, etc... Over the years I came to realize that Thomas Sowell wasn't nearly as committed to "Facts" as he attempts to convey when it comes to race. For the record, I think he's much better dealing with poverty issues and economics because economics is the field where he's actually an expert in. He's not trained in Intercultural studies or sociology. Many (not all) of his examples (and I agree with him) where he explains away racial disparities are common sense low hanging fruit. Even though there is ample evidence of research of racial discrimination when it comes to employment, the criminal justice system, and police brutality, he conveniently avoids interacting with those studies.

But conservative Christians love him and refuse to view his work through a discerning eye. And he often gets a free pass (Thaddeus Williams even refers him as "St. Thomas" in his book, 12 Questions Christians Should Ask About Social Justice) even though his views are colored by a hyper-individualistic (secular) classical liberalism. He props up one of the worst researched books I've read this past decade (The War on Cops) as Facts. After this happened I realized he was just as politically biased and wrong as the progressives that he rightly critiqued. By the way, I encourage my black friends who lean progressive to read Thomas Sowell to learn and expand their views on economics and race. But I often warn certain white conservative Christian friends to stay away from Sowell, because he is a sheep in wolves clothing to them because for them, it just leads to confirmation bias and racial ignorance on their part.

Finally, I believe in “colorblindness” not because it’s a “secular conservative” value, but because scripturally, we are all one “race,” and I believe that focusing on minor differences like skin color, and creating whole narratives of oppressor vs. victim based on those differences is only dividing us further. I don’t think the U.S. has ever been free of racism, of course, but up until the events leading to the beer summit early in the Obama administration, it seemed that racism was decreasing, and people were getting better at getting along. Since that time, with more attention being drawn to the racial factors in crime and other incidents, instead of focusing on what actually happened, racial tension is worse than I remember seeing it in my adult life. Maybe it’s just the accessibility of media and things like smart phones that bring it more in front of us, but it certainly seems to me there are other factors driving this division, and it’s not largely coming from those of us who want a “colorblind” future free of racial strife. Oh, and it’s not that all of us have a “Pollyanna-ish” view of the past either.

It's interesting that you insinuate that before Obama's Beer Summit, you thought that black people and white people were getting along. In one sense, you're right because white people weren't having to reckon with racial issues that the majority of black folks deal with. They didn't have to deal with the Criminal Justice System and the War on drugs, because it didn't affect them and their families. They didn't have to deal with discriminatory employment practices, which often leads to black responding with "code-switching" in order to survive and thrive in a racialized society. They've never had to give "the talk" to their kids about how to handle getting stopped by police to lessen their chance of experiencing police brutality (depending on the police department). Obama's Beer Summit didn't cause it, but rather revealed what was already going on. His beer summit didn't fan the flames of division between black communities and police departments. They were already strained because of racist policies such as "Stop and Frisk" rather than investing in community policing (which develops trust between police and the community). The fact that you don't seem to see it pretty much shows to me the deficiency of your commitment to colorblindness actually blinded-sided you that there was an underlying problem.

Putting the blame on Obama that he was the source of division comes across as parroting the Rush Limbaughs and Fox news commentators about race, rather than actually looking at Facts. Obama spoke about race during his first term far less than any of the Democrat president since JFK ( study by Daniel Q Gillian). He could've raised the race issue when birthers were questioning his birth origin, demanding that he release the long form of his birth certificate, but he didn't. He could've raised the race issue when the majority of the liberal mainstream press were framing the conservative opposition to Obama's policies such as Obama care within a racial animus framework (the press saw the dramatic drop in white support of Obama in the legislative fight over Obama Care). Obama suggested instead that the media was merely pursuing this prejudiced opposition narrative because race continues to evoke such powerful emotions in American society. I could go on and on because Obama was quite moderate when it came to addressing race. Now his second term was different, because as you've mentioned, the rise of social media put a lot of these racial issues in the forefront. But he certainly didn't cause it. I'm not saying that Obama handled racial issues right every time, because he didn't. But he was not even close to being "the divider-in-Chief" that so many conservatives painted him as.

When these racial issues came to the forefront, beginning with Trayvon Martin, Eric Gardner, Tamir Rice, Jonathan Crawford, and etc... my black Reformed friends felt shocked and betrayed when their white conservative Christian friends took to blaming black culture and siding with the status quo in policing and criminal justice rather than expressing empathy and solidarity with them as they looked towards reforming the systems (not burning them down). And then quoting black atheist/secular conservatives like Steele and Sowell to justify their beliefs over the actual experiences that black folks have had with racism, even though there is data that shows the continuance of racism in today's society or the effects of racist policies from the late Jim Crow era. Let me also emphasize again that America has made steady racial progress since Jim Crow.

One interesting book that I read last year that may or may not interest you, is "The Myth of Color-Blind Christians: Evangelicals and White Supremacy in the Civil Rights Era." While there are a few weaknesses and issues that I disagreed with (including some cherry-picking of evangelical race history in the 60's, which ignored a civil rights GARBC movement and magazine called Freedom Now! that did not follow the colorblind narrative that he's trying to make), it's generally a pretty solid historical book on race. I also loved that the author refutes the contemporary revision of evangelical history from evangelical elite historian Randall Balmer who wrongly claims that the religious right formed because of Segregation rather than Abortion. Jemar Tisby's Color of Compromise relies too much on Balmer's false narrative of the religious right and pro-life movement (although Tisby nuances it and refers to additional influences)

Dave and others, please know that I am not at all accusing any of you as racists. I've interacted enough with the majority of you to know that your hearts are in the right place and that you come to this forum to be Sharpened, even if you don't agree with what I am saying.

So to we almost need two terms now: classical CRT and popular CRT. I know, the latter isn’t “the real thing,” but I’m not sure that matters now?

I call the popular version of CRT, "Progressive Racialism" to further explain the difference. I teach that this progressive racialism is the velveeta version of CRT. Velveeta Cheese, in comparison to Real Cheese, is an imitation, processed non-dairy version of Cheese. It is made to look like cheese, it is made to taste a little like cheese and the invention of velveeta was inspired by cheese, but still isn’t cheese. It's the same with Progressive Racialism. In comparison to the real CRT, it may look like CRT to the surface eye and at times inspired by CRT, it still isn't CRT. Now the CRT element, Intersectionality, seems to be in the process of blending CRT and progressive racialism together. In 20 years, there might not any difference. We'll see. Intersectionality has the most potential to poison anything good that might come out of CRT. One of my favorite quotes about CRT comes from Dr. Carl F. Ellis, which comes closest to my perspective about it as a theory.

“Today’s secular theories and ideologies are woefully inadequate to address today’s issues — cultural, social, economic, etc. Yet by common grace they can & do give us useful insights. It is not necessarily wrong to borrow terms from these sources, but it is unwise to use them without clearly spelling out what we mean & what we don’t mean when using them. Critical Race Theory (CRT), for example, has helped us see the key role race plays in human conflict. However, CRT attributes the root cause of human conflict to race. The Bible, on the other hand, has a more radical analysis. It reveals where racism itself comes from…

Fully applying God’s Word in every area of life and culture is like dining on a sumptuous meal specially prepared by the Master Chef. A nutritious, delicious dining experience indeed. The synthesizing approach — uncritically splicing together co-opted language & terminology from secular theories & ideologies is like piecing together a meal from the dumpster. Yes, it is possible to survive by eating out of a dumpster, but there is a great danger of food poisoning.” (Dr. Carl Ellis)

Joel Shaffer wrote: It’s interesting that you insinuate that before Obama’s Beer Summit, you thought that black people and white people were getting along.

Actually, I stated it, not just insinuated. From your perspective, you can say that differences were just being papered over, but yes, in my area, culture, etc. (which admittedly is not inner-city), black and white people were getting along better before that point.

Joel Shaffer wrote: Obama’s Beer Summit didn’t cause it

And I didn’t blame Obama directly, nor did I get my opinions of this event from Rush or other commentators. The facts spoke for themselves. It did seem to me, however, that this event (which Obama didn’t cause, of course, but IMHO, should have stayed out of) was the beginning of a period of increased racial strife. I don’t know if Obama encouraged it, even if he didn’t start it, but from my PoV, he didn’t do much to shut it down either, and some of the things he did say were not particularly helpful. You and I probably have differing opinions on whether his handling of some of these events was a good thing or a bad thing.

Joel Shaffer wrote: Let me also emphasize again that America has made steady racial progress since Jim Crow.

And that progress was what I referred to in my previous post above. However, it seems to me that in recent days, “progress” is actually going the other direction.

Joel Shaffer wrote: Dave and others, please know that I am not at all accusing any of you as racists. I’ve interacted enough with the majority of you to know that your hearts are in the right place and that you come to this forum to be Sharpened, even if you don’t agree with what I am saying.

Oh I know you’re not making accusations. Besides, the charge of “racism” is thrown around so much today, I’d ignore it no matter who said it to me. It’s not only false, it’s clear the term is meaningless as used by most today.

You and I have disagreed enough over the years that neither of us is shocked about that disagreement. But you’re right — I do come here to be sharpened. I don’t think any poster here agrees with me 100%, nor do I come here to have people say “mega-dittos” to everything I write. I don’t think I’d have lasted a couple weeks if that had been the case. There are reasons I have been here since 2005 and have never been a listener to Rush’s radio show, except when it was on in restaurants where I was eating (which was fairly common here in our area). I continue to disagree with you in a number of ways, and yet I still find your writing and interaction helpful (and I think that slide deck you posted has some really great information). It’s strong disagreement from others who also have a commitment to biblical Christianity that really helps me think through issues.