Posted on 11/12/2020 3:01:30 AM PST by Its All Over Except ...
Jeff Iorg, president of the Southern Baptist funded Gateway Seminary in California, claimed in a baffling essay that Christians should not be too concerned with “concepts or conspiracies” like socialism, Critical Race Theory or Intersectionality.
Dr. Iorg writes, “Many Christians today are captivated by discussions, arguments, and speculations about concepts or conspiracies like socialism, Critical Race Theory, intersectionality, QAnon, the 1619 Project, etc. American Christians have been duped into believing these are pressing issues which deserve our undivided and intense attention.”
I’m dumber for having read this essay.
Who thinks those issues deserve undivided attention?
This is a typical strawman argument. To claim something, like politics, war or taking care of one’s family are important is not to claim those things deserve our undivided attention.
Also, who has “duped” American Christians into focusing on conspiracy theories?
And does Dr. Iorg mean to imply that worrying about the rise of socialism, Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality and the lies of 1619 Project are conspiracy theories?
Because that’s what Dr. Iorg seems to assert. Dr. Iorg writes, “Over my lifetime, there have been a series of empty ideas that have captivated Christians. Whether it was the Illuminati taking over the world, Y2K destroying the world, or rapture predictions about the end of the world—Christians have repeatedly been deceived into devoting our attention to pseudo-urgent concepts or conspiracies.”
OK.
So, was it pseudo-urgent when Ronald Reagan and even before that Dwight Eisenhower rallied conservative Christians to stand against communism?
Maybe there are things in this world that demand our urgent and intense attention?
Perhaps God gave us duties in this world. Perhaps it is OK to care about fighting dangerous concepts.
Dangerous ideologies like socialism, Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality deserve intense attention. These things are corrosive to both church and state. Fighting them is a virtue.
Why do some people paid for by the Southern Baptist Convention fail to understand that?
Dr. Iorg writes, “Our focus must be on the gospel—preaching it, teaching it, witnessing it, and living it. Perhaps this will be the best outcome from the recent election. We will realize how futile it is to equate gospel-advance with political movements centered on human-generated ideas. Our time is better spent promoting the gospel rather than trying to win arguments about every new idea which gains cultural traction.”
This is dangerous thinking. Dr. Iorg implies that being involved in politics is a distraction. Now, surely that is not what he intended to say. However, that is what is implied.
Further, the essay is confusing. In the quoted paragraph he eschews engagement in cultural debates. Yet, in an earlier paragraph he said, “We should acknowledge prevalent ideas (particularly those that become cultural markers), expose their deceitful nature, and then re-center our focus on the gospel.”
That’s a call to engage in debate because you can’t expose the falsehoods of the godless ideologies of this world without engaging the forces of political evil—Woke ideology like Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.
This essay by a Southern Baptist seminary leader is a disaster. It muddles political theology with more than a few pious platitudes. It is at best unhelpful and in many ways dangerous as it implies political involvement is a distraction from Christian duty.
However, we know the Christian in America has political duties. God placed us here. He expects us to use our vote and our voice for good. Political responsibilities are not a distraction from the Gospel any more than fulfilling our responsibility to feed and care for our families are a distraction—both are God’ given duties and therefore require our attention.
I believe Robin DiAngelo coined the CRT term “White Fragility” but did write a book by that name. She, Sensoy, and Ibram X. Kendi are movers-and-shakers among the Critical Race Theory proponents.
In Robin DiAngelo’s book (who according to her website is a Critical Race and Social Justice Educator) “Is Everyone Really Equal?”, DiAngelo posited:
1.) *”All knowledge* is taught from a particular perspective; the power of dominant knowledge depends in large part on its presentation as neutral and universal (Kincheloe, 2008)...*all knowledge* understood by humans is framed by the ideologies, language, beliefs, and and customs of human societies. *Even the field of science is subjective”* (p. 15).
2.) “Our analysis of social justice is based on a school of thought know as Critical Theory. Critical Theory refers to a body of scholarship that examines how society works, and is a tradition that emerged in the early part of the 20th century from a group of scholars at the *Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany”* (p. 25)
3.) “One of the key contributions of critical theorists concerns the production of knowledge…. These scholars argue that a key element of social injustice involves the claim that particular knowledge is objective, neutral, and universal. *An approach based on critical theory calls into question the idea that objectivity is desirable or even possible.* The term used to describe this way of thinking about knowledge is that knowledge is socially constructed.” (p. 29).
A.) The foundation for Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory, etc, is Critical Theory from the Frankfurt School primarily, but not limited to it. The central idea posited by Critical Theory is that *everything is ideological in nature.* *Even science (math, chemistry, etc), according to CT, has been affected by human interests. To CRT, science is also not independent and objectively unaffected from those interests, and there is *essentially no objective knowledge or truth.* But CT, CRT, CGT proponents don’t possess “all knowledge” to make the claim that all knowledge is ideological and has been affected by human interests; It is a Sweeping Generalization they proffer.
B.) The destroyer of that central tenet is if even science (math, chemistry, etc) is subjective and affected, then Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory, etc, *must surely also be affected, has also been shaped by human interests, and does not stand objectively independent from those interests.*
C.) Thus the conclusions from, and what is posited by, Critical Theory are erroneous. They cannot say that all objectivity or knowledge is equal but that some is more equal than others (or something else along those lines) as even that idea would be subject to the conditions in B and they don’t know “all” or possess “all knowledge” to make those claims.
D.) Thus in order for CT, CRT, CGT, etc, to bolster their contentions in A, they must transcend the confines of A and B and *thus prove that A is true.* Given what they assert, as contained in A (and 1-3), *the burden of proof is upon them.*
The simplistic reductionism of Critical Race Theory is laced with logical fallacies, proffers Gross Generalizations per (but not limited to) racism supposedly permeating all of society, utilizes the Ad Hominem, Kafka Trap of “White Fragility”, and makes ridiculous claims about science.
Rebuttals:
1.) Given the proponents of CRT are human there is no way for them to prove with absolute certainty they aren’t more racist than others; thus accusations from them are moot.
2.) If they (#1) say they do indeed have biases, yet can’t be racist or more racist because of x, y, or z, then they are switching to an objective format which, according to CRT, is untrustworthy and subjective, and also shows their fragility or racism.
3.) If these proponents say they are biased but their biases aren’t racist, this denial per CRT shows they possess fragility or are racist.
4.) If they (#3) claim their inherent bias is justifiable then that would be revenge supremacy.
5.) If they (#1-4) say they aren’t racists, CRT says this denial shows their fragility or that they are racists.
6.) If they (#1-5) say inherent bias doesn’t permeate everything to save face they deny a foundational principle of CRT, thus destroying it.
7.) If they (#1-6) switch to objectivity to try and prove #6, that would be unconscionable as objectivity seems to be racist according to CRT.
8.) If they (#7) fall back on “experiences” based upon race trying to use anecdotal evidence to show how society is infected with racism, their experiences themselves contain biases which would render their conclusions false, and for them to deny this would show fragility or racism on their part.
9.) If they (#7-8) don’t deny these experience-biases exist, but deny they are racists, their denial is fragility and they are blinded by their biases.
10.) If they (#8-9) switch from anecdotal evidence to objectivity to try and prove their “experiences” that would be unconscionable, for according to them objectivity is racist.
Within Robin DiAngelo’s book entitled “Is Everyone Equal?”, intersectionality is mixed with class struggle (owning class) and expanded to include gender, sexuality, disability and other identity markers (identity politics).
Within the book there is an us vs. them mentality: “There is no neutral ground.” (p. XXIV). From quotes in her book it seems as if she posits that you can’t trust anyone or anything - knowledge or science - to be objective while she employs the theoretical, and expands upon a False Dichotomy of oppressors vs the oppressed as shown on page 64, figure 5.1:
1a) “White” vs. 1b.) “People of Color”
2a) “The Owning Class” vs 2b) “Poor, Working Class, Middle Class”
3a) “[Cis] men” vs. 3b) “Females, Transgenders, Genderqueer”
4a) “Heterosexuals” vs. 4b) “Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Two Spirit”
5a) “Christians” vs. 5b.) “Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Christian groups”
6a) “Able-bodied” vs. 6b) “People with disabilities”
7a) “Immigrants (perceived)” vs. 7b) “Citizens (percieved)” and
8a) “White Settlers” vs. 8b) “Indigenous Peoples”
The Dunning-Kruger effect is rampant in our society.
JoMa
Many American seminaries (and probably abroad as well) have been infiltrated by liberals.
Hence:
2 Timothy 4:3 King James Version
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
Believe me, I know from personal experience. I used to work with several seminary graduates / current students many years ago. Frankly, it was shocking to me. A lot of people there saw no problem with a man like BHO. Even after you told them about BAIPA and knew where he was going with Romans 1.
(p.xxiv and p. 64, figure 5.1) pertain to DiAngelo’s book “Is Everyone Equal?”
My fault.
All this seminary head needs to remember is “kill a commie for Christ”.
Critical Race Theory in one image.
https://thedonald.win/p/HEX9YY1G/-critical-race-theory-in-one-ima/c/
Barf alert.
The foundation that all these theories rest on, is the idea that people have an obligation to the “oppressed”, and that this obligates people of the “privileged” group to disadvantage themselves and their own families and friends, in order to benefit “the oppressed”.
It is natural to make sacrifices for those you love. Do I love the designated victim groups? No. I do not.
The Left is terrified that people may start saying this.
Fulfilling the Great Commission of Christ is top priority, but there is no way to avoid the culture and political landscape.
The American Christian has a special stewardship before God IMO regarding this republic and its preservation.
Gateway will not exist if the wrong people get full control...
The Baptist seminary I attended in the ‘60s went all wobbly on social issues 20 years ago. Embarrassing.
Does Jeff Iorg believe that Christians in general, and Southern Baptist in particular, should never involve themselves in political matters such as running for political office, serving on the school board, volunteering to work at the polls, etc. To do so would deny them the time that could be spent promoting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is there not time to do both?
Germany was considered a Christian nation prior to the rise of Adolph Hitler. We all should know the rest of that story and the atrocities it inflicted upon the world. The Nazis had help from the atheistic Japanese who thought their emperor was a god.
If we Christians follow the advice of Jeff Iorg, Americans will probably embrace some evil force just as the Germans did. How else can one observe the Antifa and the Black Lives Matter ideology and conclude otherwise? But if I understand Iorg, we Christians are supposed to sit down and shut up. Thank God for leaders such as Pastor Robert Jeffress at First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas. He seems to have plenty of time to spread the gospel and to fight evil ideologies.
This is just another example of how thoroughly apostasy has poisoned churches & seminaries. Hold every thought captive to obedience to Christ.
I believe that about says it all. I have attended some good Southern Baptist churches in my day, but I am beginning to wonder if there are ANY good churches left. I suppose there are some, somewhere, but I suspect, not as many as there used to be. 😁
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.