An Open Letter to My Southern Baptist Friends

Last night and this morning, I have been hurting for my Southern Baptist friends who were on the right – and losing – side at yesterday’s Convention.  I felt I should say something, and, after reflection, I’ve decided a tweet or even a tweet thread won’t do.

First, I am indeed hurting and praying for you.  And I am sad for the church as a whole.  For most of my life, the Southern Baptist Convention has been a bulwark of orthodoxy.  For that bulwark to be so weakened and compromised diminishes the whole church.

Second, I advise that you do mourn.  I also advise that you wait awhile before making a decision about your future relationship with the SBC.  Early on after a bad event, both upset and denial can cloud your judgement.  So wait on the Lord, pray, and at least recover a bit first before deciding.

I cannot make that decision for you.  I can see a case for staying and fighting, and I can see a case for moving on.  Know that if you remain faithful, you have my respect along with my prayers.

Also know something that I am hesitant to say for fear of appearing to poach.  Know that IF you decide to leave, there is a place for you in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) and especially in my jurisdiction, the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC – which has a large degree of independence but is within ACNA – it’s complicated).

You will have to get used to babies being baptized.  You will have to get used to real live bishops with those funny mitres even. You will have to get used to a wide range of orthodoxy under one roof.  We have people who are more catholic than the Pope and people who are more Protestant than Luther.  Our breadth is both glorious and annoying – like the whole faithful church.

But ACNA and the REC are committed to the authority of scripture and to the basics of the Faith as reflected in the Creeds.  AND both the Archbishop of ACNA and the Presiding Bishop of the REC have just made strong statements opposing Critical Race Theory.

We are not perfect.  There are a few dioceses in ACNA I cannot recommend.  And wokeness has infiltrated us as it has the SBC.  (Where has it not infiltrated?)  But unlike the SBC, our two highest bishops along with many other bishops are opposing it.  And it has not and will not gain a stronghold in the REC.

If you do wish to check out an Anglican church or two, feel free to message me for guidance.  You can contact me in the comments (And I will not post your comment unless it’s clear that you want it public.  I moderate comments.) Or you can message me on twitter.

I would prefer Baptist faithful stay in the SBC and take back their denomination from the woke cabal.  I want a faithful thriving SBC.  But if you become convinced that is not your path, you are welcome to help us remain faithful in ACNA.  Let me know if I can help you.

Presiding Bishop Ray Sutton’s Exhortation to the REC General Council

Yesterday began the General Council of the Reformed Episcopal Church.  It is held on Zoom this year because when it was being planned back when COVID was more of an issue than now, many did not want to travel to a large meeting.

The highlight was and will surely always be Presiding Bishop Ray Sutton’s formal exhortation or “Report” which you may find here beginning on page 4.  In spite of internet connection issues that were at times amusing, his address was very well received.  Even I greatly rejoiced in it.  I recommend reading the whole address.

The part that is likely of most interest to readers addressed issues relating to sexual identity, race, and social justice ideologies and the infiltration of these ideologies into the church.  He exhorts us to resist being overly influenced by these ideologies.  He instead puts forth a robustly Biblical view on these issues. 

I will excerpt only some of this. Again, I recommend reading the whole address.

All too often when the church attempts to be, “all things to all people that by all means we might save some,” she allows culture to seduce her into introducing secular thinking and concepts that insidiously confuse, confound and even violate foundational Biblical commitments (1 Corinthians 9:22, ESV). Far too often St. Paul’s statement about becoming all things to win some by finding common ground with the world, fails to heed the apostle’s other statement, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2). For St. Paul, the will of God is clear in how we are to interface with the culture to win some to Christ. Whatever common ground with the world that St. Paul suggests in one passage, should not be interpreted to mean conformity to the world’s, secular thought. Rather, St. Paul calls for transformation to a “Christian mind,” in the words of the Anglican scholar, Harry Blamires, who wrote a book by this title.  Elizabeth Elliot, popular Anglican Christian author, refers to conformity to the world as capitulation. She grew up in the Reformed Episcopal Church and became the wife of Jim Elliot, one of the seven Wheaton graduates and missionaries in the 1950s, who were martyred by the Auca Indians in South America while attempting to spread the Gospel to these lost people. She once observed about the will of God: “The will of God is not something you add to your life. It’s a course you choose. You either line yourself up with the Son of God...or you capitulate to the principle which governs the rest of the world.” ….

He then dealt with issues of sexual identity and explained the statement by the ACNA College of Bishops on this area.  Then he proceeded to issues concerning race:

A second cultural concern where we must not be conformed to the world but be transformed in Christ concerns the church’s response to the sins of racial prejudice, hatred, and violence in our society. In recent months we have seen tragic, unjust, and unacceptable use of force in racially oriented crimes. These situations have included “the bad cop,” as well as retaliatory groups answering hate with hate and equal prejudice. Although not everyone is a racist, nor do these kinds of tragedy mean that all police are racist, Christians must speak the truth in love and peace with the standard of the Word of God. This calls for the application of a Biblical world view to provide not only the Scriptural understanding of race, but to avoid being conformed to the world by secular racial theories. While models such as Critical Race Theory may at some points offer useful information, they are not necessarily Biblical nor Christian in their premises, principles, and practices. They can even at times become explicitly anti-Christian displaying another kind of religious prejudice. And since they are only theories, they can offer misinformation or exclude key information. Moreover, these secular racial theories in the hands of some biased researchers unfortunately succumb to atheistic totalitarian, Marxist ideologies. 

Strong but truth-telling language!

Christians therefore must be extremely careful not to rely on secular theories and worldviews regarding any subject such as race and racism. Non-Christian viewpoints entering the Kingdom of God can confuse, mislead, and conform God’s people to the world instead of transforming their minds to the will of God. When this happens, our answers then become no different from a fallen, sinful mind, failing to offer true Scriptural solutions to cultural problems. I know some believe that if we concede to secular viewpoints where we can, some might be won to the Biblical view. Unfortunately, the opposite has proven to be the case throughout Christian history….

 

Scripture teaches that all of humanity represented by Adam and Eve fell into sin (Romans 5:12). The apostle concludes, “All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory” (Romans 3:23). Everyone in every race is a sinner. No one person or race is exempt from the effects of sin. However, although humanity became totally depraved this does not mean that every person has become utterly depraved. There’s a big difference between totally and utterly. Total depravity means that humans in every aspect of their person – mind, emotion, and will – became tainted and enslaved by sin. This is not the same as utter depravity. The phrase utter depravity suggests that every sinner commits every sin. This goes beyond the Scriptural teaching of the effect of the fall. By God’s restraining common grace every human does not become so utterly depraved that he/she commits every sin. Just as not every individual is a murderer, or robs a bank, not every person participates in the sin of racism. On this point, secular racial theories like CRT actually exceed the Biblical doctrine of sin by effectively accusing all humans of certain races of the sin of racism. They say things like, “all white people are racists.” This kind of generalization is not accurate according to Scripture or experience, any more than it would be to say that every human is a murderer. It’s reducing individuals of a race to utter and not just total depravity. It is more Scripturally precise to say all races have racists but not everyone in a given race is a racist.…

Thus he nicely but directly contradicts Critical Race Theory.  He also contradicted the woke crowd’s incessant accusations against the church by reminding us how Christianity and the church have greatly assisted progress in racial justice, such as . . .

…the remarkable story of overcoming slavery and racism in England by courageous Anglican Evangelicals like William Wilberforce and John Newton who authored the great hymn, Amazing Grace. What some don’t mention is John Newton’s own testimony of how he was changed from being a slave trader, by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, to become a champion for the very people whom he had hated and enslaved. 

Though Christians are sinners saved by grace and not perfect in this life, the prevailing Gospel story regarding race is overwhelmingly constructive. One of the most powerful stories of Christian restoration is the first African Bishop, Samuel Ajayi Crowther (1809-1891). When only twelve years old, his family was captured by Muslim slave traders in Western Africa. Traveling in the captors’ slave ship, a British Royal Navy Squadron of Ships enforcing the ban on slave trade intercepted the vessel. Crowther converted to Christianity through English missionaries. Eventually called into the ministry, the English Church Missionary Society provided for his education at Oxford University where he earned a doctoral degree. Upon returning to Nigeria with the CMS, he became the first Anglican African Bishop. During the same period, Henry Townsend, was a 19th century Anglican missionary to the West Coast of Africa in the area of Abeokuta, Nigeria. He encountered slave markets. On a certain day he attended one, bought a slave, and right in front of everyone after he had purchased the man, unshackled his chains, and set him free. That act became a powerful Christian witness for the man and his culture. Both men worked together to spread the Gospel and stop the evil slave trade. 

There is also our own history in the Reformed Episcopal Church. It is a classic example of how Jesus Christ changes people from being racist. The first Reformed Episcopal bishop in South Carolina was Peter Fassyoux Stephens. He was the white Commandant of the Citadel in Charleston and fought for the South in the Civil War. After the war was over, Christ moved in his life. He took up the cause of freed African American slaves. He worked to reform the educational system in South Carolina so that African Americans could receive an education. And when the Episcopal Church would not ordain African American Christian men called into Holy Orders, he ordained them after they had left the Episcopal Church. He, together with these faithful lay and clergy African Americans, began a grand work for Christ. It continues to this day as a key witness in and from the Reformed Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Southeast.

For those unaware, the REC Diocese of the Southeast consists mostly of Black brethren. He then counseled against complacency and for standing with those suffering wrongly.

… in these challenging times of racial turmoil, I exhort us to renew our stand with our African American brothers and sisters, especially our fellow Reformed Episcopalians. I believe we can strengthen our work together first by weeping with those who weep. My/our hearts go out especially for our African American brothers and sisters who have lived once again through a painful period and witnessed racially oriented crimes. We are all grieved and concerned. But for our African American brothers and sisters, old wounds have been reopened from the recent abuses in our culture. Although not all in our society are racist, it has pointed out the need for reform among some our law enforcement agencies. We should realize the effects of these tragic events on our brothers and sisters, hurt with them, uphold them, pray for them, and weep with those who weep. At the same time in our stand together to proclaim Christ, particularly those of us in the Anglican Church in North America and in the Reformed Episcopal Church, let us not lose sight of the difference between faithful, Biblical and believing Gospel churches and the unbelieving culture. I don’t know of any lay or clergy in the ACNA or the REC who are racist. Some may be confused and frustrated, but the word racist does not apply to our fellow Biblical Anglicans. I ask us not to be confused with the confusion in our society to the extent that we forget the distinction between lost sinner without the grace of God and saved sinners by grace in Biblical churches. I know we have so much more in which we must be sanctified. I realize that in our increasingly diverse society, we in a Biblical church must reach all diversities with the Gospel. In calling us to stand with our fellow African American Reformed Episcopalians, I ask that they minister to us and help us better to fulfill the Great Commission to all ethnicities of the world and in our ministries together. 

Yes, it was a moving address and dealt with much more than racial issues.  I’ve attended several REC General Councils, and I cannot recall a better address in such trying times, nor one that has been more appreciated.  I really cannot do it justice here.  I do hope it serves as a template for the ACNA College of Bishops as they address race and Critical Theory.  

Again, read it, especially if you are in the Anglican Church in North America.

ACNA Receives a Godly Example from … Baptists!?

Yes, I am having a bit of fun with the headline.  But in all seriousness, as the Anglican Church in North America and its Working Group on Race, Racism, and Racial Reconciliation struggles with Critical Race Theory and its cousins and progeny, we have just been given good guidance from the seminary presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, another denomination wrestling with CRT.

The six SBC seminary presidents have issued a statement that concludes as follows:

In light of current conversations in the Southern Baptist Convention, we stand together on historic Southern Baptist condemnations of racism in any form and we also declare that affirmation of Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and any version of Critical Theory is incompatible with the Baptist Faith & Message.

Now I could quibble with this.  At least two of the presidents have enabled CRT at their seminaries.  The cynical could think that this is a ploy to deflect rising opposition to CRT while continuing business as usual.  Also, it is important to oppose not only the affirmation of Critical Theory and related ideologies but also to oppose their toxic influence.  Few in relatively orthodox churches say, “I affirm Critical Theory.”  Many in relatively orthodox churches are influenced by Critical Theory and spread the influence.

But, having quibbled, this statement is a pleasant surprise.  It calls out Critical Theory by name and “any version” of CT and declares that affirming these is out.

That is important because, as we already see, when a Leftist ideology gets too much opposition, its proponents play dumb and then change the labeling and declare concern about it to be witch hunting or something.  In other words, they in effect say, “CRT?  What’s CRT?  There’s no CRT to see here!”  Then they push the same ideology under different wrapping.  Pro-abortion becomes “pro-choice”; global warming becomes “climate change”, etc.  Already we see Critical Theory in many guises.  Attacking just one arm of this slithery octopus will not do.  Whenever we oppose Critical Theory, we must oppose related and derivative ideologies as well.  The seminary presidents’ statement does just that.

ACNA’s Working Group on Race, Racism, and Racial Reconciliation as well as the College of Bishops would do well to issue a statement this clear and strong.  Further, it is necessary that the Working Group and College of Bishops issue a statement at least this clear and strong.

“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save racial justice.”

Oh. That’s not what St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:2? 

Nobody tell Jemar Tisby:

Given the depth of theological mis-education when it comes to race in white churches, a brief sermon series on race before you get back to your "regularly scheduled programming" isn't going to cut it. We need to consistently address racial justice for months and years at a time.

Leaving aside whether his woke version of “racial justice” is right or wrong, is this the right use of a church’s teaching time?  Abortion and attacks on freedom of speech and on freedom of religion are much bigger problems in America today than racism and any remaining affect on justice.  But it would be a serious mistake to preach on these problems week after week, month after month.  The church has (Anglican Understatement Alert) higher priorities.

But what Tisby advises is the nature of Critical Theory.  It tries to consume all it touches, including the Gospel as James White notes:

I will just leave this here in the "Woke Church is Broke" file. The gospel and CRT cannot inhabit the same space for the same purposes. One drives out the other. https://t.co/CSvvmAO2mZ

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 5, 2020

But if you push back against Tisby’s overweaning proposal or even dare to mock his Holy Wokeness….

Wokeness 2:2 "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except race and the problem with white people."https://t.co/YeeqhtnH1U

— Woke Bible (@BibleWoke) August 4, 2020

…you are in league with White Supremacy and Christian Nationalism.  Just letting you know.  Tisby:

I've seen some rancorous trolling in my day, but the responses to my last tweet are a doozy. Always be ready for backlash. White supremacy and Christian Nationalism don't go down without a fight. Never have, never will. But we are stronger.

Now you might be thinking, “There’s goes Wannabe picking on Jemar Tisby again.  My church doesn’t have such distorted priorities anyway.”

Are you sure?  You might want to think again, especially if you are in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).  Stay tuned.

About AND’s Statement on the George Floyd Killing and Subsequent Riots

To say there is a need for unity in the church and in this country after the George Floyd killing would be an understatement.  Christians and Americans are united in condemning the killing.  But the “social justice” crowd is mishandling their response to the aftermath, particularly the looting and arson, and that is making our divisions worse and even less tolerable.  I certainly include the response of the AND Campaign in that.

Months ago I exposed the AND Campaign as a Democrat front group.  So I was not expecting much from them.  But their statement goes below even my low expectations.  I wonder if I should even bother to respond to it.  But I’m a fool, so here goes…

The riots in Minneapolis are not to be glorified or romanticized, but we must realize that they are a product of a riotous and unjust system. The disorder began when a man’s rights were violated and his life was taken. American racism was rioting against the people long before they took to the streets. We must condemn and address the cause before we can appropriately address the broken reaction. 

So the looting and arson is just “a broken reaction” AND won’t condemn.  The riots are unjust Amerika’s fault anyway.  Got it. 

By the way, the killing has been roundly condemned and is being addressed.  That will not make George Floyd come back.  But the “system,” however imperfect, is striving for justice in this situation.  AND on the other hand cannot even bring themselves to condemn widespread looting and arson.  The excuses for the riots and for AND’s failure are lame.

We cannot place our cultural preferences, partisan interests and flawed race narratives ahead of the Christian justice imperative. 

If you want “partisan interests and flawed race narratives,” look in the mirror, AND.

A spirit of racial hatred and violence has engulfed the United States of America for too long; in fact, it’s our nation’s original sin.

Yes, it’s all AmeriKKKa’s fault.  And the founders came over here because they hated Black people or something.

Now, the Church must offer a sober, determined and steadfast witness against white supremacy as contrary to no less than the very word and judgment of God.

What “white supremacy”?  There are more flat-earthers than white supremacists today.  Cut the CRT posturing.  The church has better things to do than chase around the few remaining idiot white supremacists. 

This is where we stand: not on the shaky ground of man-made ideology or carried by the shifting winds of societal judgment,…

Just a little lack of self-awareness there.

We don’t have to deny our pain, sadness or anger, but we do have to turn it over to God and respond in ways that glorify Him.

Well, you failed, AND.  But then your real objective is conning Christians into supporting Democrats, isn’t it?  That has been Michael Wear’s job for years.

What makes this more sad is that some prominent ACNA clergy are supporting this tripe.  Overall, it is sad that many/most woke church people cannot even bring themselves to condemn looting and arson that is hurting Black people more than anyone else.  Can’t we even unite on that?  Can’t we?

Jemar Tisby Exposes Himself as a Hack With His Reaction to “You Ain’t Black.”

As promised, I have been watching Woke Church reaction – or lack thereof – to Biden saying “you ain’t Black” unless you vote for him.  But when I took a good look at Jemar Tisby’s twitter account, I was stopped in my tracks.  Jemar Tisby needs to be called out right now.  Usually I sleep on a post when provoked.  But enough is enough from Tisby.

I have searched all of Tisby’s tweets since Biden’s statement, and there is not one word of criticism towards Racist Joe.  Which is odd because isn’t Jemar supposed to be oh-so concerned about racism? Instead he puts on a show of outrage towards an unnamed “white evangelical public personality” (probably Eric Metaxas) for his lampoon of Biden’s racism.

So Biden makes a blatantly racist statement, and Tisby is silent.  Hmm, I thought “silence is complicity.”  But a white evangelical opposes and lampoons Biden’s racism, and Tisby calls that out as bigoted and even calls for him to be cancelled.

If you saw that tweet from a white evanglical public personality and still bring him to speak then you're complicit in his bigotry. When someone speaks so degradingly and publicly without apology you can't pay him to talk or buy his books and act like you're not propping him up.

— Jemar Tisby (@JemarTisby) May 22, 2020

But it gets worse.  You’d think Tisby would sleep on it and decide he really should be somewhat balanced and call out Biden for “You ain’t Black.”  But no.  Instead he tweeted this:

Call this what it is: A transparent attempt to shore up his conservative evangelical voting bloc by appearing to fight for religious freedom. But reopening too soon is profoundly unloving. We can worship and remain healthy. https://t.co/8pYfjHaiUa

— Jemar Tisby (@JemarTisby) May 23, 2020

So he uses Trump standing up for freedom of religion as an occasion to smear him.  But, at least on twitter, he still gives Biden a silent pass on “You ain’t Black.”  Biden demeans Blacks who dare to think for themselves, and Tisby is silent.  Trump defends religious freedom, and Tisby attacks.

This is far from the first time Tisby has demonstrated such a blatant double standard.  I’ve caught him doing that on anti-semitism.  These are among the many reasons he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt any longer.  You want “transparent”? Jemar Tisby is a transparent, race-baiting Leftist hack using a veneer of Christianity as a cover.

There are well meaning Christians, particularly within ACNA, who have supported and promoted Tisby. It is time they open up their eyes.

Tish Harrison Warren Wants You to Be Quiet About CRT in the Church

In tweeting favorably about the Anglican Compass article by Esau McCaulley on the Critical Race Theory (CRT) controversy in the church, particularly in the Anglican Church in North America, ACNA’s Tish Harrison Warren writes (And to be fair and clear, I do not know if Dr. McCaulley would go quite as far as Warren does.):

Until the ACNA is actually meaningfully racially and ethnically diverse. Until our *leadership* reflects this diversity, bringing up CRT is a distraction and a tactic.  It is a way to reject any talk of systemic white supremacy b/c Marx. It is bad thinking. Falling into genetic fallacy. But it is useful as a way to avoid realities that are difficult or call us to hard things and vulnerability and repentance and a cross.

Leaving aside the issue of whether race or ethnicity should be much of a factor in choosing church leadership, it is a strange argument that if we are not properly “diverse”, then bringing up CRT is just “a distraction and a tactic.”  A tactic to distract from what?  We want open eyes about the direction church leaders are taking us.  Should we shut up until we are “diverse”?  Does “diversity” exclude those concerned about CRT?  It seems she is using “diversity” as a distraction and a tactic to put down and push aside valid concerns about CRT.

Her next put down of concern about CRT is downright comical. “It is a way to reject any talk of systemic white supremacy b/c Marx.”  She uses a term beloved of CRT types, “systemic white supremacy,” while saying we shouldn’t bring up CRT.  So she uses a CRT concept and practically in the same breath says we shouldn’t bring up CRT.  It’s like some guy saying you shouldn’t bring up racism when he uses the n-word all over the place.

But why are we really bringing up our concerns about CRT influence? “To avoid realities that are difficult.”  Oh really? So childish weakness motivates our concerns.  Got it.  

Instead, perhaps we are the ones not avoiding realities that are difficult.  Life would certainly be easier if we were not examining and warning about the influence of CRT in the church.  Personally, this is not what I signed up for when I joined ACNA with joy.  I thought I had let the usual LibChurch social justicisms far behind.  Apparently not.  But now that I’m in ACNA I will not “avoid realities that are difficult” by closing my eyes to CRT influence and other social justicisms in ACNA.

If I do eventually avoid that, it will be by leaving, which would have its own difficulties.

In the meantime, will I among others avoid “bringing up CRT” when we see its toxic influence in our church?  No.

Sorry, Tish Harrison Warren.

A Question About Racism that Deserves an Answer in ACNA (UPDATED)

UPDATE: Dr. McCaulley has given a good answer to my question.

-----

About a month ago, Dr. Esau McCaulley tweeted:

One day people will look back on 2010s and wonder how some decided that theologically traditional people who care about justice were such a threat to the church that silencing and/or policing us was more important than resisting the actual racism and sexism that we opposed.

I decided to leave aside the questions of whether the social justice “evangelical” crowd is “theologically traditional” and of whether this was a fair statement to make about those who oppose a social justice agenda. Instead, I decided to be charitable, find common ground, and ask a needful question:

I agree resisting actual racism is important. So tell me: can a U. S. person of color commit “actual racism” against a white person?

I agree resisting actual racism is important. So tell me: can a U. S. person of color commit “actual racism” against a white person?

— WannabeAnglican (@WannabeAnglican) December 9, 2019

I’ve yet to receive an answer from Dr. McCaulley.  The closest I’ve seen to an answer is the following, and I am not completely sure he was addressing me.

I turn down most fights on the internet when the questions being posed to me have already been answered repeatedly by a variety of Christians of color. I find that some questions are veiled ideological pushbacks.

— Esau McCaulley Ph.D (@esaumccaulley) December 12, 2019

I will leave it to the reader to decide whether that was an appropriate response.  But it does concern me that he did not answer my question very easily with a yes.

As you can see I then asked, “Is that your response to my simple question – ‘can a U. S. person of color commit 'actual racism' against a white person?’"

And I received no answer to that question.

At this point a fair question to turn around and ask me is why don’t I just drop this and let sleeping dogs lie?

First, given how Critical Race Theory (CRT) and related ideologies have redefined and abused “racism,” genuine discussion of racism requires defining just what we are talking about.  Are we talking about bigotry based on race that people of all ethnicities are capable of?  Or are we talking about something more or less only white people and Western society are guilty of?

Second, the CRT view that (at least in the Western context) racism is something only white people, not people of color, are capable of is itself racist and toxic.  To blame one ethnicity for a type of sinfulness, but exempt other ethnicities from it is inherently racist and virtually contradicts the Bible’s teaching that all have sinned.  As Dr. McCaulley himself says, “Racism … implies a heretical soteriology because if certain races are inherently more sinful than others then Christ's redemptive work brings them from farther away [from] God, and Paul argues that all are equally sinful and in need of redemption.”

Racism also implies a heretical soteriology because if certain races are inherently more sinful than others then Christ's redemptive work brings them from farther away for God, and Paul argues that all are equally sinful and in need of redemption.

— Esau McCaulley Ph.D (@esaumccaulley) January 3, 2020

Yet the CRT view that whites have a virtual monopoly on racism in the West has infiltrated the church.  But there is no sin that is monopolized by any one ethnicity – to say otherwise is unscriptural and racist.  So this is not just a secondary issue we can agree to disagree on; at least I cannot.  Therefore, we should know if our church leaders hold this CRT viewpoint of racism or not. Yes, McCaulley is far from the only one in ACNA who should be asked my question. 

Third, Dr. McCaulley through his actions and comments seems at least sympathetic to Critical Race Theory.  For one thing, he is an open fan of Jamar Tisby.  He certainly seems to share CRT’s obsession with race at times.  He has rather famously asked that unhelpful question, “If all translation is interpretation and interpretation is influenced by social location, what does it mean that most of our English bibles were translated with very few Black or other Christians of color or women involved?”  That he chooses not to answer my question also is odd. So does he share CRT’s view of racism? I do not presume he does, but it is past time for us in ACNA to know.

In short, given his statements and his leadership positions in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), namely head of the Next Generation Initiative and one of the Canon Theologians of the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others, McCaulley is among those who should clear the air and state whether they consider racism something all ethnicities everywhere are capable of or whether it is pretty much only a White Thing as Holy Critical Race Theory teaches.

Really he should welcome the opportunity to clear the air and give a straightforward answer to my question.  A correct answer would help clear up concerns about him and create more common ground.  He wants ACNA to resist “actual racism.”  To do that together we need to know what sort of racism we are talking about. Are we together resisting racial bigotry regardless of the ethnicity of the people it comes from?  We can do that!  Or are we talking about a CRT construct that is “an analytical tool”* to exempt people of color and to smear white people and Western society? 

A “yes” or “no” to my original question will do.

----

*I’m quoting the Southern Baptist Convention’s infamous Resolution 9, of course.

A Hard Question After the New York Hanukkah Attacks

There are some questions that are so sensitive that the prudent rather not touch them with a ten-foot pole.  But sometimes those are the very questions that should be asked.  So with trepidation, I proceed.

Violent anti-semitism has been a problem in New York City for some time although it has not gotten much attention from the mainstream “news” media.  But the rash of attacks against Jews in New York during Hanukkah has been hard to ignore even for the Democrat “news” media.

Yet one inconvenient fact about these attacks is still being largely ignored.  These attacks, like many (if not most) of New York City anti-semitic attacks, have been committed by Blacks.  Pointing that out is politically incorrect, goes against “the narrative” and practically asks to be smeared as racist, so it doesn’t get pointed out much.   But as David Marcus notes, if the perps were White, reporting would be very different:

Make no mistake, if white supremacists in MAGA hats were shooting minorities or carving them up with machetes, it wouldn’t just be news, it would be the only news. So satisfying would that narrative be to our politicians and scribes that we would scarcely be able to turn away. But alas, it’s Jews being killed and maimed. And the criminals don’t fit the bill of right-wing, Trump-supporting Nazis, so, you know, it’s complicated.

That anti-semitism among Blacks is swept under the rug in spite of its virulence in New York City, that some of the perps have been released quickly on bail, and the silence from some on the Left and deflection from others are among the factors that compel me to ask a question that is very inconvenient, including for me:

Are identity politics, intersectionality and Critical Race Theory enabling Black anti-semitism and other forms of racism from people of color?

(And modern anti-semitism, being based mostly on ethnicity, is indeed an especially toxic species of racism.  I do not have the time to go into all the history of that here.)

What are the messages that CRT (I focus on Critical Race Theory as it is a chief source of identity politics and intersectionality.) and cultural elements influenced by CRT are sending to Blacks along with other people of color? You are oppressed. And the oppressors are Whites, including Jews.

Yes, adherents of CRT frequently lump Whites and Jews together when they are not singling out Jews as oppressors.  See the BDS efforts on campuses and elsewhere for some of their singling out. Further, identity politics activists have long stoked anti-semitism as William Jacobson and Samantha Mandeles documents.

Continuing, CRT further tells Blacks: Because Whites and Jews systematically oppress you and because racism is prejudice pluspower, it is virtually impossible for you to be racist against Whites and Jews.

Thereby racism and anti-semitism from people of color is neatly redefined not to be racism at all.

This message is far from merely theoretical or academic.  It is hard to miss that Western society and culture applies much more pressure against racism and anti-semitism from Whites than against racism and anti-semitism from people of color.  (Of course, one can argue that is justified given past history, but it that justified given society today?)

For those who think I am wrangling about words, definitions have power.  It’s not for nothing that most White racists are loath to admit they are racist.  Many instead say they are just realistic, and/or they use other words to define their prejudice.  The Monty Python troupe once noted the use of “racialist” by racists in its Hilter – National Bolcialist Party sketch (Those are not typos.  Watch it sometime.).  Society rightly rejects and ridicules such redefinition.

But Critical Race Theory conveniently performs the redefinition for Black racists and anti-semites and that with the approval of academia and even woke church people.

Now, of course, most Blacks completely reject violent racism and anti-semitism, just as most Whites do, even with the influence of CRT.  But toxic woke ideologies, such as CRT, and the accompanying coddling and even encouragement of racism against Whites and Jews do affect people at the margins, including those who may be prone to bigoted violence due to their own prejudice or mental illness.  Certainly, thanks largely to CRT, Western culture treats the explaining away or justification or redefinition of Black racism very differently than that of White racism.

Now, in this post, I am surely oversimplifying matters.  And perhaps my brief analysis is off in a significant way. I am certainly no sociologist. Further, anti-semitism from all ethnicities certainly pre-dates CRT.  We cannot blame all violent anti-semitism on CRT in any case.

But I would consider myself a coward if I were to remain silent after what I see. So, yes, I do ask: Are identity politics, intersectionality and Critical Race Theory enabling Black anti-semitism and other forms of racism from people of color?

Tennessee Baptists Denounce Critical Race Theory

I am heartened to see that the Tennessee Baptist Convention has “strongly denounc[ed] CRT and intersectionality as inconsistent with the Biblical worldview and theology.”

I could nitpick the passed resolution, particularly the preamble’s acknowledgement of “the presence of structural and systemic racism.” Those are Critical Race Theory terms that I do not think should be given credence.

Nonetheless, Tennessee Baptists have provided a godly example for the rest of the Southern Baptist Convention and for other church bodies infiltrated by CRT and intersectionality.  Yes, that includes the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).  As I’ve stated here, I think it is needful for ACNA bishops and dioceses to denounce CRT and its cousins, particularly their inherent racism.

May the courage of the Tennessee Baptist Convention multiply.

How Should ACNA Deal With Critical Race Theory? III – By Directly Addressing Its Racism

Last time, we noted (admittedly with a lot of thinking out loud) that if a church addressed Critical Race Theory (CRT) by name, there may be a number of problems, the complexity of CRT being among them.  I perhaps should say that if I were in a synod that proposed a resolution unequivocally opposing CRT, I would vote for it in a heartbeat.  But I have my doubts about that being the best way to proceed.

Instead, I think it better to address particular concepts of CRT; for these concepts can and will recur under different labels in different contexts.  Also, it is easier to understand and address a particular concept than an entire complex and evolving ideology such as Critical Race Theory.

One CRT concept stands out as one to be opposed by the Anglican Church in North America and by all orthodox churches – that racism is prejudice plus power and that therefore (in America and the West at least), racism by people of color against white people does not exist.

As noted in the first of this series, this is a profoundly unscriptural view of sin that should be banished:

…Believing that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” but thinking only white people can be racist is inconsistent to put it very mildly.  To justify blatant racism against white people as CRT also does is worse. If we clearly oppose White Supremacist views in the church (And we should.), we should oppose CRT in the church, too.  To do otherwise is noxious sin against the dignity all have from being created in God’s image.  Why should whites or anyone put up with bigotry against white people?  Racism is racism and should be given no place in the church.

And this concept has infiltrated the church and has indeed enabled racism against white people.

It has been suggested that I should “chill” about this. Really? Let’s flip the colors. If some insane group was somehow justifying white racism against people of color by saying racial prejudice by whites is not racism at all or if actual White Supremacists were saying in church contexts that racism against black and brown people was right and justified, the church should not and I hope would not put up with that.  At the very least, people pushing such views in the church should be told to repent (or get mental help).

Full strength CRT is about that racist and noxious in denying the existence of racism from people of color and enabling racism against white people. Those who do so should also be told in no uncertain terms to repent.  And at least those in leadership should be disciplined strictly.  The dignity of men and women created in the image of God and scriptural teaching about sin is at stake.

So, no, I am not going to “chill” about this, thank you.

Unlike CRT, that racism is racism no matter the target or the source is something most can understand easily.  And although many are not familiar with CRT, most are aware of blatant racism from non-white sources and the absurd justification of it. Most also oppose such.

And that not just in the church.  Here is an opportunity for a positive witness.  People may be impressed if a church has the backbone and common sense to condemn racism from all ethnicities and to oppose the enabling of it.  The contrast with the CRT nonsense in academia and elsewhere would be a refreshing one to many.

So a well written resolution stating that racism is racism and opposing the concept that non-white racism is not racism at all should be one the church can understand and unite around.

In ACNA, there will be a minority, small I suspect, that would be upset.  I doubt more than a very few would leave.  But if they are that wedded to this aspect of CRT, then so be it. ACNA should not be hospitable to willful racism, period.  Yes and again, saying only whites can be racist is racist.  And if you want real division then allow CRT, especially its racism, to continue its infiltration of the church unchecked.

Those of a social justice inclination actually should welcome such a resolution; for it would facilitate conversation.  Using myself as an illustration, I am hesitant to engage in discussion with someone I think has a CRT concept of racism as something only white people do.  I’m even more hesitant if they seem to think that if a white person breathes, that’s racist. I doubt we have the common ground necessary to fruitful discussion.  But if there is agreed upon standard that racism is racism no matter the source, then we can talk. Put another way, if we somewhat agree on what racism is and that it is not just a white sin, then conversation is facilitated.

A well written resolution stating that racism is racism no matter the source or target would be effective not only because it narrows the subject to something people can understand and be united in opposing. In an important way, it would also be broader than directly addressing only CRT.  For there are a number of current ideologies that condone non-white racism and say it is not racism at all.  It would also be broader in time as well for false teachings have a way of recurring under different names, and the CRT view of racism surely will as well.  And, of course, it would be broader by opposing all racism.

Now there is no perfect resolution or bishops’ statement that solves all problems.  And passing a resolution alone will not do in opposing CRT racism.  There has to be the will to back it up and discipline when necessary.  But if the Anglican Church in North America clearly states that racism is racism and that it is a sin all can commit and all should avoid, then that would be an important and helpful step forward.

I may revisit this and act on this after further prayer and thought. Respectful comments to guide this are welcome. 

How Should ACNA Deal With Critical Race Theory? II – It’s Not Simple

For reasons spelled out yesterday (And, again, I am more or less thinking out loud.  To go through this whole subject in detail would torment both this blogger and readers.  Apologies if thinking out loud annoys.), I think it is time for the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and ACNA dioceses to lay down boundaries opposing Critical Race Theory through synod resolutions and bishops’ statements among other means.  

But so opposing Critical Race Theory (CRT) head on and by name is not a simple matter.  Let’s say you want to pass a resolution at a synod.  Much of the room, perhaps most of it, will not have a good idea what CRT is.  And that makes passing a good resolution problematic.  One factor behind this year’s Southern Baptist Convention passing a not good resolution on CRT, Resolution 9, is that much/most of the delegates did not know what CRT was.

Even writing a good effective resolution on something as complex as CRT is far from simple.  It would be too easy to end up with a convoluted, wordy, attention span busting resolution that people would forget or regret or both.

But let’s say you manage to write a good resolution, and you do education about CRT beforehand and assume enough people listen.  There are still problems.  Assuming enough people will listen is indeed an assumption.  Is it reasonable to expect your average active church member or even your average synod delegate to be interested enough in CRT to sit, really listen, and comprehend?  And educating/learning about something as complex as CRT is going to take more than twenty minutes as I’ve discovered personally.  Is that the best use of church time? 

But let’s assume you successfully do the education somehow.  Another problem is once people know what CRT is, it could morph into something about the same under another name. Remember “global warming”? Once a few unusually cold winters and increased polar ice made that less credible, it suddenly became “climate change.”  We cannot trust our opponents to be honest although I will say the academics of CRT are new and evolving (or devolving); so terms and concepts can change without deception or dishonesty being involved.  Nonetheless, with CRT new and evolving, it is something of a moving target.

And we are not as concerned about labels, which can change, as about the concepts behind them, which can and do recur in different forms under different names. A good resolution that stands the test of time addresses said concepts more than labels that may become as passé as “Emergent” in a few years. 

Accordingly, I may have a better idea than a church resolution or statement confronting Critical Race Theory head on and by name.  Stay tuned.