Krauthammer once said (paraphrase) that a necessary goal of any society was to socialize its young men well. If it fails there, it fails ultimately. I think the conservative tyranny is certainly plausible, and scary for true Christ followers. As in the book, they will hate us too-maybe most. Consider Heinlein’s “Revolt in 2100” and “a canticle for Leibowitz” for more examples, too.
I'd follow your recommendations if I was a conservative Christian who believed the misrepresentation of CRT by conservative political pundits in 2020 taking advantage of conservative reactions during the psummer of 2020. But Im not.
I am a Christian who knows who my neighbors are. I say, "Rufo and the likes kept pouring the dirty bathwater of CT over a bathed CRT baby and added their own manufactured muck. You are right: "Conservatives often err by doing away with CRT completely."
I would recommend that Christians who lament the structural racism read you article, look further than conservative demonizing of CRT to notice how and when it was demonized. They may begin to wonder how it relates to the reasons you ask Christian to watch The Handmaiden's Tale.
While I wouldn't mind sitting down with you to talk at length of the harm I've seen vs. the harm people think they have prevented with their dirty water applications, our engagement here seems likely to propagate more muck raking.
It's not even really about CRT. I'll leave that explanation to a more eloquent professional:
Mild, medium, or spicy? Some math teachers follow ideas from Peter Liljedahl like Christians follow ideas from Christ. Liljedahl wrote a book, Building Thinking Classrooms for Mathematics that engaged students with an increasing complexity of exercises, including spicy lesson closure questions.
Too spicy? We don't present closure questions that require thinking to extend beyond the lesson's content, such as discovering Calculus content from the presented Algebra content.
Yet, mathematics discoveries did have a progression. If humans were ultra conservative conserving mathematics, might we still be counting on our fingers? I'm glad we progressed.
Unfortunately , it led to more spicy, ways to create technology. Too spicy for humans to wield in Christlike ways, in my opinion. Christ already possessed full divinity and did not need to "attain" godhood, such as the ultimate power to destroy* to or create life**.
Regarding warfare (*one ultimate expression of communal power), think... the movie "Oppenheimer.
Regarding sexuality (another ultimate expression, but of individual power), think... Pornhub.
What do you mean by "hyperprogressive?"
And who is alienating men?
Good article, by the way. The best I've seen yet to its target audience. I hope to see more.
Firstly, thanks for reading! What I'm getting from your comment is that progress is essential--taken neutrally, in terms of something like mathematics, but that the progress of knowledge leads to a “too spicy” technology. Our tech capabilities outstrip our ability to control them ethically. As Christians, we know progress can never add to God's power to, dually, create and destroy, but our own power to create and destroy can extend beyond our limited abilities. If so, interesting comments. I probably agree.
Hyperprogressive, technically, is something like social norms and policy suggestions which far outstrip the majority of our society's opinions and positions. So, if the most progressive 5% control 50% of the cultural and policy sectors of society, then that's a hyper-progressive direction.
Who is alienating men is the cultural progress seated in the intersectionality of critical theory, which aims art, media, policy, marketing, etc., toward a good thing (supporting women and people of color) but also vocally bash men and traits which correlate or trend towards men. The "soft" powers of our society, in short, all make it clear that we're in a zero-sum game and white-cisgendered-heterosexual men must lose. I don't think we are in a zero-sum game, but if we communicate that way, then men will feel alienated, and they clearly do.
Hopefully that helps clarify.
Thank you for your comment and the compliment. God bless.
It helps. My contention is it certainly was not the aim of the "who" s who developed CRT or tthe 'what' of the CRT which started in Law theory (a good thing) with the controversial part being presenting issues with narratives. And hopefully, you know or will look up the history and origins of CRT aimed at doing these good things.
It was never clear to me that it is a zero-sum game. That is my contentiom. And this good thing that was intended to created equity law, education, employment only became an undesirable cultural movement when white cis men like Chritopher Rufo and James Lindsay (sp?) misrepresented CRT and propelled the countermeasure to influence all men that it is a zero-sum game rather than a movement to correct the inequities created by our historical culture.
The pendulum swings back to racism, bigotry, and dehumanization, the ultra conservative past in which progress takes a step backward.
My heart broke that my fellow Christians were sucked into Christian Nationalism.
Again, I like your article. It sounds like you have not lost your focus and understand we have neighbors unlike us that we should love rather than treat like mortal enemies by fighting them.
Thanks again, and yes, I've looked up some of the history. CRT, although started in law, traces its origins back to philosophies of Critical Theory and the Frankfurt school of philosophy, which, although helpful in some ways, come up VERY short of a good ethic. This is because CRT and CT can only critique, by their nature, they cannot provide a positive North star. As soon as anyone defines "liberty," or "freedom," or "equality," they deconstruct them. They themselves will not define or characterize freedom except in contrast to what presently exists. So, although they can move towards freedom and liberation, these philosophies cannot give answers, only direct applications in law and policy (which is precisely where they went). I see CRT and CT as one side of a coin. If you don't take the other side into account, you get a naive, destructive force in society (deconstructive by nature), rather than something constructive. Christians must value the good, true, beautiful, justice, and freedom. To get there, we must "conserve" what is good and "progress" to the good and away from the bad.
Christian Nationalism also breaks my heart. Thank you so much for your encouragement.
I am confused by your assessment of CRT. CRT goes beyond critique. It analyzes. "The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies." - Ed Week, pg. 5
I have no idea of what you mean by: "...by their nature...they deconstruct them...one side of a coin."
Your coin is a political coin stamped out by conservative political opponents that has done much harm.
I agree with the mentioned core idea. CRT has great value--it analyzes and unpacks the difficult-to-see biases and empowers oppressed people to take legal and political action to rectify their oppression. However, if you read the CRT literature and read the underlying philosophies, namely, Critical Theory (the Frankfurt School), you'll find more than just this good thing. For example, in “How to be an Anti-Racist” by Ibram X. Kendi, he defends intersectionality, Marxism, and relativism as crucial elements of CRT. In short, CT and CRT often (not always) does away with non-relative notions of truth, justice, freedom, and goodness. In this way, they throw the baby out with the bath water.
Yes, these concepts, often by Christians, have been used to oppress people, upholding a double standard of “objectivity” to placate oppressed folks. I acknowledge and lament this historical and present sin. CRT helps to draw these out. However, it cannot, philosophically, provide a positive value, it only can say "not this" or "not that." This is a well-established philosophical critique of CT--it deconstructs "white" "cisgendered" "oppressive" notions of truth, justice, and goodness, but cannot provide a replacement except for raw power. Material power and influence is the language of CT.
So, the other side of the coin is orthodox Christian goodness, truth, beauty, justice, equality, etc., which draws from a rich history of African, European, American, African-American, Middle Eastern, and more, theological interpretations of Scripture.
Conservatives often err by doing away with CRT completely, ignoring implicit biases, putting off change because of their hope in heaven, and blindly following "color-blindness."
Liberals often err by going to relativism, ditching orthodoxy, throwing the baby out with the bath water, holding nothing valuable, and thinking radical revolution is the only answer.
Succinctly though, if one side of your coin is CT & CRT & the other is a version of Christianity, then you played right into the conservative pundits ideal of catching votes for their agenda which bolstered Christian Nationalism no matter theirs or your intent.
Krauthammer once said (paraphrase) that a necessary goal of any society was to socialize its young men well. If it fails there, it fails ultimately. I think the conservative tyranny is certainly plausible, and scary for true Christ followers. As in the book, they will hate us too-maybe most. Consider Heinlein’s “Revolt in 2100” and “a canticle for Leibowitz” for more examples, too.
I'll take a look, thanks Dad!
Great article Mark! Really good insight!
Thanks Hayes! 🙏🏻 appreciate you reading man
Very thought-provoking, and very true. Thanks for sharing!
I'd follow your recommendations if I was a conservative Christian who believed the misrepresentation of CRT by conservative political pundits in 2020 taking advantage of conservative reactions during the psummer of 2020. But Im not.
I am a Christian who knows who my neighbors are. I say, "Rufo and the likes kept pouring the dirty bathwater of CT over a bathed CRT baby and added their own manufactured muck. You are right: "Conservatives often err by doing away with CRT completely."
I would recommend that Christians who lament the structural racism read you article, look further than conservative demonizing of CRT to notice how and when it was demonized. They may begin to wonder how it relates to the reasons you ask Christian to watch The Handmaiden's Tale.
While I wouldn't mind sitting down with you to talk at length of the harm I've seen vs. the harm people think they have prevented with their dirty water applications, our engagement here seems likely to propagate more muck raking.
It's not even really about CRT. I'll leave that explanation to a more eloquent professional:
https://news.temple.edu/news/2021-08-05/untangling-controversy-around-critical-race-theory#:~:text=was%20it%20developed?-,Charles%20A.,law%20is%20fair%20and%20impartial.
Mild, medium, or spicy? Some math teachers follow ideas from Peter Liljedahl like Christians follow ideas from Christ. Liljedahl wrote a book, Building Thinking Classrooms for Mathematics that engaged students with an increasing complexity of exercises, including spicy lesson closure questions.
Too spicy? We don't present closure questions that require thinking to extend beyond the lesson's content, such as discovering Calculus content from the presented Algebra content.
Yet, mathematics discoveries did have a progression. If humans were ultra conservative conserving mathematics, might we still be counting on our fingers? I'm glad we progressed.
Unfortunately , it led to more spicy, ways to create technology. Too spicy for humans to wield in Christlike ways, in my opinion. Christ already possessed full divinity and did not need to "attain" godhood, such as the ultimate power to destroy* to or create life**.
Regarding warfare (*one ultimate expression of communal power), think... the movie "Oppenheimer.
Regarding sexuality (another ultimate expression, but of individual power), think... Pornhub.
What do you mean by "hyperprogressive?"
And who is alienating men?
Good article, by the way. The best I've seen yet to its target audience. I hope to see more.
Firstly, thanks for reading! What I'm getting from your comment is that progress is essential--taken neutrally, in terms of something like mathematics, but that the progress of knowledge leads to a “too spicy” technology. Our tech capabilities outstrip our ability to control them ethically. As Christians, we know progress can never add to God's power to, dually, create and destroy, but our own power to create and destroy can extend beyond our limited abilities. If so, interesting comments. I probably agree.
Hyperprogressive, technically, is something like social norms and policy suggestions which far outstrip the majority of our society's opinions and positions. So, if the most progressive 5% control 50% of the cultural and policy sectors of society, then that's a hyper-progressive direction.
Who is alienating men is the cultural progress seated in the intersectionality of critical theory, which aims art, media, policy, marketing, etc., toward a good thing (supporting women and people of color) but also vocally bash men and traits which correlate or trend towards men. The "soft" powers of our society, in short, all make it clear that we're in a zero-sum game and white-cisgendered-heterosexual men must lose. I don't think we are in a zero-sum game, but if we communicate that way, then men will feel alienated, and they clearly do.
Hopefully that helps clarify.
Thank you for your comment and the compliment. God bless.
It helps. My contention is it certainly was not the aim of the "who" s who developed CRT or tthe 'what' of the CRT which started in Law theory (a good thing) with the controversial part being presenting issues with narratives. And hopefully, you know or will look up the history and origins of CRT aimed at doing these good things.
It was never clear to me that it is a zero-sum game. That is my contentiom. And this good thing that was intended to created equity law, education, employment only became an undesirable cultural movement when white cis men like Chritopher Rufo and James Lindsay (sp?) misrepresented CRT and propelled the countermeasure to influence all men that it is a zero-sum game rather than a movement to correct the inequities created by our historical culture.
The pendulum swings back to racism, bigotry, and dehumanization, the ultra conservative past in which progress takes a step backward.
My heart broke that my fellow Christians were sucked into Christian Nationalism.
Again, I like your article. It sounds like you have not lost your focus and understand we have neighbors unlike us that we should love rather than treat like mortal enemies by fighting them.
Thanks again, and yes, I've looked up some of the history. CRT, although started in law, traces its origins back to philosophies of Critical Theory and the Frankfurt school of philosophy, which, although helpful in some ways, come up VERY short of a good ethic. This is because CRT and CT can only critique, by their nature, they cannot provide a positive North star. As soon as anyone defines "liberty," or "freedom," or "equality," they deconstruct them. They themselves will not define or characterize freedom except in contrast to what presently exists. So, although they can move towards freedom and liberation, these philosophies cannot give answers, only direct applications in law and policy (which is precisely where they went). I see CRT and CT as one side of a coin. If you don't take the other side into account, you get a naive, destructive force in society (deconstructive by nature), rather than something constructive. Christians must value the good, true, beautiful, justice, and freedom. To get there, we must "conserve" what is good and "progress" to the good and away from the bad.
Christian Nationalism also breaks my heart. Thank you so much for your encouragement.
I am confused by your assessment of CRT. CRT goes beyond critique. It analyzes. "The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies." - Ed Week, pg. 5
I have no idea of what you mean by: "...by their nature...they deconstruct them...one side of a coin."
Your coin is a political coin stamped out by conservative political opponents that has done much harm.
What's on the other side of the coin?
Here is where the quote came from:
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05
I agree with the mentioned core idea. CRT has great value--it analyzes and unpacks the difficult-to-see biases and empowers oppressed people to take legal and political action to rectify their oppression. However, if you read the CRT literature and read the underlying philosophies, namely, Critical Theory (the Frankfurt School), you'll find more than just this good thing. For example, in “How to be an Anti-Racist” by Ibram X. Kendi, he defends intersectionality, Marxism, and relativism as crucial elements of CRT. In short, CT and CRT often (not always) does away with non-relative notions of truth, justice, freedom, and goodness. In this way, they throw the baby out with the bath water.
Yes, these concepts, often by Christians, have been used to oppress people, upholding a double standard of “objectivity” to placate oppressed folks. I acknowledge and lament this historical and present sin. CRT helps to draw these out. However, it cannot, philosophically, provide a positive value, it only can say "not this" or "not that." This is a well-established philosophical critique of CT--it deconstructs "white" "cisgendered" "oppressive" notions of truth, justice, and goodness, but cannot provide a replacement except for raw power. Material power and influence is the language of CT.
So, the other side of the coin is orthodox Christian goodness, truth, beauty, justice, equality, etc., which draws from a rich history of African, European, American, African-American, Middle Eastern, and more, theological interpretations of Scripture.
Conservatives often err by doing away with CRT completely, ignoring implicit biases, putting off change because of their hope in heaven, and blindly following "color-blindness."
Liberals often err by going to relativism, ditching orthodoxy, throwing the baby out with the bath water, holding nothing valuable, and thinking radical revolution is the only answer.
Both err by worshiping worldly power.
I'd recommend starting with Kendi's "Antiracism" and SEP article on Critical Theory to understand CT and the origins of CRT. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
Succinctly though, if one side of your coin is CT & CRT & the other is a version of Christianity, then you played right into the conservative pundits ideal of catching votes for their agenda which bolstered Christian Nationalism no matter theirs or your intent.
My suggestion is read how Rufo did it:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory
Read an article explaining why some of us think it happened:
https://news.temple.edu/news/2021-08-05/untangling-controversy-around-critical-race-theory#:~:text=was%20it%20developed?-,Charles%20A.,law%20is%20fair%20and%20impartial.
The word of the every year since Obama's last term: Backlash.
Your article is good to warn others what may come and why they shouldn't want it.
I replied. Guess it got lost.